Quantcast
Channel: Recent Criminal Law posts - Justia BlawgSearch.com
Viewing all 71824 articles
Browse latest View live

Veteran DC Police Officer Arrested for Child Pornography

0
0
A 7 year veteran Washington DC police officer was arrested yesterday after a report was filed that he took naked pictures of a 15 year old girl. Earlier in the month he girl had been reported as a runaway by her mother. The police officer who took the report was the same man who was arrested, Marc Washington. Washington's arrest was made after DC police indicated they found other photographs of allegedly under age females on his telephone. Police also interviewed the 15 year olds mother. Mom said officer Washington also took her call when she phoned the station to tell police her daughter was back home. After getting the mother's call Washington went to the caller's home and requested a private room take photos of the 15 year old. The allegations state that Washington requested the girl take off her shirt, pants and undergarments for identifying photographs. DC police sent internal affairs and crimes against children detectives out to effect the arrest of Washington. The arrest occurred without incident. As of the date of this article, Washington has not been formally charged. He will likely face charges of possession of child pornography, annoying or molesting children and possibly other charges. He will face potential prison time andlifetime registration as a sex offender. DC police Chief Cathy Lanier initially commented about the great deal of time and effort her department puts into the screening process when they hire police officers. I wonder if Chief Lanier was involved in hiring officer Washington? Maybe if she spent more time screening her officers and less time trying to cover her six bother her city and her department would be better off. If you have questions about sex crimes involving children or possession of child pornography, Call me: Attorney Jeffrey Vallens (818) 783-5700 or (888) 764-4340 or email me at: vallenslaw@yahoo.com Please visit my sites: www.4criminaldefense.co or www.drunkdrivingdefense.com

Two vehicle crash near Caldwell claims one

0
0
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer DO NOT REPLY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE District 3 Patrol 700 S. Stratford Dr., Meridian 83642 (208) 846-7550 Fax (208) 846-7520 For Immediate Release: 12/07/2013 3:13 pm Please direct questions to the District Office On Saturday December 7th 2013 at approximately 9:18 am, the Idaho State Police investigated a two-vehicle fatality crash on Interstate 84 at mile marker 30, near Caldwell. Janice Parma, 39, of Nampa was traveling westbound in a 2004 Nissan Exterra. Parma lost control of her vehicle due to the icy road conditions, and crossed the median into the eastbound lanes. Parma's vehicle was struck by a 2009 Peterbuilt semi-truck driven by Jazmine Reann, 40, of Nampa. Parma's passenger Norberto Parma, 47, of Nampa was ejected from the vehicle and died at the scene of the crash. Janice Parma was transported by ground ambulance to St Luke's Nampa. The crash is still under investigation. Next of kin has been notified. -------------

NFL Sunday Open Thread

0
0
Amato and Armando Show picks,(disagreements in BOLD): (A) New York Giants +3½, (J) San Diego Chargers -3½, (A) Minnesota Vikings +7, (J) Baltimore Ravens -7, (A) Pittsburgh Steelers -3½, (J) Miami Dolphins -3½, (A) Washington Redskins +3, (J) Kansas... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

I Was Charged With A Drug Crime But The Police Did Not Find Any Drugs. How Can The State Take Me To Trial?

0
0
The state may be prosecuting you on a conspiracy charge. With a conspiracy charge, the state does not have to prove you actually possessed any drugs. They have to prove you were involved in a scheme to sell drugs. An Albuquerque drug lawyer can help you in your case to get the best result possible. [...]

Speaking engagement for Chicago Bar Association

0
0
     On Wednesday, I will participate in a panel discussion at the Chicago Bar Association, 321 S. Plymouth Court, Chicago. The Career Advancement Program is directed towards young lawyers. It  is about "Practice Areas, Pros and Cons--Understand Where You Will Thrive." I will be speaking on criminal law.      I have always considered it an honor to participate in bar association programs [...]

This week's criminal law/procedure argument

0
0
Issue summary is from ScotusBlog, which also links to papers: White v. Woodall: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief on the trial court's failure to provide a no adverse inference instruction even though...

