Archive for October, 2006
Maryland corrections looks to Connecticut
Oct 30th
Not all bad news for CT prisons and the prison system, as this story tells of how Maryland Corrections is looking to Connecticut to curb gang violence in its prisons.
Acting Division of Correction Commissioner John Rowley said he sent Maryland corrections officials to Connecticut because the
state’s corrections department created a gang management program in
1994, after prison officials found that gang members had become a
dangerous and difficult population inside the state’s prisons.The Connecticut Department of Correction’s Security Risk Group
program collects and evaluates security-related gang intelligence to
prevent violence inside the state’s prisons.In Maryland, officials have implemented a new measure aimed at
reducing prison gang violence at the medium-security Maryland
Correctional Training Center near Hagerstown. The facility started
confining inmates together "a few months ago," after they were
identified as members of the same gang, Rowley said.
New Federal Prison: Canada
Oct 26th
Update: Canada doesn’t want our sex offenders. Who can blame them? We don’t either!
Ontario is not a “dumping ground†for American sex offenders, Premier
Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday as he urged Ottawa to fight a U.S. judge’s
decision to allow an American teacher who sexually abused a student to
serve his probation time in Canada.McGuinty urged the federal government to step in after a New York
state court agreed to allow Malcolm Watson, convicted of sexually
abusing a 15-year-old student, to return to St. Catharines, Ont., where
he lives with his wife and three children.“It’s obviously not the precedent that we want to allow the
Americans to establish, (and) it’s not the kind of thing that we’re
prepared to accept,†McGuinty said.“We will certainly work with the federal government — and I
hope we’ll be of one mind in this regard — to ensure that we don’t
become some kind of dumping ground for convicted offenders (from) south
of the border.â€
Watson is now back in Canada, said his lawyer, Oscar Smukler. Now isn’t that some name? Oscar Smukler. You have to love it! So now, this plea is in question. Will anyone step in?
Thanks to Prof. Berman, we learn of this alternative sentencing:
After a judge convicted him of sexually abusing a 15-year-old
student, teacher Malcolm Watson was offered two punishment options: an
American jail cell or exile to Canada.Mr. Watson chose Canada.
The unusual sentence, which has immigration lawyers questioning its
legality, means that Mr. Watson, 35, must stay out of the United States
for the next three years. A U.S. citizen who taught at the elite
Buffalo Seminary girls’ school, he has a Canadian wife and family.Mr. Watson’s Canadian exile, which begins today, has the legal community scratching its head.
While there will doubtless be much analysis of whether the banishment itself is illegal (and I’d be happy to discuss that), I want to know what will happen if Canada decides it doesn’t want this individual. Can Canada deport this man? If Canada does so, where does that leave Mr. Watson? Is he in violation of his sentence?
This clearly won’t be the end of this drama:
Erie County district attorney Frank Clark called the plea deal "a
little dicey" but said the family of the 15-year-old victim was happy.
So were some U.S. law-enforcement officials: "He’s Canada’s problem,
not ours," said one, speaking on condition of anonymity.Mr. Watson’s odd sentence has attracted the attention of Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Minister Monte Solberg.
"If non-citizens pose a threat to Canada, we will do everything in
our power to have that person removed as quickly as possible," he said.
Also, as some of the comments point out on Prof. Berman’s blog, what if the roles were reversed and Canada was banishing its "criminals" to the US?
Sure is interesting. Thoughts?
Justice on justice
Oct 25th
Looks like I’m not the only one that dislikes Justice. Blondie weighs in.
Here’s one little gem I picked up from Justice:
If you have some incriminating evidence, don’t give it to your criminal
defense lawyer, because then they’re legally bound to turn it over to
the prosecution. Hmmm. Wow. So, all of my clients who I know are
guilty… I should be calling the prosecutor to turn them in? I’ll have
to get to work on that tomorrow morning. Thank you, Justice.
Prison overcrowding needs to be addressed
Oct 25th
Important story in the Courant today about overcrowding in CT prisons.
Prison overcrowding so severe that 900 inmates must sleep on floors is
one of several issues Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the state correction
commissioner have ignored for months, leaders of the union representing
correctional staff said Tuesday.
