5-15-2013 Colorado:
Corrections officials are alerting judges throughout Colorado that errors appear to have resulted in early, improper release dates from prison for hundreds of prisoners they...
[[This,an article summary.Please visit my website for complete article, and more.]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Colorado corrections alerting judges of hundreds of sentencing flaws
↧
↧
Los Angeles Clinic Owner Received Lengthy Sentence In Distribution of Prescription Drugs Case
The government's war on prescription drugs -- especially those obtained through prescriptions and pharmacies -- continues. On May 2, 2013, in the Central District of California, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter sentenced Anush Davtyan, a laypeson who operated four medical clinics in Reseda and Northridge to a lengthy sentence of 168 months (14 years) in federal prison for distributing abused prescription narcotic Oxycodone. Her common law husband who was a named defendant is a fugitive. In a plea agreement filed with the court, Davtyan admitted that she and her common-law husband operated four clinics where people could purchase Oxycodone prescriptions for cash following a medical exam. Oxycodone is sold under brand names such as Oxycontin, Percocet and Percodan. It was alleged that the sale of drugs happened one of two ways. The first way was that individuals outside the conspiracy purchases a prescription for Oxycodone from a clinic following a medical exam for cash. The second way was that co-conspirators (such as cappers) brought individuals to a clinic in order to obtain prescriptions for Oxycodone. Those prescriptions were filled, and the drugs were brought back to Davtyan’s clinic and were diverted to a dealer for later sale on the street. Davtyan admitted that she had bribed pharmacists to fill the large number of Oxycodone prescriptions generated by her clinics. During the execution of search warrants on September 1, 2011, federal agents found 1,116 pills in Davtyan’s Encino home and another 7,589 pills in her Mercedes parked in her garage although she denied that the drugs in the car were hers. An appeal has already been filed on the lengthy sentence in the case. Given that this was a plea agreement, the sentence was longer than one would expect because there were allegations of obstruction of justice and role adjustment at sentencing.
↧
Fraudster Admits Using Two HUD-1s to Deceive Lender
Kwame Nkrumah, a/k/a Roger Woodson, 57, Meriden, Connecticut, admitted his role in an extensive mortgage fraud scheme related to the purchases of numerous homes in New Haven, Connecticut. The defendant pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in New Haven federal court to an indictment charging him with conspiracy to commit mail, bank, [...]
↧
Shackling the Law
I’ve said it before, but for potential newcomers, I’ll say it again: You don’t have to read this blog very long to know that I hate shackles. I hate shackles on adults, but I particularly hate shackles on minors. It’s safe to say that I believe in treating human beings like human beings. There are some [...]
↧
Charged as an Adult in Maryland – Transfer Hearing Criteria
This content originally came from Baum Law Offices, LLC - Attorney Matthew Baum - Serving clients in Maryland and DC.This post is the second part of a two part series concerning juveniles charged as adults in Maryland criminal cases. Part one can be viewed here. Motion to Transfer to Juvenile Court In cases where a juvenile defendant has been … Continue reading →The post Charged as an Adult in Maryland – Transfer Hearing Criteria appeared first on Baum Law Offices, LLC - Attorney Matthew Baum. It was originally written by Matthew Baum.
↧
↧
"Doctor Avoids Death Penalty in Murders at His Clinic"
From the New York Times: Kermit Gosnell, the doctor convicted of murdering babies after failed abortions in his Philadelphia clinic, avoided the death penalty on Tuesday by agreeing to a sentence of life in prison without parole. . . ....
↧
Acting IRS Director Steven Miller Resigns
President Obama tonight announced that Acting IRS Director Steven Miller has resigned, at the request of Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.
A transcript of Obama's remarks at his press conference tonight is here.
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
SD - Sex offender accused of illegally circulating petitions
Original ArticleThis is how you silence the opposition, pass more laws! He's banned from courthouse property? What if he has to go to court for something?05/15/2013By Andrea J. Cook
A state law prohibiting convicted sex offenders from circulating petitions is being used to prosecute a Rapid City man banned from county courthouse property more than a year ago.
