Jeffrey Kimmel
Original Article
08/09/2013
By Mary K. Miraglia
A former Ramsey police officer could spend the next 12 years behind bars after being sentenced to seven today for impairing the morals of a 6-year-old girl.
Jeffrey Kimmel tried addressing Superior Court Judge Patrick J. Roma, but he broke down before the words could come out.
“These cases are most difficult not just for me but for the court. It’s heart-wrenching,” the judge said. “I can’t imagine what this cute,...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
NJ - Former Ramsey officer (Jeffrey Kimmel) gets 7 years in child sex case, report says
↧
↧
The Court found no error in the charge
In a Drug Crime, defendant appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. A Kings County Criminal attorney...
↧
The harmful value of the said evidence outweighed its probative value
One day, a man reached into a brown paper bag, removed a vial of crack cocaine and handed it to an undercover police officer. A few minutes later, the man was arrested and the bag was seized. Based on records,...
↧
FL - Florida policemen (Franklin Hartley and Thomas Merenda) accused of forcing women into sex and groin-punching during traffic stop
Franklin Hartley and Thomas Merenda
Original Article
08/09/2013
By Arturo Garcia
Two Lauderhill, Florida police officers were arrested Friday and charged with simple battery and unlawful compensation for allegedly forcing a woman into having sex with one of them and ordering one to punch the other in the groin, to avoid arrest.
KTVJ-TV reported that 33-year-old Franklin Hartley and 34-year-old Thomas Merenda were released on bond and are on administrative leave in connection with a...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
UK - Police investigate 169 staff over predatory sexual behaviour
Original Article
08/09/2013
By Sandra Laville
Police forces are being ordered to face up to corruption by officers who commit sexual offences against vulnerable women and young people, as figures obtained by the Guardian reveal 169 officers and support staff are under investigation for predatory sexual behaviour.
Senior officers from the 43 forces of England and Wales have held a high-level private meeting to address the problem of officers who abuse their position to make...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
↧
FBI shared child porn to nab pedophiles; Washington home raided
Original Article
Remember, they are always saying that any time a child abuse image is shared a child is being re-victimized. So, why is the FBI abusing children and not being arrested for it? Don't forget, many of their own were found to have child porn on their computers, but it was swept under the rug! It's good the site was shut down, but this is insane!
05/28/2013
By LEVI PULKKINEN
The FBI seized and ran a child pornography service late last year as investigators worked to...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Another Las Vegas Cold Case
Cold Case Files-The Untimely Death of an Elvis Impersonator An ongoing cold case here in Vegas is that of Elvis impersonator Dana Mackay and his girlfriend Mary Linda Huffman, a former Mrs. Nevada. The two were slain inside their mansion, which was dubbed “mini-Graceland” between September 30 and October 2, 1993.Police went to the home
↧
What Am I Facing For Violating A Protective Order In Virginia?
Protective orders (a.k.a., restraining orders in other jurisdictions) in Virginia are issued when there has been any act of violence, force or threat against an individual. A protective order may be issued based on an allegation of said acts, and does not require a conviction. It is conceivable, and quite often the situation, where an […]
↧
Writ Bond - Need one? I Can Help
214-402-4364 - Immediate Jail Release
bo@kalabuslaw.comwww.kalabuslaw.comwww.rosenthalwadas.com
24-Hour Jail Release 214-402-4364
Office: 972-562-7549
Need a Writ Bond?
Need an Attorney Bond?
A writ bond (or attorney bond) is an instrument that will trigger an immediate cash bond for certain misdemeanor arrests in Collin County where individuals have not had a bond set. A magistrate judge will set the bond during a process call an arraignment hearing; however, in Collin County the magistrate judge only has arraignment in the mornings and it is easy to miss if the arrested individual is not booked in yet. That means the arrested person will be sitting in jail 24 additional hours before they can have the bond set. The bonds are $350 for Class B misdemeanors and $500 for Class A misdemeanors and all DWI misdemeanors.
Cases where a person is entitled to a Writ Bonds:
Class B Misdemeanors
Class A Misdemeanors
These are usually DWI, theft, and minor possession cases
Cases where a person IS NOT entitled to a Writ Bond:
Class C Misdemeanors--specifically traffic tickets
Felony cases
Family Violence
Assault
For a more detailed description of a writ bond and the writ bond process, go here.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
↧
A Recent Case Win--DA Reduces Greater Than 0.15 BAC DWI to a Class B Misdemeanor
214-402-4364-Writ Bond Hotline
bo@kalabuslaw.comwww.rosenthalwadas.comwww.kalabuslaw.com
Office: 972-562-7549
My client was charged with a first offense DWI with a blood alcohol content (BAC) higher than 0.15 (keep in mind the legal limit is .08). Under current law, if a person's BAC is above a 0.15, the charge is elevated to a Class A misdemeanor which enhances the punishment range to a fine from $0 to $4,000 and from 0 days to 1 year in jail (which may be probated) regardless of whether it is a first offense. The charge also requires that a person have a deep lung device (DLD) installed on their car for the length of probation. The DLD is a portable breathalyzer that a person will need to blow into before they can start their car.
