Defending Those People

Awesome adbuster on Drug War

2007-08-02T00:22:00.000-04:00

How many rape allegations do cops need to face before they get canned?

2007-08-02T00:18:00.000-04:00

August 1, 2007
R.I. Police Officer Accused of Rape
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:39 p.m. ET
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A police officer was accused Wednesday of raping a 19-year-old woman at a deserted police substation, then showing up at a nearby home to handle the woman's complaint after she called 911, prosecutors said.
A grand jury indicted Providence patrolman Marcus Huffman, 37, on a single count of first-degree sexual assault, said Michael Healey, a spokesman for Attorney General Patrick Lynch.
Huffman allegedly met the woman while on duty March 18 at Platforms Dance Club near the city's harbor. The woman was turned away by the club's owner because she appeared intoxicated, and the officer offered her a ride home, Healey said.
Instead, Huffman allegedly drove her to a police substation that prosecutors believe was deserted and raped her inside, Healey said.
The woman later called 911 from a nearby relative's house, and Huffman was dispatched to the scene along with two other officers, Healey said. As the senior officer, Huffman handled the woman's complaint, he said.
''He later filed a report which we allege failed to include important facts, among which were any mention of the incident involving him and the victim,'' Healey said.
State Police detectives are still investigating the case. An arraignment is scheduled for Aug. 15, and Huffman will remain free until then, Healey said.
Huffman has been suspended without pay, police officials told WPRI-TV. His attorney did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
Earlier in his 13-year career on the police force, Huffman was accused of two sex crimes, but never convicted.
Months after joining the police department, prosecutors charged Huffman, then 25, with having sexual relations with a 10-year-old girl while he was 16 and 17. A Superior Court judge dismissed the charges, noting there was no evidence of coercion or force.
Minutes after that acquittal, prosecutors charged Huffman with trying to extort sex from a convicted prostitute while on duty. Prosecutors agreed to resubmit the case to another grand jury after obtaining evidence suggesting the purported victim was lying.
The second grand jury didn't press charges, and the case was dropped.
In 1998, a district court judge convicted Huffman of three misdemeanor counts of simple assault for putting the director of the Registry of Motor Vehicles in a headlock and attacking two other employees. He received a one-year suspended sentence.

After client consultation, contact police?

2007-08-02T00:13:00.000-04:00

Kan. Prosecutors to Seek Death Penalty
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 1, 2007

Filed at 5:11 p.m. ET

OLATHE, Kan. (AP) -- Prosecutors said Wednesday they plan to seek the death penalty for a man accused of kidnapping an 18-year-old woman from a store parking lot, then raping and strangling her.

Edwin R. Hall was indicted Tuesday on charges of kidnapping, rape, aggravated sodomy and capital murder in the slaying of Kelsey Smith in June, Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline said.

Hall, 26, is accused of abducting Smith on June 2 from the parking lot of a Target store in suburban Kansas City. Grainy surveillance video from the store showed Smith being confronted and pushed into her car.

Her body was found four days later in a park about 20 miles away in Missouri. Hall was interviewed and arrested June 6, after he saw himself on television in surveillance video and contacted a lawyer, who contacted police.

Hall pleaded not guilty to all charges at his arraignment Wednesday. His next court appearance was scheduled for Aug. 15. One of his attorneys, Carl Cornwell, said he had expected Kline to seek the death penalty.

The grand jury indictment replaced the same charges brought by Kline's office last month.

Smith's father, Greg Smith, said he and his wife have been pleased with the court proceedings so far.

''We are extremely appreciative of Mr. Kline honoring our daughter's memory, and we want to make sure this trial is a fair trial,'' Greg Smith said after Wednesday's hearing.

What attitude should PDs have towards victims/opposing counsel?

2007-06-11T23:34:00.000-04:00

Skelly has a great post that raises a good question. How should a defense attorney for the poor feel towards and treat a victim, their family, or opposing counsel? One view confrontational view is:

“When I’m on trial and we’re in a truly adversarial proceeding, I hate the mother of the victim. I hate the father of the victim, I hate the children of the victim. I hate every part of it. It’s actually a terrible thing, but I can literally hate them when I’m fighting. I have to.”

I have one source for an asnwer. The oath sworn by Florida bar members states in pertinent part:

"I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;"

There are times where a defense lawyer must be offensive to be effective, but there are also many instances where a lawyer is simply offensive and thus becomes less effective. Guess what, no matter how fantastic a lawyer you are, as a public defender, most of your clients are going to be guilty. Thus, being an arse during pretrial hearings or depositions (yes, we get automatic depositions here, another great reason to be a defense lawyer in Florida state court) can make it far more difficult to get the plea that you want and your client deserves.

