Back in February, this blog discussed then-pending Maryland Senate Bill 297 ("SB 297"), that proposed to eliminate the potential for jail time as a punishment for possession of marijuana in favor of a maximum fine of $100, and remove the offense of simple marijuana possession, constituting possession of anything less than ten grams, from the state criminal code.
In March, SB 297 was approved by the Maryland by the State Senate but not by the House Committee on the Judiciary prior to the close of the 2013 legislative session. Accordingly, the current criminal laws regarding marijuana remain on the books in Maryland.
Under Maryland law those in possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana could face a $500 fine and up to 90 days in jail. Those convicted of possessing 10 grams or more are subject to imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $1,000 (or both). However, traffickers of marijuana, individuals in possession of large amounts of marijuana, or those who have previously been convicted of drug offenses may be subject to prosecution for more serious offenses with harsher penalties.
A recent report released by the American Civil Liberties Union has reignited the debate regarding the decriminalization of marijuana with findings that Maryland and Washington, D.C., lead the nation in marijuana arrests and African-Americans being disproportionately likely to be arrested for marijuana.
According to the report, in 2010, for every 100,000 residents of Washington, D.C., 846 individuals were arrested for marijuana possession. The national rate for marijuana arrests in the same year was only 256 for every 100,000 residents. Maryland's arrest rate was 409 for every 100,000 residents and Baltimore City a staggering 1,136 per 100,000 residents. According to another report by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron, Maryland spends over $236 million each year to enforce its marijuana laws, most of which is devoted to prosecuting criminal cases.
The report further determined that, of the individuals arrested for marijuana possession in Washington, D.C. in 2010, 91% were African-American. Comparing arrest rates between different racial groups, the report concluded that African-Americans were eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than Caucasians. These numbers are even more disturbing when given the fact that the study found there were comparable rates of marijuana use between these groups. Across Maryland, 58% of arrestees for marijuana possession were African-American.
The ACLU report concludes, "The aggressive enforcement of marijuana possession laws needlessly ensnares hundreds of thousands of people in the criminal justice system, crowds our jails, is carried out in a racially biased manner, wastes millions of taxpayers' dollars and has not reduced marijuana use or availability. Marijuana possession arrests also waste precious police resources and divert law enforcement from responding to and solving serious crimes. It is time for marijuana possession arrests to end."
The criminal defense attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC have extensive experience defending individuals charged with drug crimes in both state and federal courts. If you or someone you know has been charged with a drug crime in Maryland, contact the attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC today.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Recent ACLU Report Claims Racial Disparity In Marijuana Arrests
↧
↧
Scam Targeted San Diego Seniors
Guilty pleas were entered by a couple from Las Vegas in a scheme involving the sale of phony home services to elderly residents in California, Texas, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. The hardest hit group was in California, which was the … Continue reading →The post Scam Targeted San Diego Seniors appeared first on .
↧
Ninth Circuit Declines Habeas Petition in Case of Computer Generated Child Porn – Shoemaker v. Taylor
Computer-generated child pornography has an interesting legal history in the United States. A 1996 law made it illegal to possess or trade images that appear to be children engaged in sex, even though no child was involved in making them. But in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that law, saying it criminalized free speech. In response, Congress passed a 2003 law that (in relevant part) criminalized “simulated” or “virtual” child pornography as long as it was “obscene”—that is, lacking in serious non-prurient value. As a result, Americans can be convicted of child pornography crimes involving drawings of children engaged in sex, computer-generated images, or adults intended to look like children—but only if the images are judged obscene. That fact-specific standard came into play in Shoemaker v. Taylor, an appeal of the denial of a habeas corpus petition in California.
Stephen Shoemaker was convicted of eight counts of child pornography possession under California state law, after police found the images among many, many more legal adult pornography images. He contended at trial that two images were initially innocent and had been digitally altered to be pornographic; the other six, he said, were innocent nudes. He was sentenced to 90 days in custody, lifelong sex offender registration, a fine, probation and a year of sexual compulsiveness classes. His state appeals exhausted, he filed a habeas corpus petition with the Central California district courts. He argued that the jury erred in finding that any of the images were prohibited child porn; the judge erred when instructing the jury and permitting the prosecution to argue that the jury could consider the context of the pictures; and his conviction was not supported by the evidence. The Central California district court denied his petition.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. It first ruled that the six nude photographs were not innocent, upon review of the actual images and application of Dost factors to test for lasciviousness. It went on to rule that the morphed images, regardless of whether they were truly morphed, are also not protected speech because the Supreme Court has not ruled on whether images of real children that have been manipulated to look pornographic are protected speech. Because such images involve real children, the Ninth said, the concerns of New York v. Ferber are in play: children can be harmed by the circulation of a permanent record of their exploitation. That’s true even though no actual sexual abuse may have taken place, the court said. The Second, Sixth and Eighth Circuits have held likewise, it noted. The court went on to agree that the prosecution’s context argument was error, but held the error harmless.
