1:50: Gene Nichol, setting a modest tone for his address: “If George Bush taught us anything, it’s the importance of diminished expectations.” 1:52: Nichol won’t be measuring things, “The bigger I get, the less interested I get in measuring things.” Crack at law students, who are bad at measuring things. 1:54: “These are chilly times,” [...]
HLPROnline Symposium, Keynote Address: Lessons from Gideon and The Struggle for Access to Justice, by Gene Nichol
↧
↧
IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND UNREASONABLE DETENTION
To understand the Chunon Bailey case, one must begin with a basic understanding of two Supreme Court decisions: Michigan v. Summers and Terry v. Ohio. Summers was decided in 1981 and Terry in 1968. Summers deals with the detention of a suspect incident to the execution of a search warrant while Terry deals with investigatory detention supported by reasonable suspicion. Both cases essentially deal with the reach and protection of the Fourth Amendment; namely, that search and seizures are unreasonable unless based on probable cause. The Supreme Court has long pointed out that prerequisite probable cause has “roots that are deep in our history” which “represent[s] the accumulated wisdom of precedent and experience as to make the minimum justification necessary to make the kind of intrusion involved in an arrest ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment.”
↧
Panel 3: The Future of Law and Policy
2:20 — Jacqui Bowman of Greater Boston Legal Services kicks off the final panel of the day with a picture of a day at GBLS. 2:24 — Bowman: GBLS makes difficult choices between serving people in dire circumstances, gives example of choosing to represent one battered woman seeking a divorce but not another because the [...]
↧
SANCTIONS FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS IN OHIO CRIMINAL AND D.U.I./O.V.I. CASES
How are sanctions to be imposed for violations of Ohio's discovery rules? That question was the subject of a recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court. In a previous post, this blog described the changes to the rules for discovery (exchanging evidence) in Ohio criminal and D.U.I./O.V.I. cases. In a case decided a couple weeks ago, the Ohio Supreme Court interpreted the new discovery rules for the first time.
↧
San Diego Criminal Lawyer On Gangs
↧
↧
New York Times: Majority of Americans Now Support Decriminalization
Majority of Americans now favor decriminalization of marijuana. Read Charles Blow’s Op Ed http://nyti.ms/10Ei41r![]()
↧
Alexander on Yaffe on Attempts
Larry Alexander (University of San Diego School of Law) has posted Yaffe on Attempts (Legal Theory, 2014, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Gideon Yaffe’s Attempts is a masterfully executed philosophical investigation of what it means to attempt something...
↧
Drug Charges Involving Immigrants
Federal, State, and Local Drug LawsThough there is a longstanding federal strategy in place to combat the abuse and distribution of controlled substances, each state also has its own set of drug laws. One key difference between the two is that while the majority of federal drug convictions are obtained for trafficking, the majority of local and state arrests are made on charges of possession. Out of these state and local arrests, over half are for the possession of marijuana.Another difference between federal and state drug laws is the severity of consequences after a conviction. Federal drug charges generally carry harsher punishments and longer sentences. State arrests for simple possession (i.e. possession without intent to distribute the drug) tend to be charged as misdemeanors and usually involve probation, a short term in a local jail, or a fine -- depending on the criminal history and age of the person being charged.Controlled Substances and ImmigrationThe vast majority of all criminal cases involve drugs, and controlled substances cases are treated very harshly under immigration laws. Many different types of convictions in drug cases can trigger deportation, inadmissibility, and disqualification from eligibility for many different types of immigration benefits. The greatest care must be taken when a foreign national is arrested for any controlled substance offense.Immigration Consequences of Arrest or ConvictionThe immigration consequences of arrest or conviction depend on your present immigration status, as well as on your race, class, and country of origin. Under many circumstances, the result is expulsion from the United States, often with a permanent or lengthy (five years) restriction on re-entry. If you entered the United States without a visa or a visa waiver, your chances of being detained by the authorities and then sent home are high. You needn’t have committed any other crime, since being in the country illegally is itself grounds for expulsion.If you entered the United States legally, but your visa has expired, you are still at high risk of being expelled.If you entered the United States legally and your