It also could be the first time a law passed by the 2012 Legislature prohibiting registered sex offenders from circulating petitions has been applied.
During a court hearing Tuesday, attorney Dennis Groff said he is working with the Pennington County State's Attorney's Office to resolve the charges against his client, [name withheld].
Rapid City police arrested [name withheld] 75, after he was seen collecting signatures on a Bill Clayton recall petition on April 11 at the Rapid City Public Library.
A library security officer spotted [name withheld] collecting signatures outside the library. When officers arrived, they found him seated inside the library discussing the petition, according to police reports.[name withheld]'s arrest came four days after he was asked to leave the Rushmore Plaza Civic Center where the Youth and Family Services Kids Fair was in progress. [name withheld] was circulating a petition outside the civic center, according to police reports.[name withheld] has contracted to circulate petitions for several years, but his aggressive approach drew complaints at the Pennington County courthouse in 2011. County commissioners barred him from circulating petitions on county property in November 2011.
At the time, [name withheld] told commissioners circulating petitions was his only source of income.
During the 2012 legislative session, several Republican legislators from Pennington County carried a bill prohibiting registered sex offenders from circulating petitions in public places or on private property. The bill became law in July.- Silence the opposition!
Many said the law specifically targeted [name withheld], who could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
During legislative discussions on the bill, supporters stressed the importance of keeping personal information, such as addresses, out of the hands of potential predators.
According to the South Dakota Sexual Offender Registry, [name withheld] was convicted of having sexual contact with a 12-year-old girl in 1986 in Pennington County.
After his arrest in April, [name withheld] posted a $300 bond and was released from jail. He is currently charged with two Class 1 misdemeanors for illegally circulating petitions on April 7 and 11. Each charge carries a maximum potential sentence of one year in jail and a $2,000 fine.© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues
↧
Number of abused U.S. children unchanged since 2008
Original Article05/14/2013By Andrew M. SeamanNEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The number of U.S. children who were exposed to violence, crime and abuse in 2011 was essentially unchanged from 2008, according to a new government survey.
Researchers who interviewed 4,503 children and teenagers in 2011 found that two in five children reported being physically assaulted in the previous year, and one in every 10 kids was injured by that abuse.
"The good news is that a lot of people expected things to get worse given the economy was doing so bad," said David Finkelhor, the study's lead author.
"That's the good news but the bad news is that... the level of exposure to violence, to crime and all that stuff is really enormous to kids," added Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes against Children Research Center in Durham.
For the new study, which was supported by federal grants from agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice, interviewers called the homes of children between the ages of one month and 17 years old.
They interviewed an adult in the home and then a randomly selected child between 10 and 17 years old. If the child was younger than 10 years old, the caregiver who is most involved with the child was interviewed.
Finkelhor and his colleagues found that 40 percent of the children and teens reported being physically assaulted in the past year, and 10 percent said they suffered an injury from an assault.
Boys were more likely to be the victims of assault, and often brothers and sisters or other children were the perpetrators.
About 6 percent said they were the victims of sexual harassment, and about 2 percent said they were sexually assaulted.
Those at the highest risk for sexual assault were girls between the ages of 14 and 17 years old. About a quarter of girls in that age group experienced sexual harassment and about 8 percent reported a sexual assault.
The researchers also found that about 14 percent all the children and teens experienced maltreatment, which includes neglect, physical or emotional abuse, custodial interference or sexual abuse by a familiar adult.
About a quarter of the entire group also said their belongings were vandalized or stolen in the past year. About the same number of children reported seeing some sort of violence or crime in their homes or their community. That included domestic violence.
A previous study that surveyed children and their caregivers in 2008 found similar rates of violence and abuse, according to the researchers, who published the new findings in JAMA Pediatrics.
Finkelhor suggested that the rates may have remained steady, in part, because there are programs to help curb violence available to families.