I would apply Ferber differently from the way the court did here. That case held that child pornography is not protected speech, as adult pornography is, because making it requires that a child be sexually exploited. That’s the harm to society created by child pornography. In a picture of a child that’s digitally altered, it’s not clear that the child is sexually exploited—certainly not in the same way, and possibly not at all. The reputation harm cited by the Ninth may not be a serious concern; there’s a limited audience for these images and the child took no part in making the image. But as a cyber crime attorney, I doubt that these images are disappearing—so courts may have more opportunities to consider this.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
The court decided in favor of the admissibility of the official police laboratory report as evidence against the respondent
A case was filed against a 15 year old boy for allegedly handing another minor a glassine envelope which apparently contained heroin. Penal Law 220.03 and 220.39 under this court’s jurisdiction provides that such act would constitute a drug crime if committed by an adult. The defendant’s counsel moved that the evidence which points to the minor be suppressed for not being seized under circumstances allowed by law. The court denied the petition and insisted that the seizure of heroin from his jacket was executed after taking into consideration the constitutional safeguards granted by law to each and every person. The counsel of the petitioner offered as evidence the police laboratory report which provides the analysis of the substance seized from the accused. The defendant’s counsel contended that such a report cannot be considered by the court unless the chemist who prepared the report appears in court for the purpose of cross examination.
The court decided contrary to the respondent’s assertion, arguing that the admissibility of an official police laboratory report with the absence of cross examination was an exception to the hearsay rule which provides that no statement of any person shall be admissible in court unless such person concerned attests to its authenticity and accuracy. The court argued further that according to established jurisprudence in criminal law, the hearsay rule admits certain exceptions. Among these are the general business document clause as provided in CPLR4518(a) and the ones provided in CPLR4518(c) and CPLR4520 which provide respectively that a record certified by an employee of a department or bureau of a municipal corporation and certificate of a public officer are not within the ambit of prohibitions as mandated by the hearsay rule. The court cited several case laws, mostly concerning marijuana possession, crack possession, LSD possession, heroin possession and ecstacy possession, explaining the rationale behind the exceptions. The court in these cases asserted the presumption of regularity that is accorded to documents released by public officials in the regular course of their employment.
It further established the meaning of regular course of employment as contemplated by law. In the case of Gioia v. State of New York, the court admitted as evidence an electroen-cephalogram diagnosing cause of death as 'asphyxiation by strangulation while temporarily insane and stated that the document was produced within the regular course of business. The court reiterated the constitutionally granted right of an accused to meet witnesses face to face and verify the accuracy of statements against him/her in a criminal action, however in holding the contention of the respondent flawed, it stated that the introduction of public documents and official records required to be kept does not in any way violate the constitutional provision as provided. Moreover, it justified its contention by stating that in the absence of any motive to conceal or distort the truth, and taking into consideration the manner in which it was produced and intention for its production, documents from a public source would suffice as evidence without cross examination. This decision affirms, according to the court the established principle, that public documents must be accorded by the court the highest degree of respect. In another case, the diagnostic report prepared by a doctor of a public agency was again admitted as evidence supported once more by the argument that since it was not established that the drafting of the report was motivated by personal interest, there is no reason why the admission of it would amount to violation of due process of law. The court, in not affirming the necessity of a cross examination, asserted further that the statement of the chemist as to the accuracy of the particular report cannot add to the probative value of the document’s declaration. Anent the argument, it stated that the chemist, who conducts numerous tests and in reference to them drafts reports, can possibly not remember the circumstance of every particular case and elucidate its veracity but can only generally attest to the regularity and accuracy of the tests they conduct and reports they draft in the ordinary course of their business.