Trials are different. There are fewer opportunities to compromise. But first, I'll admit that I'm always looking for a way to get what my client wants. If a client is more interested in a settlement and a safe plea, then this could happen at any time up to and even after the jury verdict has come back! I mean, if you create some great appellate issues, you may want to approach the state and suggest an amenable resolution that will save the need for an appeal and the uncertainty that brings to both sides. This includes the recognition that the state may be very interested in closure for their victim or the victim's family, something a defense attorney can often be instrumental in bringing about. If obstructionism and closure is the only tool in our arsenal, why fritter away this opportunity to serve the client's needs by being unduly unpleasant?

When is it time to treat a victim or their family offensively? Well, when they come into court and lie on your client they become fair game. Same for any cops who do the same. Gently taking them downa notch is always an effective way to get a jury to reasonable doubt. If the key witnesses are incredible, you've got some great arguments.

A problem comes when a defense lawyer demonstrates excessive vitriol. Put forth enough energy to demonstrate your displeasure, but why hate? Hate is an evil word. Hate and revenge are natural feelings that people have but they are quite often what you want the jurors to suppress and ignore. My view is that if you get in a hate-off with the government and a wronged victim and/or the victim's family, your client loses. Our clients are rarely sympathetic. Sure, when I get an ex-military or otherwise really sympathetic client, I use that, but more often our clients are pretty down on the food chain. Jurors will far more easily sympathize with, say the person whose home or car was burglarized than a drug addict who needed a fix.

I love this quote from Skelly:

"Everyone, even the guilty criminal--especially the guilty criminal!--needs a companion, a friend, someone to stand with him and for him..." The defense lawyer's job is to force the system to acknowledge that the defendant is not just a social misfit, or a statistic, or a criminal, but a human being with hopes and dreams and fears. A human being who, like any of us, stands in need of repentance and redemption.. The question for the Christian lawyer is not, 'How can you work to get a guilty person off?' The real question is, 'Will you stand by this person, this flawed and sinful human being, and speak a word on his behalf?'" - Joseph G. Allegretti,The Lawyer's Calling

How can one show the humanity of a client and ask for the benefit of the doubt by denying the humanity of a person who was victimized by crime? Certainly liars do not deserve any sympathy from us, but treating liars with respect in exposing their lies is a good idea, I'd say, except and until the witness requires a forceful reaction.

I have no problem shedding a witness, but you usually do it with gentle questions and save the strong arguments for closing (after setting these issues up by getting them from the juror's mouths during voir dire and reminding them of what they'll see in opening statements). People who think that an attorney's consistently angry demeanor or clear dislike of the victim will win cases has obviously watched too much Law and Order and taken the wrong lessons. The lesson is that if you are perceived as the slimy defense lawyer with no concern for the humanity of the victim or their family, why should the jurors care about your client? To be persuasive, you want to be the most reasonable person in the room. A reasonable person recognizes the anger a person would feel from having their family member murdered, for example.

The point about focusing your sympathy on the client is well-taken. One can never focus on the sadness everyone can feel for sympathetic victims. Everyone should be able to feel sorry for families of murder victims, people who've been sexually abused, or people who've had things stolen or been physically attacked. But that feeling cannot dominate. One must feel most sympathetic for the client and their situation.

Too many defense lawyers for the poor get burned out. Then the lawyer gets fixated on how horrible their clients are for the things they do. And then instead of wanting to take responsiblity, the clients have the terminity to demand things like meeting with their lawyer! My attitude there is that, when necessary, a lawyer needs to gain the trust of the client and help them take responsiblity.

If the client doesn't want to take responsiblity after you've fully educated them, then fight along with them as much as you ethically can! Many clients just want someone to say that they believe in them, then all they want is a plea and the least jail time. If that's what they want, that's what you need to try and get for them. A client is a person whose view is to be respected, not a tool to use against the state or the judge to try and clog up the system. If the client wants to take that role and fight, good for them, but not at my behest.

After listening enough, the client will understand when you explain why, for example, they are likely to lose (if they are). If they still trust your advice and insist that they didn't do it or can't take this plea for X or Y reason, then you've got that red light to go to trial. Then break out the war paint. But you should always remember the teachings of Sun Tzu: "One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful." Don't fight unless you have to, and if you do fight, fight in a way that the enemy (the victim, victim's family, the government) will not be angry at your scorched earth tactics, unless they are absolutely necessary.

Helping children before I need to help them

2007-05-28T21:42:00.000-04:00

I've often represented children accused of crimes that will make the delinquent, or worse, adult felons. These are never happy times. Children that face criminal or deliquency accusations usually have had difficult lives. Most people will face a time when they face adversity and must make really tough decisions. Naturally, dispute resolution and coping skills are often lacking in my clients. This leads to many difficulties in trying to help them make good decisions. Often, those are the exact areas in which they lack skills.