NFL WEEK 14

0
0
The survivor pool rolls on. Lurvey takes the Chiefs, Weisman picks the Ravens, and Rumpole has the Steelers. No word yet from Lucy Lew. Sorry for the quick post. Internet access issues on plane. Coming tomorrow: Race and Res. Site Feed

Why We Don't Have the Greatest System in the World

0
0
Anyone who has served on a jury has heard a speech from a judge about our criminal justice system is the greatest in the world because the citizens participate and act as finders of fact.  The judge doesn't distinguish our system from genocidal regimes in which the citizens participated and found facts (as in Nazi Germany or Rwanda).  Here's what you may not know about the jury system in our country.Jurors are told that they are the judges of the case, while his or her honor simply presides neutrally over the trial.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The jury only hears facts that the judge has predetermined that they can hear (much of the evidence is excluded from every criminal trial).  Sometimes this benefits the accused but more often the prosecution.The judge will further tell you that you can only judge facts as s/he will give the jurors the law which they have a duty to follow.  That is a blatant lie.  What the judge doesn't tell you is that while you may have a duty to follow the law as determined by the judge you have the right not to do so, particularly if you perceive the law to be unjust.Similarly juries are not allowed to consider punishment.  Punishment is the judge's domain.  That means ultimately the jury is not the judge of the case.  It is the judge.  In many trials if the jury knew how draconian the punishment is their decision about whether or not to apply the law would be affected (which is why they don't want you to know the punishment).The judge will also tell you that you have to evaluate the testimony of police officers in the same way as any other witness.  Then the cops come in one by one in full uniform with a gun conspicuously at their hip and give the official version of the case.  You can not help but be influenced by the pomp and circumstance of the officer's appearance.  So you will tend to believe a cop even if you really try to be neutral and you will say to yourself "something must have been done and badly done or we wouldn't be having a trial.This leads to the biggest joke of all which is that the defendant is not obligated to take the stand and the jury shall not take his/her silence as evidence of guilt.  In most criminal trials the accused does not take the stand and despite the instructions of the judge the jurors are affected by that.  I have never tried a case, win or lose, where jurors didn't say to me afterwards "why didn't we get to hear his/her side."These are a few reflections on our system.  This discussion is only the beginning.  It doesn't take into account racial bias, unrepresentative jury panels, capricious judges or prosecutors who lie.  When all this is taken into account I can think of a number of justice systems that work better than ours.  I am just not allowed to say that to the jury.Criminal law, what it is, how it's lived, a day in the life of a criminal attorney