In view of the arguments presented by each party, the court decided in favor of the admissibility of the official police laboratory report as evidence against the respondent in the criminal proceeding and upheld the exceptions as provided in CPLR4518(a), CPLR4518(c) and CPLR4520 as in keeping with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution with regard due process of law.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Couple Charged with Having Sexual Relations on Las Vegas-Bound Flight
Last week a man and a women were charged with federal indecency crimes for allegedly having oral sex on an Allegient Air flight from Oregon to Las Vegas last month. The pair, both 33, were told to stop by flight attendants twice after passengers complained. They each face up to 3 months in jail and/or a $500 fine.![Las Vegas Indecency Defense]( "Open or Gross Lewdness Crime")
The Nevada crime of open or gross lewdness comprises two general circumstances: 1) any intentional sex act done in public or in private where others could see, or 2) any non-consensual sexual encounter that falls short of rape. Prosecutors often bring charges for open or gross lewdness in conjunction with indecent exposure.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The Nevada crime of open or gross lewdness comprises two general circumstances: 1) any intentional sex act done in public or in private where others could see, or 2) any non-consensual sexual encounter that falls short of rape. Prosecutors often bring charges for open or gross lewdness in conjunction with indecent exposure.
↧
↧
10% of Petitions Collected - Legalization of Medical Marijuana on the Ballot in Florida
The Campaign Manager, Ben Pollara, has announced that in just a few short weeks United for Care has collected over 10% of the petitions needed to get the legalization of medical marijuana on the Florida ballot. United for Care has less than five months to collect the other 90% of petitions needed. You can download print, sign and mail the petition found here - www.unitedforcare.org/petition.In order for it to be counted, they must be mailed to People United for Medical MarijuanaPost Office Box 560296Orlando, FL 32856Ben Pollara also pointed out that public opinion seems to be shifting even more since Dr. Sanjay Gupta produced a special for CNN and wrote an article in support of Medical Marijuana. He even went as far as apologizing for his previous public opposition to it. To read the entire article, please click here.
↧
Posts categorized "Books"
"Our last legal heroes?: Fighting to kill the death penalty," by Evan J. Mandery. This is the beginning of the excerpt from "A Wild Justice," via Salon. “In 1963 Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg dissented from the Supreme Court’s refusal...
↧
The People consented to an adjournment not assuming prosecution of the matter i
On 8 February 1991, an altercation occurred between the defendant and her landlord at the latter’s house where both parties lived. On that date, defendant’s landlord was under arrest by the police and charged in a felony complaint with assaulting...
↧
The court concludes that it is without authority to impose any sentence
A man stands convicted from criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, a class A-I felony. In that, he knowingly and unlawfully possessed one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances containing a narcotic drug, namely, cocaine,...
↧
↧
The error was compounded when the prosecutor was permitted to argue on summation that the jury
The defendant contested that the admission of evidence of his prior drug activity was error. The defendant was arrested after he allegedly sold two packets of heroin to an undercover police officer in August 1990. Upon his arrest, 10 additional...
↧
Some sentencing-related highlights from AG Holder's remarks today to the ABA
I am back on line, and now able to link to and provide some extensive excerpts from Attorney General Eric Holder's high-profile remarks earlier today at the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association's House of Delegates. Everyone should make...
↧
GA - Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders Organize, Exhibit at National Conference of State Legislatures in Atlanta, GA
Original Article
08/13/2013
By Shana Rowan
ATLANTA - For the first time ever, five national advocacy groups fighting for sex offender registry reform have come together to exhibit at the National Conference of State Legislatures at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, Georgia.
Booth 114 will be manned by USA FAIR, Inc. (USA Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry), a national nonprofit group representing family members of people on the registry; Florida Action...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Michigan Court of Appeals Upholds Man's Conviction in 1998 Covert Beating Death
In November of 2010, Ed Foster was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in the 1998 death of Deborah Boothby in Covert Township. Boothby was beaten before being run over by two cars and left on the side of the highway to die, according to a news article at Mlive.com. Foster has maintained his innocence, claiming that others beat and killed the victim. ![washington-dc-united-states-supreme-court_l.jpg]()
The victim was allegedly involved in an altercation with Foster and three other individuals before being beaten in a Covert nightclub parking lot, according to court testimony. Boothby was then beat again after being taken to a nearby park; she was then returned to the nightclub and allegedly run over by two vehicles in order to make her death appear to be an accident.
Foster appealed his convicted to the Michigan Court of Appeals, arguing that his lawyer was ineffective, and that the court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Jurors also saw Foster in leg restraints and handcuffs, a fact that he claimed violated his due process rights. He also claims that jurors heard what he referred to as "false and perjured testimony" from a witness.
