Archive for March 31, 2005
Did you have a public defender or a lawyer?
Mar 31st
So says State Senator Newton, during a public hearing held on January 31, 2005 on the Anti-Death Penalty Bill. The question was posed to Lawrence Adams, a man from Massachusetts, who spent 32 years in prison (roughly 9 of them on death row) before he was exonerated and released. He came to CT to testify against the death penalty. The transcript reads as follows:
SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. I want to thank you for coming to Connecticut to give your testimony. When was it that they found the DNA, after how many years?
LAWRENCE ADAMS: It wasn’t DNA. It was exculpatory evidence. It took 31 years.
SEN. NEWTON: Thirty-one years?
LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.
SEN. NEWTON: Did you have a public defender?
LAWRENCE ADAMS: Excuse me?
SEN. NEWTON: Did you have a public defender or a lawyer?
LAWRENCE ADAMS: In the beginning, I had a public defender.
[CHAIRMAN OF THE JUD. COMMITTEE] SEN. MCDONALD: All right. Senator, I really don’t even know how to address that.
SEN. NEWTON: The point I’m trying to get at, and you all laugh, but this is very serious, is that in some cases, it’s been proven that those who can afford attorneys have a better chance. I’m not saying anything bad about public defenders, but in some incidents, you know, cases have been proven.
If you have a high-price lawyer, you stay out of jail. You know, that is the point I was trying to get to, not to disparage anything about our public defenders throughout this country. When you have your own lawyer, it seems that he might be able to collect that evidence, as you said. You know, that was the only point that I was making.
LAWRENCE ADAMS: It has been my experience, right, that I would say that I was unique in the fact that my lawyer, Mr. John Battarac, did work that I don’t think anybody else could have done. I was fortunate to that extent.
SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. I should just note for the record that actually the Chief Public Defender’s Office has probably the greatest breadth of information in history on the defense of capital cases than any other group of attorneys in the state. Are there other questions? Senator Handley followed by Senator Cappiello.
Then the hearing continues.
Amazing, just amazing. Not like we don’t get crap from our clients anyway, now we have a state Senator who doesn’t acknowledge that public defenders are lawyers. Not once did the Senator make the distinction in terms of public defenders as opposed to private attorneys. He kept referring to private attorneys simply as "attorneys".
In any event, if you have time time, read as much of the transcript as you can – it’s pretty powerful, moving stuff.
Civil Unions bill moves to Senate
Mar 31st
The Finance Committee today approved the Civil Unions bill [text] and it has now moved over to the Senate for debate and a vote. S. B. 963 could be scheduled for debate on the floor as early as next week.
The bill itself seems pretty straightforward and given the overwhelming support for it in the various committees, it seems that there is a strong chance that this bill will be enacted into law. If this does happen, Connecticut would be the second state in the country authorizing civil unions.
The one thing to keep any eye out for is Gov. Rell’s position on this bill.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell has endorsed the concept of civil unions, though she said last week she would like the bill amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Rell has not said failure to adopt such an amendment would provoke a veto.
Realistically, I don’t think she will insist too much on having that provision as part of the bill. Not only is there a large amount of support for this bill, but there is also some support for a same-sex marriage bill.
Porn store makes controversial donation to school
Mar 31st
The assignment: Collect donations to build a rock climbing wall in their elementary school.
The bid: $100
The result: Porn store donates $800.
The aftermath: Unacceptable!
“We were actually flabbergasted and excited about it, never thinking that it would be controversial,” says Kimberly Rivera, Parent Fundraiser. “We’ve been fundraising to build a rock wall to fight childhood obesity,” says Rivera.
Clearly, there is no dispute as to the school’s right to refuse this donation. No one has to accept a donation they don’t want. It does raise the moral question of whether the school should accept the donation. The school’s refusal to associate a facility to be used primarily by small kids with a porn store is certainly understandable, but assuming arguendo that the “boutique” decided to donate anonymously, should the school then refuse the money?
Apparently, when contacted for $100, the porn store donated the balance that was needed: $800. It certainly was a generous donation by a legal organization, giving back to the community it operated in. I don’t even think the store realisitically expected it’s name to be displayed in the school. Which makes the motive that much more altruistic. They sincerely wanted to give to a local elementary school and help kids. So if the money is donated anonymously, shouldn’t the school take it?
I haven’t made up my mind, so I’m open to comments! (Well, I’m always open to comments, but you know what I mean).
recent comments