visa is still valid, then your immigration consequences depend on the type of visa, the outcome of the case, and the crime(s) of which you’re convicted. If you are merely here on a temporary visa, your risk of expulsion is higher. If you are a lawful permanent resident (have a green card), you have more legal maneuvers available, but you could be still be expelled even though you may have lived in the United States most of your life.If you are acquitted of the charge(s) against you, there is generally little impact on your immigration status. If you are convicted, then it is more likely that you will be expelled. (Note that if you are sentenced to incarceration, you will have to serve your time before you are sent out of the country.) There are three levels of crime, and convictions for the more serious crimes are obviously worse from an immigration standpoint.If convicted of a felony (a crime punishable by prison time), the risk of being expelled is high, especially if the offense involves drugs, firearms, violence, sex or dishonesty (like fraud). During a felony case, you should make sure your criminal defense lawyer works closely with an immigration lawyer who’s experienced in criminal issues. (source)West Palm Beach Immigration Criminal Defense AttorneyThe law firm of Andrew D. Stine, P.A. in West Palm Beach, is committed to representing legal and illegal immigrants facing criminal charges and possible deportation. We use our extensive experience in immigration criminal defense to protect the rights of immigrants charged with:Drug crimes DUIAssault Theft Animal cruelty Weapons charges And other crimes against morality Many crimes result in multiple criminal charges. If charged with drunk driving you may also receive a speeding ticket, a reckless endangerment charge or a manslaughter charge if someone was killed in an accident. You can remain in the United States with one criminal charge. If you have more than one, the possibility of deportation is high.At the law office of Andrew D. Stine, P.A., we take immigration criminal charges seriously. If you are an immigrant and are charged with a crime, contact our office today. We will seek to have your case dismissed (nolle prossed).We Immediately Start Working for YouThe most important thing in all immigration criminal cases is to act early. Our defense team uses pretrial intervention to prevent a case from going through trial. We negotiate with prosecutors for a reduced sentence and work out deals to have our clients enter programs and complete community service instead of serving time in jail. Being proactive in an immigration criminal case often makes the difference between deportation and remaining in the United States.Free consultation 24/7: Call West Palm Beach criminal defense lawyer Andrew D. Stine, P.A. at (561) 832-1170.Se habla español.Distributed by Viestly
↧
Making Babies Is a Tricky Business
With the extraordinary science that benefits childless couples and the growing popularity of reproductive technologies, the prediction from early naysayers that baby-making would create criminal, social and ethical problems can no longer be ignored. Public awareness of the foibles of procedures such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and anonymous sperm donation began with the [...]![]()
↧
↧
OK - Sex offenders make easy target for Okla. lawmakers
Original Article
04/06/2013
By SEAN MURPHY
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Oklahoman sex offenders who claim state laws make it practically impossible to return to productive lives are finding little...
[[ This is only a preview of the article, visit Sex Offender Issues for the full story ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
OR - Sex offender clinic getting heat from Portland neighborhood
Original Article
04/06/2013
PORTLAND - A clinic that treats sex offenders was forced to move at the end of last year, but now there's a push to force it out of its new location.
- Of course,...
[[ This is only a preview of the article, visit Sex Offender Issues for the full story ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
CA7 explains a Stone v. Powell denial of a "full and fair hearing"
While the trial court erred in determining the probable cause question, the appellate court did not. Any error that allegedly qualified as a denial of a full and fair hearing for Stone v. Powell purposes was corrected by the appellate court. this case is an interesting attempt at explaining the law on denial of a full and fair hearing. Monroe v. Davis, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6770 (7th Cir. April 4, 2013):
[...] Read more!
↧
Prom Season Sparks Fears About Underage Drinking And Driving
An especially busy time of the year for high school students is fast approaching. As the prom and graduation season draws near, law enforcement officials across the country and here in Minnesota are bracing for an increase in accidents and arrests related to young drivers who have consumed alcohol before getting behind the wheel. The [...]