"In spite of anxiety that people had about the recession or the Internet… I think something larger is at work," he said, adding that people still should not be afraid to get involved if they suspect abuse.
"I don't want anyone to get the impression that everything is hunky dory. We still have rates that are higher than in many other developed countries," Finkelhor said.© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues
↧
↧
"Brady Violation Leads to Arrest of Former Texas Prosecutor"
Lawrence Goldman has this post at White Collar Crime Prof. In part: A Texas judge, acting as a court of inquiry, under Texas law, after a hearing ordered the arrest of a current Texas state court judge, Ken Anderson, for...
↧
Jury Doesn’t Give a Hoot about Hoot’s defense – Montana Man Convicted of 13th DUI. Burbank Repeat Defendants, Pay Attention!
As someone who’s recently been arrested for driving under the influence in Burbank (or somewhere else in the Southland), you may be facing your second or third (or worse!) DUI charge within 10 years. ![John-Harvey-Hoots-los-angeles-dui.jpg]()
The California justice system is not exactly “soft” on recidivists.
As you probably already know, a Burbank DUI conviction – even a misdemeanor one, in which no one got hurt and no other crimes were committed – can lead to jail time, alcohol school, a year of license suspension, mandatory IID installation in your car or truck, humiliation, insurance problems, fines and fees, disruption to your life, and a criminal record.
As you rack up more and more Burbank DUIs (within a 10-year period), prosecutors can choose from a more diverse and brutal catalogue of punishments, including enhanced fines and fees, more jail time, longer probation, longer alcohol school, longer license suspension, and even special punishments.
To illustrate, let’s say you just got your third DUI charge. Under normal circumstances, you probably would only face a misdemeanor – perhaps a few days in jail, fines and a suspension. But because this is your third time, prosecutors could turn that misdemeanor into a felony charge. Now, if you're convicted, you could face a year behind bars as well as the prospect of being forever stripped of key rights, such as your voting rights.
Convicted felons have a much harder lot in life – trouble finding employment, getting leases approved, and securing housing.
Consider all those consequences in light of a jaw-dropping story out of Billings, Montana.
A Yellowstone County District Court just convicted 54-year-old John Harvey Hoots of his 13th DUI. You read that right. That’s not a typo. Hoots was arrested on July 31, 2012, just six weeks after he had gotten out of prison, after serving a decade for his 12th DUI conviction.
Hoot testified that he was trying to escape from an angry neighbor, when police arrested him for DUI. According to multiple witnesses, Daniel Belmarez called police at 7 in the evening to say that Hoots had “dropped his pants to the ground and exposed himself …a second call to 911 was made about 15 minutes later by Belmarez’s mother, who said Hoots had returned and made a gesture indicating he had a gun.”
The police showed up, just as Hoots hopped in a pickup truck to take off. Police stopped him and arrested him, after discovering that he had a BAC of 0.20%. For those of you keeping score, that’s precisely 2.5 times the Burbank DUI legal limit, per California Vehicle Code Section 23152.
Hoots defense rested on "he said, she said" argument. Hoots said that Belmarez threatened him with a gun and that he had no choice but to flee in his truck. Hoots’ attorney asked him: “did you believe that if you didn’t leave their [presence] that Mr. Belmarez would cause you serious bodily injury and kill you?” Hoots replied that he did and that he was “very scared.”
Prosecutors rejoined that Hoot’s claim had no credibility. Even though evidence of his prior DUI convictions – the checkered criminal history – was not allowed, the jury still didn’t buy his story.
Obviously, we can’t really comment about the strategies involved, without delving into the details of the case. But the case illustrates something very important: To build an effective Burbank DUI defense, you need to be credible. Avoid "making stuff up," not just out of fear of perjury but also out of respect for the law and a need for good ethics.
If you strategically approach your case the right way, you might be surprised by the amount of leniency the judge (or jury) might give you.