Risk Level One...cont

0
0
A Westchester Criminal Lawyer said that, in support of the instant application, the defendant asserts that he is presently residing with his mother, who is providing him with a degree of supervision in the residence they share in the State of Connecticut. The defendant further relates that he is presently 46 years-of-age and is gainfully self-employed despite being a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair as a result of a thoracic spine injury he suffered following an automobile accident in 1998. In addition, the defendant testified that he is involved in a relationship with a woman who is aware of his conviction of the underlying offenses and has maintained an active relationship with his son who is 14 years-of-age and resides with his mother in the State of Massachusetts. Furthermore, consistent with the updated recommendation report provided to the Court by the Westchester County Department of Probation, the defense relates that the probation authorities supervising the defendant in the State of Connecticut report that the defendant is in compliance with his probation requirements and has completed a required sex offender treatment program. Based upon these assertions, the defense argues that the defendant presents a minimal risk of recidivism. A Westchester Sex Abuse Lawyer said that, upon the presentation of oral argument at the instant hearing, the People took the position that they do not object to the relief requested through the instant petition insofar as the defendant seeks the downward modification of his designation to that as a Risk Level One sex offender, however the People do object to the petition insofar as the defendant seeks to be relieved of his duty to comply with the registration obligations set forth under SORA. The issue in this case is whether defendant’s motion to seek the downward modification of his designation as a Level Two sex offender to that as a Level One sex offender should be granted. With respect to the consideration of the defendant's instant petition, it is instructive to identify the manner through which the designated level of notification is determined and the distinct differences between the three available levels of notification prior to addressing the merits of the instant application. In this regard, the sentencing court is required to determine the duration of a defendant's registration obligations upon application of the guidelines set forth in Correction Law §168-l(5), and to determine the appropriate level of notification upon consideration of the factors set forth in Correction Law §168-l(6). The Board developed the Risk Assessment Instrument (hereinafter, RAI) to serve as a computational table which is designed to enable the courts to make the required calculations for the purpose of determining the appropriate level of notification and duration of registration applicable to a sentenced defendant. The RAI allocates a point total to each of the statutory recidivism risk factors listed in Correction Law §168-l(5) and adds the total number of points allocated to a particular sex offender to reach a Total Risk Factor Score, which provides for one of three distinct levels of notification and registration requirements, identified as Level One, Level Two or Level Three. Each of these three classification levels provides for distinct notification and registration requirements. Pursuant to a Level One designation, the local police receive information from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter, Board) about a sex crimes offender residing in their jurisdiction, but are not authorized to provide community notification concerning the sex offender, although a caller to the "900" telephone hotline can obtain confirmation that an identifiable individual is known to be a sex offender. A Level One sex offender is also required to register annually for a period of 20 years with the Division of Criminal Justice Services (hereinafter, DCJS) by filing a written form and must advise DCJS of any change of address in writing at least ten days prior to such change. Pursuant to a Level Two designation, a sex offender is required to register annually with DCJS for life by filing a written form and any change in address must be reported to DCJS in writing and the local police may notify "entities with vulnerable populations" of a Level Two sex offender's identity, including photograph and approximate address, as well as background information about the crime including the manner of commission and type of victim, and any special conditions imposed by the sentencing court, probation department, or parole board, which may also be disseminated through the "900" telephone hotline. Pursuant to a Level Three designation, a sex offender must register in person with the local police department every ninety (90) days, and the duration of their registration obligations continues annually for life and any change in address must be reported to DCJS in writing ten (10) days prior to such change. The local police may disseminate all of the information available to them regarding a Level Three sex crime offender, in addition to their exact residential address. Furthermore, DCJS is required to distribute a subdirectory of all Level Three sex offenders to local police departments, where it is to be made available for public inspection. Turning to consider the merits of the instant petition, the Court will first address the defendant's application to be relieved of his duty to comply with his registration and verification obligations as a Level Two sex offender under SORA. Although the defendant asserts that this application is brought pursuant to Correction Law §168-o(2), this subdivision does not afford the defendant a procedural vehicle through which such relief may be sought as it only provides for the modification of the level of notification. Rather, an application brought by a designated Level Two sex offender seeking to be relieved of his continuing duty to register under SORA is governed exclusively by Correction Law §168-o(1), which, insofar as applicable here, provides that such an application cannot be brought until the designated Level Two sex offender has been registered for "a minimum period of thirty years". Accordingly, as the defendant has been a registered Level Two sex offender for a period of less than 6 years, Correction Law §168-o(1) precludes the Court from relieving him of his continuing duty to register under SORA until he has been so registered for an additional twenty-four year period. Based upon the foregoing, the defendant's application to be relieved of his duty to comply with his registration and verification obligations as a Level Two sex offender under SORA is denied. With respect to the defendant's demonstrated compliance with the terms of his probation supervision and mandated sex offender treatment programming, the Court finds that the defendant's compliance with such programming and the other terms of his probation supervision presents a compelling change in circumstances indicative of a diminished risk of repeat offense, as well as a diminished threat to the public safety. With respect to the defendant's efforts to maintain a caring relationship with his son and his involvement in a committed relationship with a woman who is aware of his conviction of the underlying crimes, the Court notes that the defendant seems to have benefitted from positive changes in his maintenance of inter-personal relationships, the Court finds that same presents a compelling change in circumstances which indicates that the defendant bears a diminished risk of repeat offense, as well as a diminished threat to the public safety. Finally, with respect to the defendant's claim that his supervised residential situation and his physical limitations diminish his risk of recidivism, the Court appreciates the devotion of the defendant's mother to his supervision and finds that the obvious physical limitations placed upon the defendant by his paraplegia presents a compelling basis which is sufficient to establish that the defendant bears a diminished risk of repeat offense, as well as a diminished threat to the public safety. Domestic violence was not involved. Accordingly, the court held that the instant petition seeking the modification of the defendant's designated risk level from a Level Two to a Level One pursuant to Correction Law §168-o(2) is granted.