What do I often wish for these kids (and even some of the adults I see?). I wish that they got the same opportunities that we all need for a proper education. As I've often claimed, not only is this a more compassionate way to handle our nation's children, it is also cost effective:

Recent developments in neuroscience have shown that the early years are vital to cognitive development, which in turn is important to subsequent success and productivity in school, life, and work. Early-childhood nurturing has traditionally been the province of families. But families are deteriorating.
Roughly one in six kids was born into poverty or single parenthood or both in 1970. In 2000, the rate was about one in four. What's more, almost 10 percent of children were born to unmarried teenage mothers in 1999; these kids tend to receive especially low levels of emotional and intellectual support and cognitive stimulation. They arrive at kindergarten cognitively disadvantaged, and the gap widens as they get older, eventually leading to early babies, lousy jobs, and elevated crime.

I am generally against government intervention, but it is important here. How many times have I seen children without support? I will always speak to parents about their kids case. It is only rarely that I speak to a parent or a child about their parents and think that their child really gets all the support they need.

I do not want to attack single parents, but a single woman cannot provide a male role model nor can she easily find one, it seems. Further, a single parent can show a child why escaping a bad relationship is required, but they cannot show how a good relationship should work because of the simple fact that they don't have a good one!

Common sense says that it is easier to do things together with a partner than alone and given that the government has taken away the parents of so many children I represent by imprisoning them, the next best thing to giving them back a parent is to help these children out with education so they don't fall into the same traps of their parents. And this god awful government policy of discouraging frank talk about birth control really chaps my hide. The people who are not willing to step-in and adopt the child born by an uneducated poor girl who is taken advantage of or simply makes a bad decision and has unprotected sex need to step back and let people who care about our society help prevent these tragic circumstances from occurring.

Long time no post

2007-05-15T20:56:00.000-04:00

Sorry, been busy with stuff. You know how that goes, defending poor clients when you could really get along a lot easier if you had 1/4 the caseload.

Cato has a good map Botched Paramilitary Police Raids: An Epidemic of "Isolated Incidents".

And I have to continue my trend of posting about the U.S. Attorney debacle, starting with the N.Y. Times article about the Monica problem. Colleagues Cite Partisan Focus by Justice Official:

Ms. [Monica] Goodling also moved to block the hiring of prosecutors with résumés
that suggested they might be Democrats, even though they were seeking posts that
were supposed to be nonpartisan, two department officials said. And she helped
maintain lists of all the United States attorneys that graded their loyalty to
the Bush administration, including work on past political campaigns, and noted
if they were members of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

That's sad, but not as sad as this:

Ms. Goodling complained that staff members in Puerto Rico had used rap music in
a public service announcement intended to discourage gun crime.
“That is just
outrageous,” she told one department lawyer. “How could they use government
money for an ad that featured rap music? That kind of music glorifies violence.”

Has she seen the Reno 911 fake ads? I bet the US Attorney ads in Puerto Rico were about as sad, yet she's still upset!

This TalkLeft piece further solidified how slimy these hacks are. They kicked a guy out of his career so they could make room for a political appointee despite his desire to try a final case about a murder of a woman and kidnapping of her fetus? That shows how much 'respect for life' the administration has, nothing compares to the pursuit and consolidation of power.

Gonzales has got to go

2007-03-30T20:42:00.000-04:00

This is amazing:

The former aide, D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned two weeks ago, told the Senate
Judiciary Committee that Mr. Gonzales’s statements about the prosecutors’
dismissals were inaccurate and that the attorney general had been repeatedly
advised of the planning for them.

He's gonna be gone soon, I bet. The AG has the same attitude as NYPD with their ignorant spying on "members of street theater companies, church groups and antiwar organizations, as well as environmentalists and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies." Seriously, how dumb is the government agency that thinks that antiwar organizations, environmentalists, and death penalty opponents are going to do anything other than civil disobediance?

What else, besides Gonzales' tenure, has got to go? The drug war's battle on prescription issuing doctors. After all, did you see that study saying Alcohol, Tobacco Worse Than Drugs.

Firing U.S. Attorneys

2007-03-21T23:30:00.000-04:00

The following editorial from Adam Cohen of the N.Y. Times is very apropos:

The Bush administration has done a terrible job of explaining its decision to fire eight United States attorneys. Story after story has proved to be untrue: that the prosecutors who were fired were poor performers; that the White House was not involved in the purge. But the administration has been strangely successful in pushing its message that the scandal is at worst a political misdeed, not a criminal matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html

Seriously, if our politicians are lying about this, criminal charges may be appropriate. I'm not saying that anybody deserves to go to prison or anything, but there should be some ramifications. Clinton got disbarred for his attempted artful deception about his affair with a young intern that was unrelated to his actual performance in office, if the GOP has liars impugning the credibility of their own faithful republicans who fail to follow the party line, something has got to give.