Of course, it takes skill and experience to build a strategic case. Fortunately, the Burbank DUI defense attorneys at the Kraut Law Group have that experience, and they are standing by to take your call and help you feel more prepared about what’s going to happen to you next.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The California justice system is not exactly “soft” on recidivists.
As you probably already know, a Burbank DUI conviction – even a misdemeanor one, in which no one got hurt and no other crimes were committed – can lead to jail time, alcohol school, a year of license suspension, mandatory IID installation in your car or truck, humiliation, insurance problems, fines and fees, disruption to your life, and a criminal record.
As you rack up more and more Burbank DUIs (within a 10-year period), prosecutors can choose from a more diverse and brutal catalogue of punishments, including enhanced fines and fees, more jail time, longer probation, longer alcohol school, longer license suspension, and even special punishments.
To illustrate, let’s say you just got your third DUI charge. Under normal circumstances, you probably would only face a misdemeanor – perhaps a few days in jail, fines and a suspension. But because this is your third time, prosecutors could turn that misdemeanor into a felony charge. Now, if you're convicted, you could face a year behind bars as well as the prospect of being forever stripped of key rights, such as your voting rights.
Convicted felons have a much harder lot in life – trouble finding employment, getting leases approved, and securing housing.
Consider all those consequences in light of a jaw-dropping story out of Billings, Montana.
A Yellowstone County District Court just convicted 54-year-old John Harvey Hoots of his 13th DUI. You read that right. That’s not a typo. Hoots was arrested on July 31, 2012, just six weeks after he had gotten out of prison, after serving a decade for his 12th DUI conviction.
Hoot testified that he was trying to escape from an angry neighbor, when police arrested him for DUI. According to multiple witnesses, Daniel Belmarez called police at 7 in the evening to say that Hoots had “dropped his pants to the ground and exposed himself …a second call to 911 was made about 15 minutes later by Belmarez’s mother, who said Hoots had returned and made a gesture indicating he had a gun.”
The police showed up, just as Hoots hopped in a pickup truck to take off. Police stopped him and arrested him, after discovering that he had a BAC of 0.20%. For those of you keeping score, that’s precisely 2.5 times the Burbank DUI legal limit, per California Vehicle Code Section 23152.
Hoots defense rested on "he said, she said" argument. Hoots said that Belmarez threatened him with a gun and that he had no choice but to flee in his truck. Hoots’ attorney asked him: “did you believe that if you didn’t leave their [presence] that Mr. Belmarez would cause you serious bodily injury and kill you?” Hoots replied that he did and that he was “very scared.”
Prosecutors rejoined that Hoot’s claim had no credibility. Even though evidence of his prior DUI convictions – the checkered criminal history – was not allowed, the jury still didn’t buy his story.
Obviously, we can’t really comment about the strategies involved, without delving into the details of the case. But the case illustrates something very important: To build an effective Burbank DUI defense, you need to be credible. Avoid "making stuff up," not just out of fear of perjury but also out of respect for the law and a need for good ethics.
If you strategically approach your case the right way, you might be surprised by the amount of leniency the judge (or jury) might give you.
Of course, it takes skill and experience to build a strategic case. Fortunately, the Burbank DUI defense attorneys at the Kraut Law Group have that experience, and they are standing by to take your call and help you feel more prepared about what’s going to happen to you next.
↧
FL - Fmr. Davie Police Officer (Steve Olenchak) Sentenced To 10 Years For Sexual Molestation
Steve OlenchakOriginal ArticleWow, Florida is full of sex offender ex-cops.05/15/2013FORT LAUDERDALE (CBS4) - A young woman sobbed on the witness stand, wrecked, after she was sexually molested by Steve Olenchak.
Olenchak is a former Davie police officer who was also the chaplain at the department and once studied to be a Catholic priest.
The victim is related to Olenchak’s wife. It happened when she was nineteen as Olenchak, his wife, his 4 year old son and the victim all watched television.