IN - Police officer (Mark Rogers) charged in Fort Wayne with raping woman

0
0
Mark RogersOriginal Article 12/06/2013 FORT WAYNE - Prosecutors have filed rape charges against a Fort Wayne police officer, saying he attacked a woman he had arrested for drunken driving. Allen County prosecutors added the two counts of rape on Thursday to the charges against Officer Mark Rogers. He had first been charged in September sexual and official misconduct. The Journal Gazette reports the new charges allege Rogers stopped the woman and took her to a hospital for treatment because... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]

Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders

0
0
This is a proceeding wherein the defendant was charged under Indictment number 98027 with two counts of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree under PL § 130.65, a D violent felony, and Endangering the Welfare of a Child under PL § 260.10, an A misdemeanor. The defendant pled guilty on 23 January 1998, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement under count one to the lesser charge of Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree under PL § 130.60, an A misdemeanor, and under count three to Endangering the Welfare of a Child under PL § 260.10, an A misdemeanor, in satisfaction of the indictment. The Court notified the defendant on 11 May 1998, prior to sentence, that based upon his conviction for Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree and in accordance with the public notification and disclosure provisions of the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act. The Court intended at the time of sentence to certify the defendant as a sex offender as required by Correction Law § 168-d and to assign a risk assessment level of 3 to the defendant using override provision (iv) of the Risk Assessment Guidelines established by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders pursuant to Correction Law § 168-1(5). The defense counsel was given the opportunity to review the presentence report prepared by the Probation Department with an attached clinical assessment from Child Abuse Prevention Behavior Associates (hereinafter referred to as "CAP Behavior Associates"). The matter was adjourned until 20 May 1998 to allow the defendant and his counsel to "appear and be heard," as provided for by Correction Law § 168-d(3), regarding the risk assessment determination to be made by the Court at the time of sentence which was scheduled for 28 May 1998. The defendant argued on 20 May 1998 that the Court could not move forward with its risk assessment determination because there was no report provided to the Court by the Board of Examiners. The People opposed the application upon the ground that Correction Law § 168-d does not require a report to be prepared by the Board of Examiners since the defendant was to be sentenced by the Court to probation. The Court concurred, and the defendant's application was denied in its entirety. The defense counsel requested for an evidentiary hearing. He begs the question as to what procedures should be followed by this Court, pursuant to Correction Law § 168-d(3), to ensure that the defendant's rights to due process under the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution are not violated. The New York State Sex Offender Registration Act, SORA, Section 3 of Chapter 192 of the Laws of 1995, was passed on 25 July 1995 and became effective on 21 January 1996. The Act was modeled after New Jersey's "Megan's Law," named for seven-year old Megan Kanka, who was raped and murdered in 1994 by a twice-convicted sex offender who lived across the street from her home. The purpose of the Sex Offender Registration Act was regulatory as held in Doe v. Pataki. It required individuals convicted of certain listed sex offenses to register with law enforcement officials, and it authorized those officials to provide the public access to the identity, whereabouts, and background of registrants depending upon a risk level assigned to the sex offender. The legislative history of the Sex Offender Registration Act, cited by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Doe v. Pataki stated that "community notification promotes a state interest in advancing the protection of the public. The public is notified so that they can be the “eyes and ears” of law enforcement agencies. It will enable the public to notify the appropriate authorities if the sex offender violates any condition of the offender's parole or probation, which would enable the authorities to intervene when a releasee's behavior begins to pose a threat to community safety. This is extremely important given the high recidivism rate many of these offenders have and the lack of scientific evidence that proves treatment programs reduce sex offender recidivism. A notified community may prevent sex crime with greater attention and caution. The Act requires a sex offender, who is any person convicted of a "sexual offense" listed under Correction Law § 168-a(2) or "sexually violent offense" listed under Correction Law § 168-a(3), to register with the Division of Criminal Justice Services within ten calendar days after being discharged from incarceration, paroled under Correction Law § 168-f[1], or placed on probation under Correction Law § 168-d[2]. Sex offenders who were already on parole or probation as of the effective date of the Act were also required to register under Correction Law § 168-g[2]. To Be Cont....