The 0.15 BAC and above enhancement also has significant impact on the surcharges that DPS will levy on a person following a DWI conviction. If a person's BAC is above 0.15, then the surcharge to maintain a driver's license will be $2,000 a year for a three-year period following the conviction.
I went to work on the case, investigating the facts to gain what leverage we could to negotiate with the prosecutor. After several weeks of hard work on the case, the prosecutor agreed to lower the charges from the greater than 0.15 BAC Class A misdemeanor level to a Class B misdemeanor, or a DWI below 0.15 BAC offense level. This reduction was significant considering it dropped the potential punishment range down to a fine that would range from $0 to $2,000 and from 72 hours to 180 days in jail (which was be probated in this case). Better yet, the client will not have to pay $6,000 in DPS surcharges that would have followed the conviction and the client did not have to get a DLD installed on the car.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Fatality Crash St Joe River Rd MP 23
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 # C13001604
--------------------- PRESS RELEASE -----------------------------
DATE: 08/09/13 TIME: 10:14 pm LOCATION: St Joe River Rd MP23, Calder, ID
ASSISTING AGENCIES: Shoshone County SO
VEHICLE #1
-------------
DRIVER: Robert D Hayne AGE: 63
ADDRESS: Spokane, WA
INJURIES: Fatal
HOSPITAL/LOCATION TAKEN: Yates Hodge Funeral Home
VEHICLE: 2009 Yamaha Motorcycle
WRECKER: Benewah Motors
HELMET WORN: Yes
INCIDENT NARRATIVE: Hayne was Westbound on the St Joe River Road near milepost 23 when he drove off the right side of the roadway. He went through brush and was thrown from his motorcycle. He died at the scene. Helmet and goggles were worn. Next of Kin has been notified.
DSP INITIALS Mfc
-----------------------------------
↧
Another high-profile federal capital case ends in an LWOP plea deal
As reported in this local piece from Vermont, another high-profile murder in a state without the death penalty which became a federal capital case has now come to a close via a plea bargain to an LWOP term. (As reported...
↧
Classic D.C. Trial Transcript: Key on St. Ledger, Part II
BY MR. KEY: Q: When was the last time this particular machine, the one in Government’s Exhibit Number 4, was actually calibrated? A: You mean auto-cal’d? Are you talking recertified or auto-cal’d? Q: All of them. You tell me when is the last time you calibrated this machine? A: That machine I haven’t calibrated. Q: [...]
↧
↧
Makes Me Want To Throw Up, Too
Ken Webster got busted for selling crack within 1500 feet of a school in Torrington, Connecticut. Bad boy.He was charged with the sale and related offenses and convicted at trial. He was sentenced to something like 23 years in prison but only having to serve 9 before he'd be on probation for 5 with, I suppose, the rest of the 23 hanging over his head. (This was Connecticut and I neither know nor particularly care about how their sentencing scheme works.) The case went up on appeal. Webster said that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of that 1500 foot thing that cranked up his sentence. See, he sold those drugs from his car, while driving the buyer around the block. For a little bit they were more than 1500 feet from the school. The appellate judges, as appellate judges do when they're faced with with that sort of technical argument, carefully parsed the statute. They recognized that it was ambiguous and that those sorts of ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the Webster. Then they giggled at the very idea of actually doing that and said,AFFIRMED!Wait. No. They didn't. Holy Shit. Webster won. They ruled in Webster's favor, overturned his conviction on that count. So, of course, the state appealed, asked the Connecticut Supremes to weigh in. Which they did.The justices did, as justices do when they're faced with with that sort of technical argument, carefully parsed the statute. They recognized that it was ambiguous and that those sorts of ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the Webster. Then they giggled at the very idea of actually doing that and said,COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED! CONVICTION AFFIRMED!Really.And all that's trivia and it's not why I'm writing. And it's not why Gideon wrote about the Webster decision. Or why Scott Greenfield did.They wrote about, and I'm writing about it, because of the other issue. The one that the court of appeals didn't bother with because undoing Webster's conviction took care of it.See, the trial judge fucked up. He didn't tell the jury about one of the elements of the offense, one of those things that unless the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt Webster would be innocent. So the jury didn't get to decide if Webster was guilty. They decided he'd done some of the stuff that makes up a crime, but not all of it. You know, it's as if they convicted him of robbing the bank without having to know or decide whether the bank was robbed. Or whether he did it.It was some 43 years ago, in 1970, in a case called In re Winship, that the Supreme Court said that one requirement of the Constitution - that thing the conservatives and the liberals and the libertarians and the radicals all say they believe in absolutely - is that nobody can be convicted of a crime unless the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt every fucking element of the offense.Nobody. Not kids. (Winship itself concerned a juvenile.) Not adults. Not in the federal courts. Not in the state courts. Not in Ohio. Not in your state. And not in Connecticut, the Nutmeg State, the Land of Steady Habits.So Webster was, and there's really no getting around it, convicted improperly. He should not have been. No technical quibble about how to construe