David Iglesias' op-ed also in the Times starkly lays out how mendacious the White House and its lackeys at the DOJ has been:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html

At the least, Sen. Domenici and Rep. Wilson need to lose their next election for such a shameless attempt to manipulate a career-prosecutor into bringing a criminal case for political game. That sort of thing is expected only in other countries that lack the rule of law, but not in America.

Work not hard enough? Become a PD!

2007-03-06T22:21:00.000-05:00

Time to vent with complaints. Why is it that there are never enough hours in the day? There is always more work to be done. I guess I have it better than most, but I dislike feeling like I have so much more to do. Some others take it just as hard or harder, but some people seem to not care. It is not just the most sympathetic clients I want to work hard for. I mean, they are just gravy. It is even the difficult clients who appear pretty guilty but require repeated explanation. Those are the ones who take more time, or at least more effort and patience, than I seem to have.

How should I decide who gets help in what proportion? I have far more work than I can do, but why should I get to decide? Clients who really don't have the money always ask, should I hire a private? Of course hire an attorney. But they really can't, they're just worried about whether I will help them, or be like the lazy/overworked PDs they've been screwed by. But if you don't have enough money, I know, you'll get worse represenation from an attorney with less real courtroom experience. Of course, private lawyers are far more expert at collecting money and then withdrawing as soon as the client refuses to take a plea - something I find repugnant, perhaps in part because I'm jealous that I can't similarly force my clients to take a plea when going to trial is just going to put them deeper in trouble.

But the worst is this: what do you do when the client doesn't want to go to trial (because they know they're screwed) but they don't want the plea options available. Do I look like I have magic beans? Even if I did, would I use them to cut a repeat felons prison time in half like they desire? Well, I probably would, even for the really difficult clients, or maybe especially for them, because it would make my job so much easier ;-)

Political prosecutions

2007-03-06T22:16:00.000-05:00

I have been disgusted, but not terribly surprised, by this story: Ex-Prosecutors Tell of Pressures From Lawmakers. Allowing the executive branch of either party, but particularly the very corrupt as-of-late GOP, the unfettered ability to dismiss and reassign head federal prosecutors is a situation rife for abuse. The appearance of impropriety is vast, but it appears there has been more than that. We've had direct pressure from politicians for prosecutors to act, or lose their jobs. In terms of damage to our society, this sort of corruption, more so than the recent Libby conviction, crys out for punishment. I'm never one to advocate imprisonment, but a term of probation and a loss of political office for all those involved should be required. Of course, who is able to prosecute those who manipulate the prosecutors? Sadly, it should be left to the voters to strike the only blow for justice by punishing the GOP in the next election, thereby giving the Dems a chance to screw things up so they can get thrown out again, methinks.

Ethical Posting and more!

2007-02-21T00:29:00.000-05:00

I saw a PD Stuff post about a Capital Defense Weekly post on ethical blogging. The CDW author's conclusion:

After spending a few hours researching on a Saturday afternoon I end up in the same place I ended up when I last looked at this issue before going public almost a decade ago in launching the web site that would become CDW. I will:
(A) continue to disclose my involvement in cases covered save for where it
will potentially harm the client’s interest;
(B) use a general notice listed in the disclaimer section that the decision in a client’s or former client’s case may be discussed without a specific warning;
(C) continue to refrain from discussing cases in which I have been involved save for decisions and information from public sources;
(D) where I have “inside” knowledge I will use only publicly available sources; &
(E) where a decision negatively impacts on a current or former client’s case I am free to discuss that decision.

I don't disagree with Karl Keys' conclusion for him, but I must humbly disagree with the proper approach for myself. I represent poor people who have no choice in their selection of me. I try to keep them happy with their decision, thus I don't think that I should ever write anything identifiable about any client without express permission. Further, because of my unique position of power, given that they really can't fire me, I wouldn't feel that anything other than an unsolicited appeal by a client for me to publicize their plight would qualify as a free and voluntary waiver of the priviledge of confidentiality I owe them about their case, including any public facts. After all, I argue about the coercive effects of government action, so how hypocritical would I be if I even suggested that my 'request' to a client for permission to write about their case would elicit a truly voluntary, intelligent, and uncoerced decision for such permission? Just my two cents.