'White paper' suggests systemic reforms to respond to mass forensic errrors

0
0
How should the criminal justice system respond when forensic errors or malfeasance occur on a large scale, affecting hundreds or even thousands of cases? Texas courts, prosecutors, defense counsel and crime labs already are struggling with these questions, and it appears the Texas Legislature may need to take up the issue when they re-convene in 2015. Late afternoon the day before Thanksgiving (Nov. 27), the Texas Forensic Science Commission and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' Criminal Justice Integrity Unit issued a little-noticed joint "white paper" (pdf) based on a stakeholder "roundtable" held earlier this year. (In the interest of full disclosure, your correspondent participated in that roundtable on behalf of the Innocence Project of Texas.) Suggestions in the white paper could have big implications for the justice system when large-scale forensic SNAFUs arise like the DPS-Houston crime lab fiasco where lab worker Jonathan Salvador was caught drylabbing evidence, casting doubt on a large number of convictions where he'd performed testing.Between the Salvador mess, the discrediting of dog-scent lineups and hair-and-fiber analyses, and scientific debunking of now-outdated arson indicators used to secure convictions for decades, in recent years Texas and indeed the entire, national criminal-justice system has had to come to grips with the fact that many past criminal convictions have been secured using what's now known to be junk science. The Texas Legislature passed a landmark statute in 2013 allowing habeas corpus relief in such cases, creating a vehicle for revisiting convictions based on bad science and overturning them if the conviction couldn't have been obtained without the faulty forensic testimony. But there are still no processes in place for identifying those old cases, notifying affected defendants, or creating a vehicle to ensure that meritorious cases actually get a chance to seek relief in the courts. Those are the issues about which this white paper offers some first, tentative suggestions, though there's still a long way to go to turn the ideas into a workable blueprint, much less a functioning, effective system.First things first, the paper confronts the issue of how to give effective notice of such errors to defendants in a way that would allow them to seek relief where appropriate. In the Jonathan Salvador case, in particular, "because so many different counties were affected, it was extremely challenging to determine whether affected defendants have received notification consistently, or whether notice varies from county to county depending upon local resources and other factors. It is also difficult to assess the extent to which prosecutors themselves understand the nature and scope of the forensic misconduct and potential ramifications." For example, despite advice to the contrary from the state prosecutors' association, the Fort Bend County District Attorney balked at notifying defendants whose cases were implicated in the Salvador SNAFU until finally cratering under media pressure.The white paper praised the Texas District and County Attorney Association for advocating on their website that prosecutors provide notice, but recognized "that TDCAA cannot force its membership to check its blog regularly or to follow its recommendations." Instead, participants in the roundtable "emphasized the importance of notice redundancy," noting that "making several layers of contact with various affected parties is critical."The paper also suggested that the lab identifying "nonconformance" should hold a "technical briefing" where stakeholders may ask questions ... so they may understand the scope of the problem accurately." But depending on the circumstances, the agency where the problems originated may or may not be the best source for a thorough, honest technical briefing. Grits would suggest that, at a minimum, representatives from the Forensic Science Commission should participate in such presentations so  labs won't gloss over important details in ways that minimize their own culpability. In the Salvador case, the DPS officials IMO behaved with great integrity and that wouldn't have been necessary. In other instances - as with dog-scent lineups performed by the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office - the agency promoting faulty forensics wouldn't have been nearly so forthcoming. And for hair and fiber analyses, there is no single agency implicated but an entire forensic field that's been called into question. I'm not sure how the white-paper briefing model would work in that sort of scenario.The white paper suggests the Forensic Science Commission should be responsible for notifying individual District Attorneys offices with affected cases, as well as notifying leadership at the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, the Texas Center for the Judiciary, the prosecutorial assistance unit at the Texas Attorney General, and regional presiding judges via the Office of Court Administration. (Right now the FSC has no statutory duty to perform those tasks but there's also nothing stopping them from doing so, resources permitting.) The paper also suggests the FSC "should consider establishing a centralized Internet-based repository accessible to everyone in the state with basic information on pending forensic complaints and disclosures, including a FAQ section and other guidance.All that, however, doesn't ensure defendants whose cases may be affected will be notified. The paper points out that "prosecutors have an obligation to make a good faith effort to contact defendants. However, they cannot track individuals beyond their last known address." That's definitely an issue, but Grits would suggest a few possible avenues for followup. For starters, when the address in prosecutors' files are outdated, the US Postal Service may have change-of-address information if anybody bothered to check. For that matter, commercial list brokers often have more and better updated information on addresses even than the post office, as any political consultant or professional marketer would tell you. For large-scale notification projects like the ones being discussed, following up with those sources would be well worth the cost, given the stakes involved.As for the content of such notifications, "prosecutors should provide a resource for defendants to inquire about any re-testing or potential writ process. This prevents prosecutors from being placed in the impossible position of advising defendants who contact their office with inquiries." That suggestion doesn't go as far as the advice from TDCAA regarding the Salvador scandal. They suggested that, for any defendant with viable habeas claims, prosecutors should "request that the court appoint an attorney to take the case through a writ process." TDCAA's advice represents a stronger, more pro-active approach than suggested in the white paper. Telling them to ask the courts to appoint an attorney to me makes more sense than vaguely telling DA's to "provide a resource."Which brings us to the question: Once defendants are notified, what happens then? For indigent defendants who originally had appointed counsel, the lawyer assigned to them on the front end has no continuing duty to assist them in filing habeas corpus writs after the fact, particularly if they're not being paid for it. (Plus, habeas corpus writs a relatively specialized field and most attorneys taking appointed cases wouldn't be competent to handle them.) It's at this stage in the process that legislative action would be required to implement the course of action outlined in the white paper, as well as rule changes by the state bar:The majority of stakeholders felt the Commission on Indigent Defense should be responsible for these cases by appointing attorneys on a temporary basis to address the claims. The Commission on Indigent Defense should work with the State Bar, TCDLA and Texas law schools to obtain effective and targeted representation where possible. The attorney group would be appointed only for the purposes of dealing with the forensic nonconformance at issue and would be disbanded when the cases have made their way through the appeals process. Absent a statewide solution, local counties should consider creating “consortiums” with their neighboring counties so that attorneys capable of handling appeals and writs may represent defendants in these cases across multiple counties. The Commission on Indigent Defense could in turn fund the local consortiums. Form pleadings should be created and distributed to help attorneys represent clients efficiently in these cases.If laws need to be changed to permit the Commission on Indigent Defense to fulfill this role, they should be changed during the next legislative session. The Governor’s office and/or the Attorney General’s office should be consulted regarding access to emergency funds for these cases.Finally, the State Bar should consider developing guidelines for professional responsibility in cases where a defense attorney who no longer represents a defendant receives notice from the prosecutor. Some further action should be taken by the attorney so the notice does not fall through the cracks.At the roundtable, "Stakeholders felt the Commission on Indigent Defense (in partnership with the State Bar) is the best organization to handle this. ... Absent their assistance, stakeholders will continue to rely on TCDLA, the Innocence Project of Texas and a county-by-county approach," which is "inefficient and creates unequal results depending on what county a person lives in." If a statewide solution through the TIDC cannot be crafted, counties should "make the effort to appoint one or two competent and experienced appellate attorneys depending on the volume to handle all affected cases through the writ process." In addition, "The State could consider amending the post-conviction writ rules to make these types of cases more streamlined for all parties," though the white paper offered no specific suggestions in that regard.This white paper made a good first stab at thinking through the problems surrounding how to respond large-scale forensic SNAFUs, but clearly there's much to be resolved and some of the suggestions would require legislative action and possibly clarification of prosecutor and defense attorney responsibilities through the State Bar. Some issues may crystallize to some extent when the Court of Criminal Appeals hands down its ruling in Ex Parte Coty, which is the key case parsing issues surrounding the Jonathan Salvador scandal (see Grits' coverage of oral arguments). But as yet, Texas is clearly on the front end of figuring out how to respond to large-scale problems with forensic science, even if in many respects we're far ahead of other states on the topic.Still, I'm glad to see state leaders thinking about these subjects in terms of systems and processes instead of slogging through it all on a case by case basis, which is how the courts typically handle such matters. That approach makes a lot more sense and, once systems are in place, will prevent a lot of headaches down the line as scientific advances continue to call into question forensic disciplines that are turning out to be less reliable than most everyone thought in years past.