“You made me feel disgusting and nasty,” she cried. “What you did to me, what you made me go through so many times instead of just going up here and saying what you did was wrong.”
Olenchak showed no emotion during the emotional testimony, when victim urged the court to sentence him to the maximum of 15 years in prison.
But he did break down during his mom’s testimony.
“He feels that the stress and sadness of the past four years has hurt my health, I don’t,” testified his mom Elain.
She took the stand, pleading with the judge for mercy.
“Steve too can fight back from all of this,” she said. “I’m convinced that God is not done with him yet.”
Before sentencing, Olenchak himself had the chance to address the court and plead for lenience.
“I’ve been there to save people when they needed it,” he sobbed to the judge. “I just need you to save me your honor, i just need for you to give me a chance.”
The judge sentenced him to 10 years in prison, followed by 2 years house arrest and three years probation.© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues
↧
Update: Injury crash on U.S. 30 outside of McCammon
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer
DO NOT REPLY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho State Police
District 5 5205 South 5th Ave.
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-2299
(208) 236-6466 FAX: (208) 236-6068
For Immediate Release: 05/15/13 9:50 PM
Please direct questions to the District Office
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 4:02 p.m., Idaho State Police investigated an injury crash on U.S. Highway 30 in Bannock County, near McCammon, Idaho.
Sherry A. Baxter, 52, of Chubbuck was traveling westbound on U.S Highway 30 in a 2006 Buick Lacrosse. Baxter drove into oncoming traffic near milepost 365, and collided with the rear of a 2006 Peterbilt semi pulling a single trailer. The semi was driven by David L. Hobson, 62, of Bryan, Texas.
Baxter was transported by air ambulance to Portneuf Medical Center in Pocatello. Hobson was not injured. Both drivers were wearing their seat belts at the time of the crash.
The crash is still under investigation by Idaho State Police.
-------------
↧
↧
Wednesday Night Open Thread
It's been a late work night here, and tomorrow is a jail day in the mountains.
This morning, the doorbell rang and a policeman was standing there. He looked like the DEA brother-in-law on Breaking Bad. He told me last night someone had...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Federal Courts Seek Emergency Funding
The federal courts are in a state of financial crisis due to sequester. Here is the letter the Federal Judicial Conference sent to the White House yesterday seeking emergency funding.
"The judiciary is confronting an unprecedented financial crisis...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Broward Defense Lawyers Report Disappointing Florida Legislative Session
A number of bills that would have boosted protections and reduced penalties for criminal defendants in Florida have failed, ending what was ultimately a disappointing state legislative session in the view of our Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers. ![behindbars.jpg]()
Among the measures that failed to gain steam: Protections for juvenile inmates, scrapping the death penalty, improved cell phone privacy measures and reduced penalties for low-level drug offenders and those charged with possession of paraphernalia.
Our hope is that at least some of these actions will be picked up once again in the next session, although success will require more support from voters. It's in this vein that we'd like to further explore some of these failed measures of the 2013 session.
The first was House Bill 4005, which would have eliminated the death penalty in Florida, commuting the sentences of all pending death row cases to life in prison. This is a bill that has come up over and over again, each time with proponents arguing that the death penalty is unconstitutional. There are some states where such measure have actually been successful. Florida may have a ways to go before we reach join them. This time, it was shot down in the Criminal Justice Subcommittee - its very first stop.
Next up were SB 1350 and companion HB 963, both of which dealt with the issue of juvenile sentencing. These measures would have provided sentencing alternatives in cases where a juvenile committed a felony that would otherwise only be punishable by life in prison. Already, juveniles can't be put to death, no matter what the crime. But it's a strongly-supported view that life in prison for a crime one commits as a minor amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
These bills would have allowed that, under certain circumstances, the juvenile could potentially be eligible for a re-sentencing hearing after serving 25 years of their life sentence. Ultimately, both bills died on May 3.