the statute. No squishing around the edges. The conviction was wrong. Plain and simple. Or, at least, simple. (Read on.)The court of appeals, to recap, didn't need to reach this question because they'd already determined that he didn't violate the statute. But the five wise justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court who heard the case did. And they looked at the law. And they looked at the Constitution. Even in Connecticut, the fucking Constitution State f'rgodssake, you might think that would count for something. Of course, you'd be wrong.For the justices looked. And they looked. And they said.Not my job. I don't give a shit. You can wipe our collective asses with your Constitution. Fuck it. And fuck Webster.Oh, they didn't say the judge got it right. They didn't even say "close enough for government work." They just said that they didn't care. No flies on them. Because, you see, Webster's lawyer didn't object at trial. And on appeal, his lawyer didn't say that the error was "plain." He just said that Webster's constitutional rights were violated. He didn't jump through the right hoops, so it doesn't matter. So said them all.It fell to the Chief Justice, one Chase T. Rogers, to point out that even if Webster's appellate lawyer had jumped through the right hoops it might not have mattered. (It is, after all, only a basic constitutional right that was violated, not anything important. And he may only spend 9 years in prison and another 5 or so looking over his shoulder, so it's not like it's any big deal.) She added a brief concurrence.I agree with the majority's conclusion in part II of its opinion that appellate review of a waived constitutional claim that the jury instructions failed to include an essential element of the crime charged is barred by this court's decision in State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 482-83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). I write separately to emphasize that it is an unanswered question whether such claims are subject to plain error review. Because the defendant in the present case did not seek plain error review, however, I leave that question for another day. To which Gideon eloquently responded,Those 6 lines make me want to throw up.And which led Scott Greenfield to say, And like Gideon, it makes me want to throw up. I've said too many times to bother linking to that I don't pretend to know what justice is and that I'm not particularly interested in it. But if I neither recognize nor deal with justice, I've got more than a passing recognition of injustice. William Marbury was appointed justice of the peace by President John Adams on his way out of office. Marbury's commission was to be delivered by James Madison, Secretary of State in the new, Jefferson administration. Madison refused. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order Madison to give him his commission. The great Chief Justice of the United States (that's the actual title today, though at the time it was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) John Marshall, wrote the Court's opinion.Marbury, he said, had an absolute right to his commission and Madison had no right to withhold it. And he quoted Blackstone.[I]t is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress. What was true in England, he said, must be true here.The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right. Which you'd think might pretty much settle the matter. Marbury had a right. Without a remedy, there is no right. But ooops. Even though Congress enacted a law giving the Supreme Court the power to order Madison to deliver the commission, the law was unconstitutional. We remember Marbury v. Madison as the case that established (whether by recognizing or inventing out of whole cloth, depends on your point of view) the power of judicial review.It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. We tend to forget that what the case actually did was say that Marbury had a right, but no remedy. Because, you know, doing the right thing wasn't worth shit in those days any more than it is today. Of course, Marshall didn't say that it was "the province and duty of the judicial department" to do anything relating to justice. Chief Justice Rogers serves on the Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute ("Improving the Quality of Justice in Our State Courts").* Don't be holding your breath.----------------------*She was nominated by his Barakness and approved by the Senate, which says no more than what you already likely knew about both Obama and the Senate.
↧
Would Massachusetts Lawmakers Ever Pass a Law Providing Immunity For People Who Call 911 to Report Cocaine, Heroin and Other Drug Overdoses
A few weeks ago I was reading an article in the Vineyard Gazette reporting the death of a fifty-year old man presumable from a Heroin overdose. According to the report, at 9:00 a.m. the police were called to a home...
↧
"California’s Continuing Prison Crisis"
The title of this post is the headline of this new New York Times editorial. Here are excerpts: California has long been held up as the land of innovation and fresh starts, but on criminal justice and incarceration, the Golden...
↧
New York Times column spotlights extreme application of ACCA in US v. Young
A few weeks ago in this post, titled "A few shotgun shells landed a man 15 years in federal prison," I reported on a remarkable federal sentencing story out of Tennessee involving an extreme application of the 15-year mandatory minimum...
↧
↧
Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads
in criminal law and procedure ejournals are here. The usual disclaimers apply. RankDownloadsPaper Title 1 858 Privacy Protests: Surveillance Evasion and Fourth Amendment Suspicion Elizabeth E. Joh, U.C. Davis School of Law, Date posted to database: June 26, 2013 2...