Reminds me of an episode of "30 days" where Morgan Spurlock spent a month in a prison. Inmates everywhere, 4-5 to a room, sleeping in the central "foyer"… I didn’t realize it was so bad in CT!
Here’s an interesting quote from the story:
Gene Tewksbury, vice president of Connecticut Corrections Employees
AFSME Local 1565, said about 900 inmates throughout the prison system
must sleep on floors and speculated that the Department of Correction
was preparing to release 1,000 prisoners after the November election.
Obviously, the DOC is denying any such plan, but it still makes one wonder: "Where did he get this idea from?" Hmmm, we’ll just have to wait and see.
Given that Connecticut has just upwards of 19,100 inmates in prisons today, it is obvious that this situation needs to be rectified as soon as possible. I will stay tuned.
Heartwarming tales of prosecutorial misconduct
Oct 25th
Update!: It seems that the prosecutor has been taken off the case. I’m going to move this up to today’s posts, so the update can be viewed.
I don’t know how I missed this. (Oh, wait, yeah I do.)
The defense in the retrial of convicted murderer Leotis Payne says a
prosecutor abused his power and showed "racial discrimination" when he
conducted a criminal background check of a potential juror who is black.Senior
Assistant State’s Attorney Michael A. Pepper was harshly criticized by
the state Supreme Court in 2002 for "serious and deliberate" misconduct
during the initial prosecution nine years ago of Payne, who was
convicted of felony murder in the October 1994 slaying of Louis Hood,
20.Now, Payne’s lawyer, Auden C. Grogins of Fairfield, says Pepper is at
it again and wants the veteran prosecutor thrown off the case.
This time, Pepper asked an investigator to conduct a background check on a potential juror. This juror had not filled out any information regarding his criminal history and Pepper accused him of lying about it in court.
Pepper’s sharp questioning of Edwards prompted the judge to ask Pepper
how he knew about Edwards’ rap sheet. Pepper admitted to asking
investigator Dennis Kelly to do the background check during a court
break.According to the court transcripts of Oct. 13, Holzberg asked: "Are you doing records checks on all [potential jurors] …
Pepper: "I …"
Holzberg: "or African-Americans?"
"Yes,
because of the Batson challenges," Pepper replied.
Turns out this juror was the only juror he conducted a background check on in this case, but he has conducted background checks on over 50 potential jurors in his career.
some public defender love
Oct 24th
It’s good to know that internet advice columns aren’t written only by people who disparage public defenders. [previous post here] Thanks to skelly (again), we pds can now have the pleasure of knowing that at least one person has our backs in the private vs. pd debate.
So pervasive is the distrust of public defenders that defendants
routinely max out their credit cards, take out second mortgages, and
empty their retirement funds just to hire a private criminal defense
attorney.Any warm body with a law degree can hang out a shingle and call himself
a criminal defense attorney. In fact, many of those who can’t get a job
at the public defender do just that. Your private attorney could turn
out to be a bottom feeder, with poor academic credentials and little or
no criminal defense experience.Public defenders are criminal defense specialists. They practice
criminal law every day, and gain experience quickly due to heavy
caseloads and a sink or swim mentality. They are surrounded by
colleagues and supervisors whom they can learn from and consult with.
Hear, hear!
A PD victory!
Oct 22nd
After the annoying stories yesterday and earlier today, comes this feel good story (via ex-Txpd) of a pd’s victory in a trial. Here’s a bite:
At the revelation that this young man would not be serving his whole
life in prison, the attorney collapsed, face down, onto the table.
Openly weeping. Her client wrapped his arms around her shoulders,
weeping himself. The judge continued with the rest of the counts,
answering each charge with, "not guilty". He had been acquitted of all
six charges! The attorney and her client were wrapped, weeping, in each
others arms. He kept saying, "Thank God, thank you, thank god, thank
you".
I live for this.
Why I don’t watch legal shows: Exhibit A
Oct 22nd
Justice. I just happened to catch a re-run of the pilot on TV and boy was my TV in grave danger. This is why I don’t watch these shows.