Confession: Good for the soul, bad if you are arrested

0
0
Don’t confuse clearing one’s conscience with yourself and your maker with talking to the police. I wrote the book on it: CAN THE POLICE LIE TO ME? Yes….the US Supreme Court calls it “aggressive interrogation” but to normal folk it means lying. The police can promise you anything short of a walk to induce you to make a statement and the courts will consider it voluntary. “I’ll go easy on you”, “I’ll speak with the prosecutor for you…” “Tell me what you did or I’ll go hard on you”….all spoken by a cop to get you to make a so-called voluntary statement. Do not go there!! If you are the subject of a police investigation you have no duty to give any information that will be used to prosecute you in a criminal court. If the police are there to arrest you then you must go with them. Do not resist. Do not oppose them taking you in custody. You may have a bad night in the local jail, but any criminal defense lawyer can help you get a fair trial if you don’t make any statements to the police. Remember the mounted fish on my wall, the one that has the following brass sign below it, which reads: ‘IF I ONLY KEPT MY MOUTH SHUT I WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY”. When in doubt, if you have any questions: go to my FREE! App and download it to your smartphone, iPad, iPhone, or tablet…. The name of the free app is SAY NO TO POLICE. It’s easy to use, fun to read, and can inform you on most of the things that judges and cops know, but don’t want you to know!