Following his sentencing in November of 2010, Foster said that "The verdict of guilt is not a reflection of what happened." He went on to say that his conviction was not justice, and that he did not and could not kill the woman. Foster, who at the time lived in Conyers, Georgia, claimed at trial that the other individuals who were with him killed Boothby, but that he had no part in it although he did nothing to stop it.
On Friday August 9, Court of Appeals judges Deborah A. Servitto, Henry William Saad, and William B. Murphy issued a 15-page opinion upholding Foster's conviction.
Michigan criminal appeals lawyers know that appealing a conviction or sentence is a complex process, and that obtaining the desired outcome requires a competent and experienced attorney who is thoroughly familiar with the appeals process.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The victim was allegedly involved in an altercation with Foster and three other individuals before being beaten in a Covert nightclub parking lot, according to court testimony. Boothby was then beat again after being taken to a nearby park; she was then returned to the nightclub and allegedly run over by two vehicles in order to make her death appear to be an accident.
Foster appealed his convicted to the Michigan Court of Appeals, arguing that his lawyer was ineffective, and that the court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Jurors also saw Foster in leg restraints and handcuffs, a fact that he claimed violated his due process rights. He also claims that jurors heard what he referred to as "false and perjured testimony" from a witness.
Following his sentencing in November of 2010, Foster said that "The verdict of guilt is not a reflection of what happened." He went on to say that his conviction was not justice, and that he did not and could not kill the woman. Foster, who at the time lived in Conyers, Georgia, claimed at trial that the other individuals who were with him killed Boothby, but that he had no part in it although he did nothing to stop it.
On Friday August 9, Court of Appeals judges Deborah A. Servitto, Henry William Saad, and William B. Murphy issued a 15-page opinion upholding Foster's conviction.
Michigan criminal appeals lawyers know that appealing a conviction or sentence is a complex process, and that obtaining the desired outcome requires a competent and experienced attorney who is thoroughly familiar with the appeals process.
↧
↧
South Haven Man Convicted in Counterfeiting Operation Sentenced to 51 Months in Federal Prison
50-year-old John William Wilson, a man who had just been released from prison, is reportedly headed back after being convicted of running a counterfeiting operation out of a South Haven hotel room. According to a news article at Mlive.com, Wilson used the bogus bills making purchases at local businesses. ![333407043_7c8888408c.jpg]()
Wilson was arrested after Wilson allegedly attempted to purchase a used car he found on Craigslist using counterfeit money. The owner of the car recognized that the money Wilson was attempting to use to purchase the car was fake; Wilson gave the man $800 in fake bills, according to the article. The owner of the vehicle alerted police, who located Wilson and arrested him outside of the Secretary of State's office in Paw Paw.
In a letter Wilson wrote to U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, he claimed he had suffered a "horrifying addiction to drugs and alcohol." Wilson went on to say that he had been addicted to the substances for decades. Sean Tilton, Wilson's attorney, added that his client wants to address his problems, and that he began using drugs as a teen growing up in foster homes.
Wilson had previously served time in prison for counterfeiting, and targeted local businesses due to the fact that he did not have a car. To avoid drawing unwanted attention to the fake bills, Wilson kept purchases under $100. He also allegedly came up with a scheme while in prison to purchase merchandise with counterfeit bills, then return the goods in exchange for authentic bills.
Judge Maloney sentenced Wilson on Wednesday, August 7 to four years and three months in federal prison. Upon completion of his prison term, he will be placed on supervised release for three years.
Michigan federal criminal attorneys know that while all criminal offenses are punished harshly, those at the federal level incur more serious penalties.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Wilson was arrested after Wilson allegedly attempted to purchase a used car he found on Craigslist using counterfeit money. The owner of the car recognized that the money Wilson was attempting to use to purchase the car was fake; Wilson gave the man $800 in fake bills, according to the article. The owner of the vehicle alerted police, who located Wilson and arrested him outside of the Secretary of State's office in Paw Paw.
In a letter Wilson wrote to U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, he claimed he had suffered a "horrifying addiction to drugs and alcohol." Wilson went on to say that he had been addicted to the substances for decades. Sean Tilton, Wilson's attorney, added that his client wants to address his problems, and that he began using drugs as a teen growing up in foster homes.
Wilson had previously served time in prison for counterfeiting, and targeted local businesses due to the fact that he did not have a car. To avoid drawing unwanted attention to the fake bills, Wilson kept purchases under $100. He also allegedly came up with a scheme while in prison to purchase merchandise with counterfeit bills, then return the goods in exchange for authentic bills.