Here’s the setup: The defendant is accused of killing his wife, the defense theory is accident. The defense’s medical-cum-forensic expert has testified regarding the accident and the prosecutor gets up to cross-examine. Before saying a word, he picks up a golf club (the alleged murder weapon) and says (I’m paraphrasing): "It wasn’t an accident was it. He hit her with this golf club, 5 times". He then proceeds to bang the golf club against counsel table five times in a row, very, very hard. He then says: "You’re being paid by the defense to say it was an accident. You can stop now."
First of all, there was no question. Second, what the hell is that? He’s testifying and he’s making argument during cross-examination? Third, HE’S BANGING A GOLF-CLUB ON A TABLE INSTEAD OF CROSS EXAMINATION!!! Fourth, there was no objection. NONE. Not a single one. Defense counsel didn’t even stand up.
Arrrgh.
You can view the whole episode for free here (the scene is toward the end of the show). You can also see a brief clip here – the scenes I’m talking about are the ones with a main with a raised club.
Does anyone else know what I’m talking about and what are your thoughts?
It’s on.
Oct 21st
All right, I don’t usually get worked up by articles advocating against public defenders, but this one (hat tip: Skelly. Yes, I know, REALLY LATE, but I just got caught up) got me riled for some reason (maybe it’s late on a Saturday and I’m bored). So here’s my response:
Will a public defender do everything possible to fight for my rights?
- I don’t know what she means by "everything possible". Is this the same as "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law", in that it’s just a phrase that means nothing? Or does it mean that the lawyer will pay attention to the case, review the case-law, negotiate with the state and try to attain the best result possible? In which case – yes. That’s what any good lawyer would do – paid or not.
This is a question many people ask when they’ve been forced to seek legal assistance.
- The only people that will ask this are people who have read your article and similar ones.
If you’ve had to hire a public defender for whatever reason, unless your case is thrown out of court, it’s in your best interest to request a dismissal and hire a lawyer.
- Yes, that’s a brilliant move. Fire the lawyer that focuses only on criminal law, often practices only in the court that you’ve been charged in and hire a private attorney who will charge you a lot of money and who has some magical extra law degree because he/she’s a private attorney. In fact, it’s not the lawyer that determines the outcome of the case – it’s the facts. Surprising, isn’t it?
Public defenders are commonly referred to as “public pretenders.â€
- No, actually, they’re not. It’s a cute joke, though and worth mentioning once in an article.
Unless you want to risk spending time in jail, hire a lawyer directly, even if it means making payments to the lawyer, charging the expense, or borrowing the money to secure good legal help.
-Unless you want to risk spending time in jail, don’t commit a crime. Also, how does one hire a lawyer indirectly and can you hire a lawyer without making payments to the lawyer?
-So the lesson is that it’s not who represents you, but how much you pay. So by that logic, the most expensive lawyer is the best lawyer. Okay.
Why Shouldn’t I Hire a Public Defender?
Unless you’re fortunate enough to secure a public defender who is actually willing to fight for your rights, you’re taking a huge risk, and gambling with your freedom isn’t worth the savings.
- As opposed to the lawyer that is not willing to fight for your rights, who is also called a bad lawyer. Again with this risk thing? Let. me. spell. it. out. for. you.
IF YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME OR BEEN CHARGED WITH ONE YOU ARE AT RISK OF JAIL TIME.
Ok, moving on.
Since a public defender is paid by state, a
public defender isn’t earning as much as a lawyer hired directly. A
public defender earns about $65 an hour on average.
-So it is about how much a lawyer earns that makes him good or bad. Okay then, I should just tell my clients to go hire the most expensive lawyer they can find. BUT WAIT!!!! What if they BAD lawyers start charging the most fees? THEN WHAT?!?! OMG! DOES NOT COMPUTE.
[end sarcasm]
A public defender isn’t necessarily a free
attorney. If you are found guilty of whatever you have been accused of,
you’ll be paying in more ways than one. You will have to pay the state
for the services of the public defender. This money goes back into a
fund so the public defender can be paid for defending cases of others
who made the unfortunate mistake of requesting the public defender.