I also want to point out a great editorial (hat tip to Radley) about an egregious abuse of trust by police. This editorial hits the nail on the head. Doesn't the state say that they punishment for criminals is deserved because so much crime goes uncovered or unpunished? Yet when a police officer is actually caught using such egregious force (as in the Pensacola police officers who repeatedly tasered people for no reason or made a teen girl do naked jumping jacks), they get off with a slap on the wrist despite the fact that they've probably been getting away with abusing their power for far longer. This can even end up with people being killed, like in Washington, D.C. by that off-kilter cop. I don't think that officers who get caught should necessarily be treated worse than your average citizen, but they deserve to be treated at least as bad as one would. Any other option breeds contempt for the law by suggesting that law enforcement is above the law.

But I can't be all negative. In fact, I prefer to be positive. After all, learning from everyone is a good idea. And I mean learning from the positive people and the negative people. It is great to embrace the diversity of life, not to shun conflict but to embrace and understand it. There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch. Seriously, I dislike people who are negative and intolerant, but you really can learn from those people. Further, it is a real achievement to make these people open up and be happy. Such a feat is much more rewarding than, for example, keeping the unusually happy person happy (which isn't much of a challenge).

Losing idealism, gaining perspective

2007-02-10T18:38:00.000-05:00

How much cynicism is too much? When does it become time to leave? I don't feel like I'm there, but I definitely think that all work and no play makes me dull, and dulls my edge of idealism. How much can I help others if I'm tired of 12-hour days?

Thankfully I work with wonderful people. They keep me energized. But I do certainly understand, more so than I used to, how people get burned out. And I see how it can be an echo chamber. If you are not positive, the more clients who'll get all negative at you. Maybe it just comes with dealing with difficult clients day in, day out. And there are so many, so many facing prison!

I guess the positive is that I don't take things personally anymore. I don't personally blame the prosecutor/judge who is unable to listen to anything that runs contrary to the preconcieved notions that everyone before them is guilty. I just try to work and slow them down a little bit. Maybe that's my role, being a speed bump, making it harder for them to put people in prison simply so that they decide when and where to focus their resources. After all, there are people I represent that I can understand it when they go to prison. I may not agree with it, particularly the victims of the drug war. I mean, c'mon, we can't reduce drug use and reduce harm with our current drug war policies, we're actually making them worse!

So, last point, read these Ten Commandments stolen from Audacity.

Low point for any PD: Telling your client to lie or lying about doing so

2007-01-21T00:43:00.000-05:00

I agree with Rumpy on his take on the whole Art Koch:

The attorney for the man sent to Death Row for raping and killing 9-year-old Jimmy Ryce more than a decade ago is expected to testify next week that he told his client to lie on the stand because he was on medication and ''disoriented'' during the trial.

There are few things more reprehensible than when someone from such a necessary but disrespected and trod upon profession go and act like the cliche. I find Koch's actions as offensive as cops should find when other cops go and break the laws and violate people's rights. It goes against all that we stand for and breeds contempt for the justice process.

This could all be a ploy. Maybe Koch is just trying to get Chavez a new trial. Given that I have no expectation that what a person says is true, especially someone like Koch whose basically saying that he's a liar and thus is instantly suspect (I don't buy the whole 'but I'm coming clean so you must believe me BS). But even if you philosophically disagree with the death penalty, it is hard to fathom how deep a person must be committed to its abolition to try and win Chavez a new trial, only prolonging the inevitable. They found the decedent's backpack in his home and he led police to where the boy was living. Either the police illegally obtained that confession or he's going to die (unless the jury can be convinced of mitigating factors)! What court wants to suppress that (we all know about that 'Christian Burial Speech' case with the facade of inevitable discovery being given the official imprimatuer by the Supremes)?

I don't doubt that another person could have killed the decedent and Chavez could have been framed or set-up, but still, two wrongs (or three, the killing was first, then the framing was second) don't make lying as a lawyer or getting your client to lie right!

Thoughts about the law

2007-01-18T18:51:00.000-05:00

Do police make mistakes? Sure, as Radley pointed out, some serious ones, like roughly arresting the wrong people. A $100,000 payout for what these guys went through? This is why PD work is so important, many times these innocent people don't have great evidence in their favor so it comes down to our skills to protect their rights.

Did you know that Gonzales was less than truthful, hmm, surprise surprise!

OK, we all now know that Rehnquist was a drug addict. But did you hear that he was racist. You see this from Brennan's recollection:

"In conference, as the case history notes, the justices squared off to their familiar positions: Brennan believed the Constitution extended equal protection to all people, including children of illegal immigrants. Marshall sided with him. Burger confusingly compared the right to an education with the right to receive welfare ("as if that was the issue," Brennan's history of the case notes grumpily), but White joined the chief justice. Blackmun and Powell joined Brennan's side. The most startling remarks, however, came from Rehnquist. He emphasized that many of the children demanding an education were not 5 or 6 years old but, rather, those who'd come to the country on their own. At conference Rehnquist referred to those illegal immigrants, shockingly, as 'wetbacks.