↧
↧
Prom Season Sparks Fears About Underage Drinking And Driving
An especially busy time of the year for high school students is fast approaching. As the prom and graduation season draws near, law enforcement officials across the country and here in Minnesota are bracing for an increase in accidents and arrests related to young drivers who have consumed alcohol before getting behind the wheel. The [...]
↧
Gag order latest stumbling block on discovery reform
From Shannon Edmonds' weekly TDCAA legislative update,Discovery reform is still reforming. One thing that makes the Legislature entertaining is its unpredictability. For instance, the latest version of SB 1611 by Ellis (D-Houston) and Duncan (R-Lubbock), now titled “The Michael Morton Act,” was passed out of committee and sent to the Senate floor with an understanding that language protecting victim/witness information still needed to be settled upon. The problem is, that has not happened, but the bill is scheduled to be debated on the Senate floor on Monday anyway. That could lead to some fireworks on the Senate floor between the bill’s authors and Senator Joan Huffman (R-Houston), a former prosecutor and judge who is seeking to add her own language protecting that information from distribution to third parties or the public. We’d be lying if we told you we knew how it was all going to shake out, but if you need more information before you make a recommendation to your own senator(s), contact Rob Kepple for additional background. So I looked and, sure enough, as it came out of committee SB 1611 by Ellis on the Senate side has been placed on the intent calendar and includes provisions for a gag order that wasn't in the bill as filed:On a showing of good cause specific to the case, the court may enter an appropriate protective order that a specified disclosure be denied, restricted, or deferred or that the attorney representing the defendant is prohibited from distributing to a third party offense reports or witness statements received from the state. For purposes of this subsection, "good cause" includes the probable loss, destruction, or fabrication of evidence, the probable compromise of an investigation by law enforcement, or evidence of intimidation, a threat of harm, or danger to the safety of the victim or witness. In the case of a pro se defendant, if the court orders the state to produce and permit the inspection of the document, item, or information under this subsection, the state shall permit the pro se defendant to inspect and review the document, item, or information but, notwithstanding Subsection (a), is not required to allow electronic duplication of the document, item, or information.If Shannon's right, that language was a placeholder for language to be negotiated (that's how they roll in the Senate), but the parties never could come to an agreement. The bill carries the name, the Michael Morton Act, but one wonders if Morton would ever have been released if, when exculpatory evidence was discovered, his attorneys and supporters had been required to stay publicly mum about the evidence outside the confines of a Williamson County courtroom? How much sense does that make? The gag order provision seems a disservice to Morton and others sent to prison based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Why not just conduct criminal prosecutions in open court the way God and the Texas Constitution intended and let the chips fall where they may? Or, barring that, be sure to gag police and prosecutors from speaking publicly about evidence as well.
↧
CA4: One can't make a claim from how an entry occurred that happened to lead to a shooting death
Firing a Taser at somebody doesn’t make a constitutional violation without hitting him. The shooting of plaintiff’s decedent during a dynamic entry was entitled to qualified immunity. The planning session before the entry showed that the police considered alternatives. “The aim of the plan was to surprise and subdue Gandy before he could harm himself or others. There was nothing before the district court to suggest that Sergeant Pittman knew or should have known that the course of action he chose would in fact lead to the use of deadly force against Gandy. In sum, we conclude that this theory was properly rejected at the summary judgment stage.” Gandy v. Robey, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6817 (4th Cir. April 4, 2013).*
[Note: Twice I've seen files over SWAT team assaults on buildings. Both were rejected. One lead to a near mortal wounding when the sniper's target shot a hostage when the target wasn't killed because the bullet deflected going through a window. The other lead to the almost new house burning down from a teargas cannister left inside when the police never moved in to clear the house after firing it inside, and they weren't even sure the suspect was still there. It is almost impossible to make a case against a SWAT Team that is merely negligent, even if they were. In the examples above, the sniper wasn't negligent. In the second, who ever decided to fire in the teargas cannister, knowing it could burn down the house without intending to go in after it, was negligent. But negligence doesn't state a § 1983 claim.]