Judge Maloney sentenced Wilson on Wednesday, August 7 to four years and three months in federal prison. Upon completion of his prison term, he will be placed on supervised release for three years.
Michigan federal criminal attorneys know that while all criminal offenses are punished harshly, those at the federal level incur more serious penalties.
↧
Tsarnaev Friends Plead Not Guilty at Arraignment
Dias Kadyrbayev and Azamat Tazhayakov, the friends of Dzokhar Tsarnaev who took items from his dorm room a few days after the Boston Marathon bombing, appeared in court today and entered pleas of not guilty to charges of conspiracy to obstruct...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
The plaintiff's decedent died of gunshot wounds
In this drug possession case, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
According to a Suffolk County Criminal attorney, the court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the Court found that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant was found standing in close proximity to a table containing approximately four ounces of cocaine, at least some of which was in open view. Also present in the room were aluminum foil, a scale, and a spoon.
A Suffolk County drug possession lawyer said that when narcotics are found in open view in a room other than a public place, under circumstances evincing intent to unlawfully mix, package, or otherwise prepare them for sale, every person in close proximity to the narcotics at the time of their discovery is presumed to have knowingly possessed them. Although this presumption is rebuttable, in this case, based upon all the evidence, the jury properly could have drawn the inference of criminal possession from the defendant's presence at the place of discovery.
The Court have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them either to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
In another criminal case, In an action to collect the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which, inter alia, upon granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, dismissed the complaint.
A Suffolk County Criminal attorney said that the plaintiff's decedent submitted an application for life insurance, to the respondent, an insurance company. One of the questions on the application asked whether the applicant had ever been "arrested for the use or possession" of any narcotic, barbituate, amphetamine, or hallucinogenic drug. The application stated that the respondent would not accept insurance premiums if this question was not answered or was answered "Yes". The plaintiff's decedent responded "No" to this question, thereby claiming that he had never been arrested for the use or possession of any of the stated drugs, and the policy was issued. The plaintiff's decedent died of gunshot wounds within the two-year contestability period of the insurance policy. The respondent then learned that the plaintiff's decedent had been arrested and charged with knowingly and intentionally distributing and possessing cocaine before he filled out the application. The respondent then rescinded the policy, refunded the premiums paid, and refused to pay the life insurance proceeds.
"No misrepresentation shall be deemed material unless knowledge by the insurer of the facts misrepresented would have led to a refusal by the insurer to make such contract" (Insurance Law § 3105[b]. In order to evaluate the question of materiality and disclose relevant information, documentation such as the insurance company's underwriting manuals, rules or bulletins, which pertain to insuring similar risks, should be submitted. An underwriting staff consultant for the respondent stated that the life insurance policy would not have been issued if the plaintiff's decedent had truthfully answered the question and disclosed his criminal arrest record. The respondent, in its underwriting manual, also had a policy of declining to issue life insurance policies to individuals who were convicted of selling or distributing drugs or individuals that continually interacted with drug abusers, whether socially or occupationally. The issue of whether an applicant had ever been arrested for possession of illegal drugs was material to the respondent in making its determination of whether it would issue the insurance policy. Because the plaintiff's decedent did not truthfully answer the question and disclose his criminal arrest record, he made a material misrepresentation as a matter of law and summary judgment was properly granted.
The Court further held that the plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
DNA Can't Prove Possession
In court, we have witnesses swear to tell the truth, yet scientific evidence seems to be the new god of the courtroom. For example, the urban myth of fingerprints would have juries believing that fingerprint analysis constitutes some sort of scientific evidence that proves--beyond any reasonable doubt--any print "matching" a defendant's print means that the defendant possessed that item (be it drugs, a firearm, knife, whatever). For those of you willing to take a peak behind the veil, you'll find that fingerprint evidence is merely a sloppy statistical smoke screen whose "science" is monopolized by the law enforcement. (click on my article entitled Fingerprint Experts Shouldn't Make Claims They Can't Support for further fingerprint info). DNA has its own scientific problems, but today's topic is not my usual attack on how scientific evidence is used in our Florida courtrooms. Today we'll discuss how to work around seemingly damning DNA results. Let's take a look at a real life example of how a DNA match can still be a losing case.