News From Across the Pond

0
0
With cause, Gideon likes to quote this passage from Justice White's* opinion for a unanimous court in Coffin v. United States.Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the Emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, "a passionate man," seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, "Oh, illustrious Cæsar! if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?" to which Julian replied, "If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?" Rerum Gestarum, L. XVIII, c. 1.White relates that story as he's tracing the genesis and history of the presumption of innocence.  He goes on to cite Fortescue. Indeed, one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally." De Laudibus Legum Angliæ, Amos' translation, Cambridge, 1825.And then, of course.Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." 2 Bl. Com. c. 27, margin page 358, ad finem.These are bedrock principles of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Their heritage predates the republic, predates Blackstone, predates even the Emperor Julian.**Except, well, bedrock legal principles designed to protect the innocent have a way of turning into quicksand.  Oh, sure, our institutions pay verbal obeisance to the idea that it is more important that innocence be protected than that guilt be punished.  But for all you'll hear about reconciliation and forgiveness, and for all I imagine he'd deny it, in practice our system reflects the attitudes of Bill (hang-'em-high) Otis a whole lot more than it does the attitudes of Helen Prejean.  Consider that in poll after poll, some 60% or more of the population believes that some number of factually innocent people have been executed and that others will be but that some 60% or more of the population thinks we should have the death penalty anyway. Another of those supposedly bedoock principles is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (as amended).No person shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. That's the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.   It embodies, the Supreme Court tells us, three protections.A person can't be tried again for an offense after being found not guilty.A person can't be tried again for an offense after being found guilty.A person can't be punished for the same offense more than once. All that seems clear enough.  Alas, it bears little relation to what happens day to day in our courts.  Hell, the same Supreme Court that regularly identifies those protections routinely tells us that this or that one doesn't apply because, well, it doesn't.The simplest example is what they call the We Can Do Whatever We Want Dual Sovereignty Doctrine which says that the feds (or another state) can try and convict and punish you for a crime regardless of whether you were tried and acquitted or convicted and punished for the crime in state court.  But really there are a whole bunch of other circumstances in which a person can be tried more than once for the same crime.  Just ask Curtis Flowers who's on death row in Mississippi now following his sixth trial for the same offense (an offense, I should add, that he insists and has always insisted he did not commit). Anyway, the point is that we have this institutional idea about how a system should work and about the importance of innocence that says the government only gets one try and really does have to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt because the risk of some guilty person walking free is worth it to ensure that innocent people will not be convicted.  Of course, it doesn't work all that well as we know (if we're honest about it) that a hell of a lot of factually innocent people are convicted of crimes.*** And, sadly, we don't actually want it to work all that well.I mean, really, stop people on the street and ask if they'd be OK with some child molester going free if it meant that a few innocent but accused child molesters would also go free.  (Of course, you'd have to get past the initial reaction that nobody who's accused is in fact innocent.)  Check with Nancy Grace.Despite that, despite what they've done to Curtis Flowers, despite all the folks who actually did get tried twice or thrice or whatever even though the state didn't manage to prove them guilty and who did get punished multiple times for the same crime and who . . . .  Despite all that, we've got the limited but real protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause.  The key, the most solid protection of which, is that first one above, that if a person is found not guilty, he can't be tried again.  At least not of the same charges in the same jurisdiction.  The accused can appeal a guilty verdict.  The state can't appeal a not guilty.  And there's more.  The state can't (this is theory more than practice, but still) introduce evidence that the accused is a bad person in order to convince the jury that he must have done whatever.  Prior bad acts (which is what they're called in the legal biz) are admissible for many purposes, but not to show that if she did it before, she's surely likely to have done it this time.And if we didn't have those protections (however limited they really are), can you just imagine?Harbinder KhatkarActually, you don't have to imagine.  Just look across the pond.  That's where you'll find Harbinder Khatkar who's doing life (or at least 14 years - don't ask me, I don't practice law over there).  From The Guardian.A violent rapist has been jailed for life after a landmark legal ruling in which his original acquittal for the offence was quashed by the court of appeal.Harbinder Khatkar, from Derby, has been ordered to serve at least 14 years after being convicted of offences committed in December 2011 and February 2013.The 37-year-old attacked six women on 2 February this year - less than six weeks after a jury acquitted him of an earlier rape in which he forced his way into the victim's home.Following Khatkar's arrest for the later offences, the CPS successfully sought permission from judges to retry him by arguing that his subsequent crimes were so similar they amounted to new and compelling evidence of guilt.If it's so, Khatkar is a legitimately bad dude who's done a shitload of terrible things and continued to do them after he was acquitted.  But rather than try him for the new stuff (though I suppose they might have done that too), they just doubled down.Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Alison Levitt QC, principal legal adviser at the CPS, stressed that the "exceptional power" to quash acquittals had been used sparingly since its introduction eight years ago.Levitt said: "In 2005 the law was changed to allow what is called bad character evidence, which is evidence that somebody has done something so similar or of the same type of offence on another occasion."It's a very exceptional power."When something has gone wrong and the evidence is strong enough, as we said it was in this case, it is only right that we should use it."You know, there's this whole idea the Republicans (and especially the Tea Partiers) emphasize that the government can't be trusted.  Except, of course, when it comes to prosecuting people.  Then we can trust them. Never to abuse the power.  And never to make mistakes.If The Guardian story is right and they've tried this only rarely in Britain, well, good for them.  But we know what happens once a small breach occurs. Now that they see it works, they'll do it again.  And again.And all those folks who say that we should never look at foreign law will be lining up.Salivating.-------------------Edward Douglass White*No, not Whizzer White.  Associate Justice Edward Douglass White.  The, er, distinguished looking dude on the right.**You won't do better if you really want to trace it than to read Alexander Volokh's law review article, n Guilty Men. (H/t to Greenfield for pointing me to it a couple of years ago.)***I'm not just talking about the ones doing life or death for murders and sex offenses, though there are plenty of those.  I'm talking about the ones who plead guilty because the deal is too good to take a chance on trial and the ones who plead guilty because they've already served more than the maximum they could get but they couldn't bond out because they were too poor and the ones who . . . .