↧
LA Sheriff's Deputies Charged With Lying About An Arrest
After two Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputies were charged with the crime of filing false police reports after they lied about a drug arrest how come the same sheriff's department is conducting further investigation about the incident? The man arrested by the deputies has since been set free and the two deputies, Robert Lindsey and Charles Rodriguez have been releived of duty without pay. FYI, the without pay part does not sound good for these two. The two deputies were arrested Thursday, I assume by other sheriff's deputies, and booked in lieu of bail to be posted by each of them.
Apparently, before the original criminal defendant was about to go to trial, his defense attorney produced a video tape that contradicted the deputies reports. The tape was turned over to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the Sheriff's Department for "further investigation". According to the Associated Press, the two deputies and their lawyers could not be reached for comments.
If you have been wrongly arrested and/or charged with a crime you did not commit, call me:
Jeffrey Vallens (818) 783-5700 or (888) 764-4340 or email me at: vallenslaw@yahoo.com or visit me:
www.4criminaldefense.com or www.4drunkdrivingdefense.com
↧
↧
Separate bills, committees, contemplate different-themed revamps of Texas Penal Code
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off for a biennium. Apparently this is the week when Texas House committees will study whether to study the penal code to consider making recommendations for future changes by the 84th Legislature. On Thursday, the House Select Committee on Criminal Procedure Reform will hold what to my knowledge is its first meeting where Chair Debbie Riddle and her fellow committee members will hear pending legislation. Most of its work was expected to be performed in the interim, but on Thursday they'll hear HB 2804 by Toth relating "to the creation of a commission to review certain penal laws of this state." The main purpose of this commission would be to "make recommendations to the legislature regarding the repeal of laws that are identified as being unnecessary, unclear, duplicative, overly broad, or otherwise insufficient to serve the intended purpose of the law." So the goal here is to delete extraneous law - e.g., maybe we can live with only three instead of seven, 11, or 16 oyster crimes.Meanwhile, at its regular meeting on Tuesday, the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee will hear HB 990 by Rep. Senfronia Thompson relating to "the establishment of a sentencing policy, accountability and review council to develop means to assess the effect of sentencing practices and policies on state correctional resources and improve the efficiency of the state criminal justice system." "The purpose of the council is to develop means to promote a more balanced and cost-effective state criminal justice system," says the filed version of the bill. The commission under Chairwoman Thompson's legislation would "determine means by which to balance state and county criminal justice responsibilities with resources and devise an approach that would allow the state to balance sentencing policies with correctional resources." That's a much more ambitious project than just looking for oyster crimes to delete: A lot of politically potent stakeholders and mountains of money involved, if they dig into the subject seriously. (Personally, I've often thought counties should reimburse the state for incarceration costs of people they send to state prisons and that would resolve a lot of the present, perverse incentives that favor overcriminalization and overincarceration.)One notices the charge of Chairwoman Riddle's committee was to rewrite the Code of Criminal Procedure but Rep. Toth's bill relates primarily to the penal code. So does Thompson's bill, though it also speaks to broader state-local economic relationships underlying the current criminal justice terrain.To me, the penal-code reviews suggested by Reps Toth and Thompson don't seem like mutually exclusive projects. Except for the fact that the bills were assigned to different committees, one wonders why the functions of Toth's "commission" and Thompson's "council" couldn't be merged? If not in committee, maybe that will happen on the House floor. Perhaps those two should talk.
↧
Salt Lake City Marijuana Defense Lawyer | Utah Pot Laws
Marijuana charges are extremely common in Utah. Unlike some of the sister states here in the west like Colorado, Oregon, and California, Utah Pot Laws are extremely harsh. If you have been charged with a weed related offense in Utah, … Continue reading →
↧
Conservative Think Tank Supports Less Sex Offender Disclosure
4-7-2013 Texas:
Texas lawmakers have filed more than a dozen bills this session that augment or add restrictions to the behavior of registered sex offenders, of whom Texas now has over 72,000....
[[This,an article summary.Please visit my website for complete article, and more.]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