In Miller v. State, 107 So.3d 498 (Fla. 2d 2013), Miller was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. As you might expect, this charge essentially requires that (1) Miller be a convicted felon, and (2) that he be in possession of a firearm. Now, we've had lengthy discussions of what "possession" means, so now is not the time to rehash that analysis. But, for brevity's sake, we know that possession comes in two flavors--actual or constructive. In Miller's case, the firearm was not found in his pocket or hand (actual possession), but rather, it was found in between a mattress in his apartment (constructive possession, meaning not in your hand or pockets).
↧
↧
Finding Sandra Coke
I never really thought about the victims.
As a lawyer representing death row inmates for almost 25 years, I focused on the trial – whether the
judge and jury acted properly, whether the prosecutor tried the case fairly, and whether defense counsel investigated and presented a
constitutionally adequate defense. Mostly, I focused on my clients – on the (mostly) men who were found guilty of committing terribly brutal
crimes, and tried to figure out and then explain to the courts the myriad of life circumstances that led them there. The victims and their loves
ones were generally not a central part of this story.
I have known many people convicted of murder and sentenced to death. I had never known anyone who was killed.
Sandra Coke and I worked together in the early 1990s. She developed the social histories of our clients, painstakingly gathering vital records, skillfully
conducting sensitive, uncomfortable interviews with relatives, teachers, and friends, consulting with mental health experts, and researching
communities. Sandra uncovered the evidence of horrific childhood trauma and impaired mental functioning, of family histories filled with abuse,
addiction and mental illness, of multi-generational experiences scarred by poverty and racism, of failed social institutions.
Sandra continued to work as an investigator, most recently at the Federal Defender’s Office. With empathy and compassion, she was
committed to showing how every client, no matter what despicable acts they had committed, were human beings – they were not monsters to
be despised and disposed of.
Sandra disappeared last Sunday evening. She was 50 years old. A single mother of a teenage girl. She was beloved by her family, by many
friends, and by the criminal defense community – my community – who have worked with her for over two decades.
After she failed to return home, Sandra’s friends, family and co-workers spent the next few days canvassing her Oakland neighborhood. At the forefront of the search was Sandra's sister, Tanya -- herself married to one of the most respected and revered death penalty lawyers in the country. In an unfamiliar role, criminal defense lawyers worked with law enforcement, searching for clues that would lead them to Sandra. Sandra’s car and cell phones were found. A man with an extremely violent past, recently released from prison, was arrested on a parole violation as a
person of interest. He and Sandra had dated briefly 20 years ago, and it was reported that they had been seen together on Sunday.
In the wake of these ominous signs, we still held out hope that Sandra would return to us. But on Friday, during the course of a massive search, a woman’s body was found near a park in Vacaville (about 45 miles from Sandra’s home). And then today (on Tuesday), the Oakland Police Department identified that body as Sandra's.
Sandra Coke, one of our own – someone from my professional family – has been killed by one of those people who we have long defended. Killed by someone who in any other circumstance I would ward off others’ attempts to demonize – to point out the humanity even in someone who acted inhumanely. “You can’t define someone by the worst thing they have ever done,” I would say.
It isn’t that I don’t still believe those things. I do. But that doesn’t matter right now. The perpetrator has receded into the background. I don’t care about his history or life struggles, his impairments or his vulnerabilities. But I don’t feel anger or hatred either. I don’t have feelings of vengeance. I don’t want him dead. I don’t feel anything for him at all. This isn’t about him. This is about the horror, shock, pain and overwhelming sadness over the irreplaceable loss of a remarkable person. For the first time in 25 years, my focus has shifted from perpetrator to victim.Please give generously to the Sandra Coke Fund, which will provide for the care and education of Sandra’s daughter.
↧
NY - UNITED STATES v. BRUNNER, Docket No. 11–2115
Original Article
Diigo Post Excerpt:
In June 2002, Brunner was found guilty by a general court-martial of carnal knowledge and sodomy of a child under 16, in violation of Articles 120 and 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Brunner was sentenced to 24 months' confinement, with 12 months suspended, and dishonorably discharged. New York State designated Brunner a level 2 sex offender, which required him to register as a sex offender in New York and to keep his registration current....
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
NY - Police charge 9-year-old with sex crimes
Original Article
This is pure insanity! What's next? Charging a 2-year-old toddler with a sex crime because they touched someone? We wouldn't doubt it.
08/13/2013
An unnamed 9-year-old boy from Depauville faces sex-crime charges, including a felony, in connection with an alleged incident involving a 7-year-old.
A state police investigator said that because of the boy’s age, he could not discuss specifics of the incident or give information about the boy, who was charged at 9:20...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