HI - Hawaii Researcher Studies Effects Of Child Pornography

0
0
Original Article We do not agree with this finding, but we are not experts either. This may be like when something is illegal, people want it, but when it's legal, people don't want it anymore? 12/01/2010 Says Porn Lowers Sex Abuse Of Children HONOLULU - A University of Hawaii researcher believes some form of child pornography could be beneficial, based on his findings from years of evidence. Pornography is easily accessible in America and accepted by millions, but it is a different story... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]

Washington Times: Sen. Rand Paul: Supreme Court needs to re-examine Fourth Amendment

0
0
Washington Times: Sen. Rand Paul: Supreme Court needs to re-examine Fourth Amendment by David Sherfinski: [...] Read more!

Four Connecticut Nursing Homes Fined by the Connecticut Department of Public Health

0
0
Four Connecticut Nursing Homes Fined by the Connecticut Department of Public Health The Connecticut Department of Public Health has fined for nursing homes more than $1000 each as a result of incidents involving residents who suffered broken bones, cuts, dehydration and dramatic weight loss. Maefair Healthcare Center of Trumbull was cited as a result of [...]

The Crime Report: Experts: American Cops Watching the Stop and Frisk Case in NY

0
0
The Crime Report: Experts: American Cops Watching the Stop and Frisk Case in NY: [...] Read more!

WaPo: FBI’s search for ‘Mo,’ suspect in bomb threats, highlights use of malware for surveillance

0
0
WaPo: FBI’s search for ‘Mo,’ suspect in bomb threats, highlights use of malware for surveillance by Craig Timberg and Ellen Nakashima: [...] Read more!

The Hill: Patriot Act author: Obama's intel czar should be prosecuted

0
0
The Hill: Patriot Act author: Obama's intel czar should be prosecuted: "Lying to Congress is a federal offense, and Clapper ought to be fired," says Sensenbrenner.
Viewing all 71824 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images