- Oh boy. There’s so much here. Okay, so the "payment" is your liberty. Okay. So… if you hire a lawyer AND THEN lose, then you’re paying DOUBLE! Huh. Imagine that.
Public defenders push clients to plead
guilty, even when guilt is in question. A client pleading guilty is an
easy case for the public defender.
- Unfortunately, this individual hasn’t heard of the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". It doesn’t matter if your client insists he/she is innocent. If the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there’s nothing a pd or a private attorney can do. Really. It’s in the Constitution. There’s no private attorney exception to that document. Look it up. And if there is reasonable doubt, then if the attorney doesn’t present that, then it doesn’t matter whether he/she is a pd or not. He/she is a bad attorney. Unless ofcourse, the PDs office makes it a habit to hire the WORST attorneys, thereby leaving the cream of the crop for private practice. I’ve seen no proof of that, though. Maybe someone can provide me with administrative manuals that show this.
Public defenders generally won’t go out of
their way to let you know what’s going on with your case, and over time
you will probably feel like the public defender is on the side of the
prosecution.
- Unless you provide any proof for this ridiculous statement, I’ll just ignore it. Because it is ridiculous.
If the [private] attorney doesn’t have time to look
into the case, a delay can be requested to allow more time for
preparation. An attorney who has been directly hired will have your
best interest in mind. There are many attorneys who are willing to take
credit cards or direct payments, so don’t risk your freedom by hiring
the public pretender. Hire a lawyer who shows a clear interest in
fighting for your rights.
- This might be the most asinine suggestion of all. Paraphrasing: "If you fire your public defender because you were nervous he/she wasn’t paying attention to you, then hire a private attorney and then if he/she doesn’t pay attention to your case, IT’S OK, BECAUSE YOU ARE PAYING THEM."
See, basically, I don’t disagree with the underlying advice that if your attorney (be it a pd or a private attorney) is not representing you properly, get another. What is ludicrous, however, is the suggestion that a private attorney will always represent you better because you pay them.
I’m going on the record here. If I am ever arrested in the State of CT, I will forge my financial affidavit so that I can get a PD to represent me. No offense meant, private bar. I love my PDs here.
but…but…they’re asking questions!
Oct 21st
txpd (she really should change her username) cites and expands on a post by skelly regarding a particularly humorous complaint by the Grant County police department in Washington state. I’ll let her tell the story:
A bit of background on Washington criminal procedure. Unlike in Texas,
where criminal law is largely trial by ambush, in Washington, the
defense has a right to interview any witness the state plans on calling
in their case in chief. If the listed witness won’t talk to you, you
can make the prosecutor set up the interview for you! You actually have
the right to ask the witness questions before you have to cross-examine
him in court! Civil attorneys might be familiar with this procedure
which they call discovery. Criminal defense lawyers, depending on their
jurisdiction, may be shocked. Anyway, I would guess from the current
complaints that the old lawyers representing the poor in Grant County
weren’t all that keen on interviewing many of the witnesses in their
cases. But now, the new public defenders are, and it’s making things
hard for the poor police officers and prosecutors. Excuse me while I
wipe away the lone tear slowly falling from my eye.
Aside from the hilarity in their complains, I’m pleasantly surprised (and a little jealous) that the defense has an absolute right to interview all witnesses!
sometimes I feel like the Aflac duck
Oct 19th
An 18-year old has been arraigned on charges of sexual assault in the second degree and risk of injury to a minor. The act? Engaging in "fondling" with a 15-year old schoolmate on a school bus.
Christopher Schuetz, of 506 Taylor Road, Enfield, was charged with
second-degree sexual assault and impairing the morals of a minor – in
this case, a 15-year-old female student who is also a Woodland student.
Apparently, they were dating and it was consensual.
Helene Marchese, the principal of Woodland School, said that the two students have had a relationship outside of school.
"Both know they made a terrible mistake," said Marchese. "Both are very remorseful."
Marchese said that she is willing to allow Schuetz to stay at Woodland.