This is the same type of attitude thatcomes up with this ignorant opinion where a court says that a person never had a ripe time to file their appeal, taking the whole idea of limiting access to the courts to its natural extension.

Talking about judges, I'll point out a good one, Circuit Court Judge Julian Bush. What a great ruling. I mean, c'mon, when I see prosecutors trying to give people all this prison for possession of small amounts of cocaine I wish I had Judges like Bush. The dude has a drug abuse problem, if that's all they've done, they don't deserve to be hammered.

Runner-up in PD Blog awards!

2007-01-10T23:05:00.000-05:00

Yah, I picked a good title for my blog!

Of course, Injustice Anywhere deserved to win because I think she inspired my title! And, her title is appropriate given that now she's moved already. She really is fighting injustice ... anywhere!

Louis CK makes child abuse funny

2007-01-10T22:30:00.000-05:00

OK, I was watching the most recent Daily Show with Jon Stewart after a long break. It was hilarious. From the New Jersey smell story and the fearmongering by the media, to the politicians who bungled Iraq (and the stupid media who cover them), to the politician who proposed that we put armor plates in student's textbooks to prevent school violence. It was all good. In particular, I enjoyed watching the DEA agent shoot himself while proclaiming that only he was good enough to handle his gun safely.

But the best part was Louis CK. And he made me laugh most on this joke, which Jon kept trying to stop him on. Louis was bagging on his man boobs, then Dick Clark for his stroke face, but then he got to his family life and X-Mas.

This joke basically went:

One of my daughters forgot how to sleep. When she had stopped sleeping and that really disturbed us all.

I understand things that I used to not understand. Like the whole babies in the garbage thing.

I totally get that now, I totally get it. (Jon tries to drag him off stage)

I'm just saying, I used to see them on TV and now I go, sure you do, I understand.

I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't throw my daugther in the garbage. (Jon tries again to drag him off stage). Because she's four, she'd just crawl out and follow me home. Nothng would be accomplished.

I am amazed that anybody can make me laugh about horrible things I have to deal with when my clients do them. It truly is, as Twain wrote: "Everything human is pathetic. The secret source of Humor itself is not joy but sorrow. There is no humor in heaven."

Thanksgiving for getting thanks for the holidays

2007-01-06T14:05:00.000-05:00

When it comes to decide whether to post or do needed work for my clients, I always go with the latter. Oh well. I must admit that the main reason I created this site was so I had a place to gather the links for all the sites that I enjoy reading when I need a break from work! That is always a real pick-me-up, great motivation when I am tired. Plus, I guess I do like a venue for posting various thoughts I have about work or other things. Like now.

Two of the best presents I got this year were not big ticket items, but were very simple. I got two letters, one just a thank you letter, and one was an actual Christmas card. The letter was from a recent client, very smart, who I helped get a much better result for despite tough odds and facing many difficulties. It was well-written and heartened me a great deal.

Second, beyond any other card I got, the card from a really old meant a lot. Mentally ill clients are tough to help. So are homeless clients. So are much older clients. This client was all three. That case was a long and winding road. The client was obviously thankful to be listened to and assisted, but to have this client remember what an impact our office had was a great feeling. That case had been months since it had been dismissed.

Neither of these clients were perfectly happy with the results. It could have gone faster and better for both. But the main thing was that I spent a little extra time than most attorneys would have with each of them. They recognized that and thanked me. I don't expect that, and don't get it from some clients, but it is great when it comes. Overall, I get lots of thanks (I almost always get hugs after I win a trial and I even got some hugs yesterday just for getting a case dismissed!). This sort of thing really helps me be motivated to do the work that I need to do, even when it seems as if I have no time to do things like live life because of all the people that are begging for my counsel and assistance.

The main difference between being a private attorney is the ability to hold your clients' hands. I always try to do my best, but I just don't have time to do what I'd always do if I could charge $250 an hour for listening and limit the amount of clients I accepted. But what I find most astounding is that most clients, all but the very wealth, get no hand holding. Some clients, especially those on the borderline of finances, get bare bones representation from private attorneys who don't explain anything or even meet with their clients besides to deceive them into giving them more money. Not that all PDs are perfect: some are so burnt out that they are no help to anyone, but there are problems all over. I can't take care of all of them, all I can do is complain about the worst flaws I see and do my best with the clients I have.

Now I have to come up with some new year's resolutions. Maybe posting at least once a week?

Good post by Rumpole

2006-12-27T02:15:00.000-05:00

First, I wanted to excerpt this post by Rumpy saying bye to Judge Young:

Judge Young could always see the good in almost anybody who appeared before him. That is not to say he was not a tough sentencer. He was, where the facts of the case called for it. But he was also the type of Judge who understood, because he was a former prosecutor, that there was more to any particular case then an arrest report and an allegation.