Another troubling defeat also happened that day, with the demise of both SB 846 and twin bill HB 797. If these bills had passed, law enforcement agencies would have been required to obtain a search warrant before they could legally seize and search the contents of a portable electronic device, such as a cell phone. This is a critical protection because so many of the criminal cases we handle every day involve some type of electronic evidence, whether through e-mail, call logs, text messages, voicemails or private social media exchanges. When an officer seizes a person's cell phone, he or she has access to all of this information - which is an unquestionably broad search and seizure for almost any kind of investigation. Requiring a warrant would ensure that access to this information would be narrow, limited to the case at hand, and not indicative of a fishing expedition - as so many of these situations have become.
And finally, there was the passage of HB 49, which makes the sale of pipes used to smoke marijuana and other drugs illegal, as well as the failure of HB 159, which would have reduced the minimum mandatory prison sentences for those accused of prescription pain medication abuse.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Among the measures that failed to gain steam: Protections for juvenile inmates, scrapping the death penalty, improved cell phone privacy measures and reduced penalties for low-level drug offenders and those charged with possession of paraphernalia.
Our hope is that at least some of these actions will be picked up once again in the next session, although success will require more support from voters. It's in this vein that we'd like to further explore some of these failed measures of the 2013 session.
The first was House Bill 4005, which would have eliminated the death penalty in Florida, commuting the sentences of all pending death row cases to life in prison. This is a bill that has come up over and over again, each time with proponents arguing that the death penalty is unconstitutional. There are some states where such measure have actually been successful. Florida may have a ways to go before we reach join them. This time, it was shot down in the Criminal Justice Subcommittee - its very first stop.
Next up were SB 1350 and companion HB 963, both of which dealt with the issue of juvenile sentencing. These measures would have provided sentencing alternatives in cases where a juvenile committed a felony that would otherwise only be punishable by life in prison. Already, juveniles can't be put to death, no matter what the crime. But it's a strongly-supported view that life in prison for a crime one commits as a minor amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
These bills would have allowed that, under certain circumstances, the juvenile could potentially be eligible for a re-sentencing hearing after serving 25 years of their life sentence. Ultimately, both bills died on May 3.
Another troubling defeat also happened that day, with the demise of both SB 846 and twin bill HB 797. If these bills had passed, law enforcement agencies would have been required to obtain a search warrant before they could legally seize and search the contents of a portable electronic device, such as a cell phone. This is a critical protection because so many of the criminal cases we handle every day involve some type of electronic evidence, whether through e-mail, call logs, text messages, voicemails or private social media exchanges. When an officer seizes a person's cell phone, he or she has access to all of this information - which is an unquestionably broad search and seizure for almost any kind of investigation. Requiring a warrant would ensure that access to this information would be narrow, limited to the case at hand, and not indicative of a fishing expedition - as so many of these situations have become.
And finally, there was the passage of HB 49, which makes the sale of pipes used to smoke marijuana and other drugs illegal, as well as the failure of HB 159, which would have reduced the minimum mandatory prison sentences for those accused of prescription pain medication abuse.
↧
Fatal Crash WB US12@10.8 Spaulding
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer
DO NOT REPLY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho State Police
Regional Communication Center - North
615 W Wilbur Ave
Suite A
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815
Please direct questions to the appropriate District Offices
District 1 (208) 209-8620 Fax (208) 209- 8618
District 2 (208) 799-5150
CASE # L13-0375
--------------------- PRESS RELEASE -----------------------------
DATE: May 16,2013 TIME: 8:22 am LOCATION: WB US12 @10.2
ASSISTING AGENCIES: Nez Perce SD / ITD
VEHICLE #1
-------------
DRIVER Smith,Brandi M AGE 22
ADDRESS Culdesac,ID
INJURIES? Fatal
HOSPITAL/LOCATION TAKEN ? Mountainview Funeral Home
VEHICLE YEAR 1989 VEHICLE MAKE Ford VEHICLE MODEL Bronco
WRECKER Forests Tow
SEATBELTS/HELMET WORN? NO
PASSENGER Nelson,Jeremy R AGE 27
ADDRESS Lewiston,ID
INJURIES? Yes
HOSPITAL/LOCATION TAKEN ? St. Josephs
SEATBELTS/HELMET WORN? NO
INCIDENT NARRATIVE: Smith was driving Westbound on US12 at 10.8. A possible vehicle malfunction caused smith to lose control, driving off the left shoulder where the vehicle rolled. Smith succumbed to her injuries.