Marchese said she is confident that Schuetz and the girl would be safe
because students at the alternative school are always accompanied by
teachers or other staff members. They are even escorted when traveling
to the bathroom or nurse’s office.
Sex 2nd is a B felony carrying a maximum of 20 years.
A modern day Greek tragedy
Oct 19th
In a bizarre turn of events, police in Fairfield, CT have concluded that a 2-year old girl was not molested by her (now deceased) neighbor. Sound familiar? Yes, this is the very same story where a Fairfield lawyer has been charged with killing his neighbor because his wife told him that their daughter had been assaulted by this man.
Jonathon Edington, a 29-year-old attorney from Fairfield, is charged
with killing Barry James on Aug. 28 after his wife told him of the
abuse allegation, police said. Edington pleaded not guilty to the
charge last week."We’re confident this 2-year-old was not molested," said Capt. Gary
MacNamara. "We are confident in our investigation that Mr. Edington did
in fact kill Mr. James. We are as confident in our investigation that
Mr. James did not molest the Edingtons’ daughter."According to a police report describing the mother’s account, the girl
told her mother about the alleged molestation while the family was
visiting relatives in Rhode Island.The girl "explained that she did not want to go home because of
Barry," police said in the report. When her mother asked her to
explain, the girl said "that Barry puts it on her belly and her nose,"
the report said. When her mother asked her when James does this, she
replied, "He comes to me in the starry nights."After Edington’s wife told him what their daughter said, Edington
climbed through James’ bedroom window and repeatedly stabbed him,
police said.James’ 87-year-old mother, who is legally blind, lives with him
and discovered the body. When officers went to Edington’s home a short
time later, they found him standing by his kitchen sink with blood on
his hands and forearms, authorities said.
Murtha Acquitted
Oct 19th
Former Hartford police officer Robert Murtha was acquitted by his jury today. He was on trial for needlessly shooting a fleeing car thief in the arm.
[T]he six-member jury, after deliberating for a total of just over
four hours, concluded that Murtha was justified in shooting Elvin
Gonzalez, a suspected car thief who led Murtha and other officers on a
chase in January of 2003.After Gonzalez crashed the stolen car into a snowbank, Murtha got out
of his cruiser and charged toward the vehicle. When Gonzalez managed to
get the car to drive back onto the roadway, Murtha opened fire,
striking Gonzalez twice as the car sped away. Gonzalez, who was caught
when he crashed the car again a block further down the road, survived
the shooting.
Layout question
Oct 18th
Reader(s): I’m toying with the idea of going to a two-column format. I think this three column layout marginalizes the substantive posts. Opinions?
Edit: I’ve also reduced the number of things appearing in the sidebars. Which of those currently appearing could you do without? Recent posts? Recent comments? Archives?
Murder conviction for DWI death
Oct 18th
I’m not one to comment on convictions in other states (at least not on a regular basis), but this story caught my eye. Martin Heigden was tried and convicted of Murder 2 for driving his car while intoxicated. He was on the wrong side of the highway and crashed into a limousine, killing a 7-year old girl. The DA opted to go for broke and charged him with murder, instead of the more routine manslaughter. I’m sure everyone can discern the petrinet legal issues on appeal, so I won’t dwell on that. What interested me more was this paragraph:
After the verdict, jurors said they thought Heidgen must have known
what he was doing as he headed in the wrong direction on the parkway
for more than two miles. But they said there were two jurors who did
not agree at first, and tempers on both sides flared.Ultimately, though, they said they knew what they had to do.
"Once we finally put it on paper, guilty, guilty, it just became so
emotional in that moment," said a juror named Michelle, 38, of
Roosevelt, who would not give her last name. "Once it was sealed, ready
to go downstairs, it was like a big weight off our shoulders, it just
became very emotional for everybody."
Emphasis mine.
So despite the fact that they were hung on intent, "they knew what they had to do". Mind-boggling. What does that mean, except that they knew they had to return a verdict of guilty on the murder charge? Does that mean that the two dissenting jurors were badgered into changing their vote? Will they come forward?
Am I the only one feeling discomfort from that quote?
recent comments