We have oft decried the devaluation of a criminal case. What we mean is that there is a qualitative difference between the burglary charge where a stranger breaks into a house, and an estranged husband who gets arrested when he returns home to pick up some items and gets into another fight. However the Husband may well plead to CTS to get out of jail rather than fight the charges. If either of those two people were to get re-arrested, Judge Young was the type of Judge who you could get to look beyond the priors, and into the facts of the case, to really see who your client was.

This is a trait sadly missing in many of our current Judges.

The “its not my job” philosophy has taken hold. Judges know that hundreds if not thousands of people plead guilty every year to charges that are not supported by the facts of the case, just to get out of jail. There isn’t a judge in the REGJB who doesn’t know that. Yet, many of them will turn a blind eye to that fact when it comes time to evaluate a defendant, for either bond, or an appropriate sentence.

What we are trying to say is that Judge Young understood the practicalities of the system; the good and the bad. He was not afraid to make the tough call either way. And in the end, whether you liked his decision or didn’t agree with it, you would have to agree that Judge Young did what he believed was the right thing to do, not the easy thing to do.

This also reminds me of a good article in Slate blasting Durham, N.C., District Attorney Mike Nifong:

Prosecutors don't have an obligation to take a professed victim's accusations to a jury. They have an obligation to listen to her story, test it against the other evidence, and then decide whether to move ahead. This is the root of prosecutorial discretion. Victims don't decide when to press charges in criminal cases. District attorneys do. And much of the time, that means a victim's accusation doesn't get anywhere near a courtroom. This makes prosecutorial discretion an alarming sort of power. Prosecutors do their most important work outside of public view and are free to make decisions that they never have to explain. That's one reason they're either elected or appointed by a governor or the president—we don't give this authority to officials who simply move up the bureaucratic ladder. More to the point, the discretion they exercise is necessary. Courts don't have the resources to sort through every allegation. And they shouldn't have to, given the damage criminal charges can inflict to the accused's reputation, even if they fall apart at trial or earlier.

I give thanks to all the good prosecutors that I know. Also, I'll second Brian's wish list for 2007, especially:

- That every judge who takes the bench each morning hating their job, having "heard it all," and serving no purpose but to rubber stamp the government, resign.

- That every prosecutor who believes that defense lawyers are the problem in the criminal justice system, not the defendants, resign.

- That the prosecutor's "supervisor," (akin these days to the all involved manager at a car dealership) who tells his "supervisee" to "try the (crappy, stupid) case" instead of letting him/her offer the reasonable plea that he/she wants to offer, actually try the case, instead of running back to the office.

Follow-up on child being 'allowed' to urinate by stormtrooperesque officer during drug raid

2006-12-16T23:59:00.000-05:00

I just noticed that Radley Balko had some follow-up wherein the allegedly 'neutral' journalist expressed their extremely strong aversion to anyone using or interpreting the images the took in any way other than the way they were intended. This journalist, Justin Cook, was probably and naturally worried that if he wasn't going to take such a position, he'd never be able to follow the police around. I mean, if the police had accidentally killed that child, he'd clearly never take a picture of the child's bloody body because that wouldn't support his view that the drug war is really great and thus help him do PR for the police. That is sarcasm.

It is worrisome to me when people who are supposed to report objectively cannot understand how anyone wouldn't interpret or use their work as they intended (or even issue futile threats to sue). But Cook's just a kid so I cut him some slack. More importantly, at least he has the courage to be forthright with his preconceived biases rather than hiding them. God help him if he ever gets a realy job as a journalist though. I'd say Cook should stick to doing PR stuff. He'll probably realize that there's more money in that anyways. I'm sure he can leave journalism to others who don't fail to grasp the whole concept of the press and it's role.

I mean geez, does he even know what he was saying: "simply the reality of what this image stands for is not congruent with your stance ... I do not want my image associated with your views and opinions..." Why do you take a picture or write something and post it for the world to see if you do not want it associated with anyone else's views and opinions? If that's how you feel, just publish for yourself or perhaps your uncritical mother. And if you disagree with somebody's legal, non-plagarizing, non-libelous take on your work, do the right thing and respond to it with your own views! Suggesting that other people lack the right to interpret your work as they want is weak.

Why Verizon is only for people who don't mind getting ripped off and treated badly by customer service reps

2006-12-16T23:55:00.000-05:00

Go, listen to this conversation with a Verizon rep. The dude is far more polite than almost anybody could be in this situation. They repeatedly ripped me off for hundreds of dollars by changing the rules or misquoting the customer, and then not caring at all when they do that. It's really sad. And when they owe you money (like when I returned a non-functioning phone and they owed me $250 or so) they just keep the dough, assuming that you'll owe them something eventually. And then they get surly! Verizon had me for years until I got fed up and quit them.