DSP INITIALS DRO
-----------------------------------
↧
↧
SHOOTING VIDEO
If ever you needed to be reminded about what a dangerous job police officers have (not that this excuses them in the least from their awful and wide spread habit of prevarication) here is the video of the marijuana grow house video in which MDPD Detective John Saavedra is shot.We've seen a lot of these. This one is chilling.The action starts at about 1 minute.Site Feed
↧
Michael Morton Act Becomes Law- No More Closed Files in Texas
I used to live in Ellis County and I had a few criminal cases there. Not as many as I had in Kaufman and Dallas, but enough that I quickly learned the Ellis County District Attorney's had little regard for justice or preventing wrongful convictions. Why? They had a closed file policy.
Here's how it went. Client would hire me for a DWI or weed case. I'd go to court and ask for a copy of the police report. I'd be told that they could read it to me (no seriously, they would say this), or sometimes even let me read it. But if I wanted a copy then I would have to file a discovery motion and then they would withdraw all plea offers and force my client to trial. So basically they set up a closed file system to bully defendants into pleading guilty without looking at the evidence. It worked sometimes, clients may not want a jury trial and they may not even want a pre trial hearing, they may just want a plea bargain, but it's hard to negotiate when you don't know anything about the case. The ADA would usually say something like "well, you can ask your client what happened." That's cute, your officer has the ability to stop and take notes, review the video tape, speak to witnesses at the scene. My client is in handcuffs and can't record anything, so yeah, thanks for the great advice.
I thought this closed file policy was ethically dubious. The prosecutor, by hiding all evidence, was asserting that nothing in their file was exculpatory (Brady material), which they had a duty to disclose. Of course, these ADA's seemed to think nothing was exculpatory, in a Ken Anderson way. The closed file policy also showed a complete lack of confidence in local law enforcement's ability to investigate and document suspected criminal activity.
I don't currently take new criminal cases in Ellis County, and they may have changed the policy since I left, but if they haven't it doesn't matter. Governor Perry recently signed the Michael Morton act, which requires prosecutors to turn over evidence to the defendant. The hope is that we can maybe slow down the wrongful conviction machine we have set up with more disclosure. I'm hopeful.
What does the Michael act require? Basically, the State has to turn over what the evidence that is relevant to the case. I know, a pretty radical idea. The State can't try a defendant with secret evidence anymore. People who don't interact much with the criminal justice system probably thought that was already the law, but it's not, at least not until January 1, 2014.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. This Act shall be known as the Michael Morton Act.
SECTION 2. Article 39.14, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (c) through (n) to read as follows:
(a) Subject to the restrictions provided by Section 264.408, Family Code, and Article 39.15 of this code, as soon as practicable after receiving a timely request from the defendant the state shall [Upon motion of the defendant showing good cause therefor and upon notice to the other parties, except as provided by Article 39.15, the court in which an action is pending shall order the State before or during trial of a criminal action therein pending or on trial to] produce and permit the inspection and the electronic duplication, copying, and [or] photographing, by or on behalf of the defendant, of any offense reports, any designated documents, papers, written or recorded statements [statement] of the defendant or a witness, including witness statements of law enforcement officers but not including[, (except written statements of witnesses and except] the work product of counsel for the state in the case and their investigators and their notes or report[)], or any designated books, accounts, letters, photographs, or objects or other tangible things not otherwise privileged that[, which] constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and that [which] are in the possession, custody, or control of the state or any person under contract with the state [State or any of its agencies]. The state may provide to the defendant electronic duplicates of any documents or other information described by this article. The [order shall specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection and taking the copies and photographs of any of the aforementioned documents or tangible evidence; provided, however, that the] rights granted to the defendant under this article do [herein granted shall] not extend to written communications between the state and an agent, representative, or employee of the state. This article does not authorize [State or any of its agents or representatives or employees. Nothing in this Act shall authorize] the removal of the documents, items, or information [such evidence] from the possession of the state [State], and any inspection shall be in the presence of a representative of the state [State].