↧
Case o' The Week: No Appetite in Ninth for Underwood -- Probable Cause and Leon Good Faith
The devil’s in the details (or lack thereof), when law enforcement cuts and pastes facts into search warrant affidavits. United States v. Underwood, 2013 WL 3988675 (9thCir. Aug. 6, 2013), decision available here.Players: Decision by Judge Pregerson, joined by Judges Noonan and Paez.
The Hon. Harry PregersonFacts: DEA agents investigated an ecstasy distribution conspiracy headed by one of Underwood’s co-defendants. Id. at *1. They saw two co-Ds meet with Underwood and transfer two unmarked crates from Underwood’s vehicle into their own. Id. Agents tracked the crates to the Heavy’s house: the crates were later found to contain thousands of ecstasy pills. Id. The DEA got search warrants for all involved, including Underwood’s “home.” Id. When they arrived to search Underwood’s house, they found his mother who explained he didn’t live there. Id.Mom told the officers where Underwood lived, they did a “protective sweep” of the second house, found a small amount of pot, then got a state search warrant based on the federal search affidavit. Id. The state search warrant affidavit had probable cause facts that were literally cut and pasted from the federal agent’s affidavit, without clarification of which affiant was speaking. Id. at *2. The (102-page) federal search warrant affidavit was not attached to the state warrant application; the state magistrate never asked to review it. Id. at *3. The search revealed cocaine, ecstasy, cash, and other evidence. Id. In district court, Underwood challenged the probable cause for the search and argued that the Leon good faith exception did not apply. Id. “In a lengthy, scholarly order,” Judge Stephen Wilson granted the motion to suppress. Id. The government appealed. Id. Issue(s): “The government appeals the district court’s grant of Underwood’s motion to suppress, arguing that (1) the warrant was not supported by probable cause, and (2) if the warrant was not supported by probable cause, the good faith exception applies.” Id. at *4.Held: “We are not persuaded by these arguments.” 1. Probable cause: Id. “When viewed in the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit here fails to provide a sufficient basis for probable cause. Like the affidavit in [United States v.] Weber, [923 F.2d 1138, 1145 (9th Cir. 1990)], the affidavit in Underwood’s case includes only two facts, foundationless expert opinion, and conclusory allegations.” Id. at *5. 2. Leon Good Faith: “An analysis of the totality of the circumstances, including extrinsic factors, establishes that reliance on the search warrant . . . was objectively unreasonable. Thus, even assuming the affidavit was not entirely lacking in indicia of probable cause, the good faith exception is not met in this case.” Id. at *11. Of Note: Can extrinsic evidence be used in the Leon good faith analysis, to save a bare bones affidavit? The government argued yes, relying on the Supreme’s decision in Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235 (2012). The Ninth is unpersuaded: “when we have determined that the affidavit is a bare bones affidavit, as we have here, even if the extrinsic factors point to reasonableness, they would not change the result. Reliance upon a bare bones affidavit is never reasonable.” Id. at *10. This little corner of the opinion contains an important Leon holding: a welcome limitation on the seemingly limitless Leon good faith exception.How to Use: Underwood is terrific, and provides many useful principles for Fourth fights. Of particular interest is Judge Pregerson’s common sense analysis of the probable cause “showing” in the state search warrant affidavit. For example, a personal use amount of marijuana does not indicate the use of ecstasy – the target of this search, and certainly does not indicate that someone “is an ecstasy trafficker.” Id. at *5 (emphasis in original). The relationship between different types of drugs can be so attenuated that possession of onetype does not establish probable cause than anothertype is present – a useful cite for future probable cause battles. For Further Reading: In this era of bitter partisan rancor, one issue brings opposing legislators together: saving Federal Public Defenders. In a remarkable letter, Senators Coons (D-Del) and Sessions (R-Ala.) have together urged C.J. Traxler – Chair of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference – to review the impact that sequestration cuts are having on the Federal Defender Services account. See Senator Coon’s website and letter here. A critical bipartisan show of support from the branch of government that actually controls the dough. Image of the “Underwood” Deviled Ham logo from http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1182/5160192097_ac439114c3_z.jpgImage of the Honorable Harry Pregerson from http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RMsV9W_GMwk/TrSDMpMgcZI/AAAAAAAAADA/NBPeRWBtK5M/s640/david+rothman+and+judge+pregerson.jpgSteven Kalar, Federal Public Defender, Northern District of California. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org. .
↧
WaPo: In New York, stop, frisk and think
WaPo: In New York, stop, frisk and think by Editorial Board:
PERHAPS THE most puzzling aspect of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s staunch opposition to any criticism of the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) controversial “stop and frisk” policy is the flippancy with which he dismisses concerns over racial profiling.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