Drug War Victims Are Multiplying

2006-12-11T21:32:00.000-05:00

Take a look at this picture. I love my country, but not what some people have done to it. We're now the most militarized, most violent, and country the most proportionately imprisoned, all due to the failed drug war in my view.

As the Onion headline read, the drug war is over: the drugs won. They'll always win. Like Iraq, this war is simply creating causalities after causalties, all while failing to even strike at the intended goal of deterring drug use or symbolically striking at it. The only thing the drug war has achieved is the deaths of countless civilians at the hands of its government or at the hands of drug dealers fighting over turf like the gangsters of alcohol prohibition.

What is this war doing in terms of reducing crime? Lets ignore the endemic corruption that many police officers decry due to the drug war. So many officers are on the take because of the riches of the drug war. Although things are bad in America, not a single In my experience with thousands of people accused of crime, it is merely exasperating it. Instead of drug addicts, like alcoholics, getting their fix by panhandling in front of the local 7-11 and facing simple quality of life crimes, I see people marching into court facing serious time for stealing from their familes, their employers, burglarizing neighbor's homes, stealing from strangers, and even robbing and violently attacking people. How often do drunks do that? And how many violent drug dealers exist among alcohol mongers? Say what you want about Joe Camel or Pete Coors, they don't shoot people.

Legal foreplay

2006-12-06T23:01:00.000-05:00

From crimlaw: getting it in writing.

Also, boy arrested for opening present early.

Lastly, want a gift idea for the constitutionally minded? Try a t-shirt that expresses your preference to police.

Private versus PD problems

2006-12-06T22:37:00.000-05:00

There have been some really good posts on the problem of coverage lawyers in South Florida at JBB.

Of course, these problems do not extend merely to privates. After all, I don't know how many times that I've covered for people or had people cover for me. Sometimes things work out, sometimes they don't. It all depends on the skill of the person covering for you, but even the most skilled lawyer can't give clients the feeling they deserve.

But it seems that for many lawyers, the only way to survive in criminal law is through such coverage arrangements. What is better? Well, at least PDs don't charge for it. The worst is when I see clients who've paid some, but not enough. They end up getting nothing but run around when I see them and they're all upset.

Giving advice to clients

2006-11-26T10:59:00.000-05:00

I hear from lots of attorneys about the difficulty in getting clients to make the right decisions. I hear that. Sometimes, especially when I'm taking over for other lawyer's clients, it can be hard to make them understand that sometimes admitting to something you didn't do is the right thing. I mean, they can take the chance and I'll go to trial any day on any case, but actual innocence gets you nowhere if you look guilty. Losing that gamble can mean years in prison.

And I hate trying to explain to people with unduly pessimistic or optimistic views of their case what reality is. I have to say 'Yes, you can lose and go to prison' or 'no, there is really no way that we can lose so you should consider take the risk and going to trial.' When I do the former, people often think I'm working for the prosecutor when I'm just trying to make them understand the drawbacks so they aren't later all surprised.

The hardest case for me are the arguable cases where there is no clear advice to give. I seem to have too many of these and thus too many clients looking to me. I didn't become a lawyer because I had a God complex. I don't want to make these decisions about people's lives, I came here to help people decide by providing them all the options and telling them that I'd fight hard for them whatever they choose.

But people's choice far too often is to say 'whatever you think.' What? Whatever I think? Geez, that's hard. Often I don't know enough to make a decision for them. Are they risk takers? How old are they? Have then done a long prison bid? Would losing totally change their life or are they doing life in prison on the installment plan anyways?

This certainly gives me something to give thanks about: at least I don't need to make these kind of horrible decisions on my own behalf.

Them's fighting words!

2006-11-19T11:27:00.000-05:00

So one PD allegely knocks another in the head with a bottle. They were, surprise, fighting over a girl.

Apparently the now fired PD who allegedly used the bottle had been with the office since April 2005. He had recently been promoted to major crimes attorney but got into the embroglio at a Nov. 9 party at Tarpon Bend for a Broward prosecutor moving into private practice.

"This kid was an ascending star," Finkelstein said. "He was performing beyond his years and really performing in a stellar fashion and that's what makes this thing so sad."

The alleged bottle basher, at 28-years-old, is way too young for major crimes (defending them, not committing them - there's no floor on the latter).

I can understand the police report from the complainant. After all, he needed surgery (wants to sue to get that covered I bet) and doesn't want to work around that friction anymore.

But what is the real lesson to be learned? Don't attend parties for prosecutors!

Hat tip to PD Stuff, who posted this story earlier.