(c) If only a portion of the applicable document, item, or information is subject to discovery under this article, the state is not required to produce or permit the inspection of the remaining portion that is not subject to discovery and may withhold or redact that portion. The state shall inform the defendant that a portion of the document, item, or information has been withheld or redacted. On request of the defendant, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether withholding or redaction is justified under this article or other law.
(d) In the case of a pro se defendant, if the court orders the state to produce and permit the inspection of a document, item, or information under this subsection, the state shall permit the pro se defendant to inspect and review the document, item, or information but is not required to allow electronic duplication as described by Subsection (a).
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), the defendant, the attorney representing the defendant, or an investigator, expert, consulting legal counsel, or other agent of the attorney representing the defendant may not disclose to a third party any documents, evidence, materials, or witness statements received from the state under this article unless:
(1) a court orders the disclosure upon a showing of good cause after notice and hearing after considering the security and privacy interests of any victim or witness; or
(2) the documents, evidence, materials, or witness statements have already been publicly disclosed.
(f) The attorney representing the defendant, or an investigator, expert, consulting legal counsel, or agent for the attorney representing the defendant, may allow a defendant, witness, or prospective witness to view the information provided under this article, but may not allow that person to have copies of the information provided, other than a copy of the witness's own statement. Before allowing that person to view a document or the witness statement of another under this subsection, the person possessing the information shall redact the address, telephone number, driver's license number, social security number, date of birth, and any bank account or other identifying numbers contained in the document or witness statement. For purposes of this section, the defendant may not be the agent for the attorney representing the defendant.
(g) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit an attorney's ability to communicate regarding his or her case within the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, except for the communication of information identifying any victim or witness, including name, except as provided in Subsections (e) and (f), address, telephone number, driver's license number, social security number, date of birth, and bank account information or any information that by reference would make it possible to identify a victim or a witness. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the disclosure of identifying information to an administrative, law enforcement, regulatory, or licensing agency for the purposes of making a good faith complaint.
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, the state shall disclose to the defendant any exculpatory, impeachment, or mitigating document, item, or information in the possession, custody, or control of the state that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant or would tend to reduce the punishment for the offense charged.
(i) The state shall electronically record or otherwise document any document, item, or other information provided to the defendant under this article.
(j) Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or before trial, each party shall acknowledge in writing or on the record in open court the disclosure, receipt, and list of all documents, items, and information provided to the defendant under this article.
(k) If at any time before, during, or after trial the state discovers any additional document, item, or information required to be disclosed under Subsection (h), the state shall promptly disclose the existence of the document, item, or information to the defendant or the court.
(l) A court may order the defendant to pay costs related to discovery under this article, provided that costs may not exceed the charges prescribed by Subchapter F, Chapter 552, Government Code.
(m) To the extent of any conflict, this article prevails over Chapter 552, Government Code.
(n) This article does not prohibit the parties from agreeing to discovery and documentation requirements equal to or greater than those required under this article.
SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act applies to the prosecution of an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. The prosecution of an offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For purposes of this section, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
SECTION 4. This Act takes effect January 1, 2014.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Lawrence Massachusetts Man Arrested For Assault With Intent to Murder Allegedly Committed In Haverhill
Just a few days ago police found Learde Rodriguez at an apartment on Lowell Street in Lawrence, Massachusetts. The twenty-three year old was arrested in connection with a shooting alleged to have occurred in Haverhill, Massachusetts just over one month...
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
