Archive for March, 2007
Man kills lover, but wife charged
Mar 31st
Dare I say only in..oh nevermind
Caught in the act with her lover, Tracy Denise Roberson — thinking quickly, if not clearly — cried rape, authorities say. Her husband pulled a gun and killed the other man with a shot to the head.
On Thursday, a grand jury handed up a manslaughter indictment — against the wife, not the husband.
Manslaughter…extreme indifference…knowing that your act could put someone else’s life in danger…she should have know her husband would kill the guy…okay, yep, makes sense. I guess it is true that grand juries can indict ham sandwiches.
Connecticut DUI/DWI
Mar 31st
I just stumbled upon this website of the Attorneys Ruane, widely regarded as CT’s best DUI attorneys. It is a very informative website and provides a host of information. Figured I’d pass it along. I’ve also added it to the Connecticut tab above.
Technorati Tags: connecticut dui
Balancing crimes and lengths of sentences
Mar 31st
I’ve often pondered about lengths of sentences and how much time in prison would be “tolerable”. What is the line between punishment for a crime and over-punishment? One year in prison can probably seem like an eternity to those serving the sentence, but not much at all to those on the outside. Do sentencing schemes take into account the difficulties of serving a sentence and should they? I’ve looked at a client’s seven year sentence and thought about all the things I’ve done in the past seven years and imagined doing none of them; instead sitting in a jail cell, locked up. I’m not particularly referring to crimes that result in death, but almost everything else. When does a sentence become too long? How do legislatures balance this, if at all?
I’m not sure there is an easy answer – just some idle Saturday afternoon rumination.
Blawgers baseball reminder
Mar 31st
The draft will be this afternoon at 3pm Eastern time. Make sure your pre-draft rankings are ready!
(ps: I think one more team is still needed, check the blog above to make sure.)
Legislative updates
Mar 29th
Perusing the legislature’s list of bills for the past few days, I’ve stumbled upon quite a few legislative proposals dealing with sex offenders and criminal justice. I’ll update this post with links to each subsequent post. There are a few bills I want to address on their own.
- Tender years exception and mandatory minimums
- Computer techs to be made mandatory reporters
- Violent offender registry proposed
- Deadlock legislation in death penalty cases
- Student loan repayment bill
As you can see in the footer, I’ve created a new category “proposed legislation”. I will be posting all future updates on proposed legislation to that category, so that’s an easy reference for those of you interested.
Tender years exception and mandatory minimums proposed
Mar 29th
On today’s list of bills was S.B. 1458 (“An Act Concerning Jessica’s Law”). This bill has several new proposals, most important of which is the “tender years exception” [see previous coverage below]. According to the proposed bill,
Sec. 9. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2007) Notwithstanding any other rule of evidence or provision of law, a statement by a child under thirteen years of age relating to a sexual offense committed against that child, or an offense involving physical abuse committed against that child by a person or persons who had authority or apparent authority over the child, shall be admissible in a criminal, juvenile or civil proceeding if (1) the court finds, on the basis of the time, content and circumstances of the statement, there is a probability that the statement is trustworthy, (2) the proponent of the statement makes known to the adverse party an intention to offer the statement and the particulars of the statement at such time as to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, and (3) either (A) the child testifies at the proceeding, or (B) the child is unavailable as a witness and there is independent nontestimonial admissible evidence of the alleged act. For purposes of this section, “child” includes a person who is chronologically thirteen years of age or older, but who has a mental or developmental age of less than thirteen years because of mental retardation or developmental disability.
This provision applies to a statement of a child under the age of 13, not the testimony itself. The court has to find that the statement is trustworthy (fine), the proponent has to make known the intent to offer the statement (fine) at such a time that the opponent has the time to prepare to meet it (good) and either the child testifies (okay, a reluctant witness) or is unavailable (again, reluctant or otherwise) AND there is independent, non-testimonial admissible evidence of the alleged act. Uh. I’m not sure what that would be…but I’ll wait till the public hearing to form an opinion.
The other provisions of this bill create the offense of “aggravated sexual assault of a minor”, where the victim is under 13. It would carry a minimum mandatory sentence of 25 years. The other provisions create mandatory minimums of 2-10 years for a variety of sex offenses, including repeat offenders.
Previous coverage:
Computer technicians to be made mandatory reporters and SOL
Mar 29th
A bill proposed today, HB 7408, adds the phrase “and any person who services and repairs personal computers” to the list of mandatory reporters under C.G.S 17a-101. Now, firedog and Geek Squad and others will have to report to the police if they find any illegal material on computers. Yikes. I’m not sure how the businesses will take this.
In addition, it increases the period for the statute of limitations to expire from 30 years to 40 years for sexual assault offenses.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 54-193, no person may be prosecuted for any offense, except a class A felony, involving sexual abuse, sexual exploitation or sexual assault of a minor except within [thirty] forty years from the date the victim attains the age of majority or within five years from the date the victim notifies any police officer or state’s attorney acting in such police officer’s or state’s attorney’s official capacity of the commission of the offense, whichever is earlier, provided if the prosecution is for a violation of subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of section 53a-71, the victim notified such police officer or state’s attorney not later than five years after the commission of the offense.
A Glenarlow Wilson inspired website
Mar 29th
Prof. Berman points to a new website inspired by Glenarlow Wilson, called “My 5th“. One of the founders of the website is Wilson’s lawyer. Wilson is the Georgia teen that is serving a ten year sentence for engaging in consensual oral sex with a 15 year old. Due to the media coverage of his case, the Georgia legislature passed a bill now making this act a misdemeanor. However, there is no retroactivity provision in the bill, so Wilson is still serving his 10 year sentence. The blog has some interesting entries about public hearings at the legislature, but I really liked this interactive map about the age of consent in each state.
Technorati Tags: glenarlow wilson
Texas removes duty to retreat
Mar 28th
Edit: Okay, upon a further reading of the bill, it seems to me that the bill does two things:
- It removes the duty to retreat from buildings and vehicles. No longer do you have to try to retreat before retaliating.
- It creates a legal assumption that an intruder is there to cause death or great bodily harm and that victims have the right to use deadly force.
It is point 2 that I have the greatest problem with. That is a dangerous assumption to make.
Texas Governor Rick Perry signed into law a bill that removes the duty to retreat and permits Texans to use deadly force in defending themselves in their homes, cars or workplaces.
The bill states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. The building or vehicle must be occupied at the time for the deadly force provision to apply, and the person using force cannot provoke the attacker or be involved in criminal activity.“The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but it is intuitive to human nature. You ought to be able to protect yourself,” Perry said.
What he’s missing is the point of the duty to retreat (brief Wikipedia blurb). The duty exists so as to avoid deadly force where possible. According to the duty to retreat, if you can get away from the attacker, you should, thereby obviating the need to retaliate using deadly force. Now we will have a free for all. Alaska, Florida and Kansas are among some other states that have passed similar legislation.
When Florida passed similar legislation in 2005, there was intense discussion on this blog. Here are the posts from way back when:
- Meet force with force: FL’s new self-defense statute
- Meet force with force: FL’s new self-defense statute – II
Reading the above posts should give you a good sense of how I felt back in the day and there is some very interesting discussion on those pages. Mike was disappointed with me then and I suspect he still will be disappointed, because I still don’t think it’s a good idea.
I looked to Grits to see if he had any comments on this, but there weren’t any I could locate. If I missed them, please leave a comment here with the link.
Technorati Tags: texas, duty to retreat, criminal law
Connecticut’s “secret” sex offender registry
Mar 28th
After the sentencing last week of a 27-year-old man, CT’s “secret” sex offender registry came to light. This is a registry that is visible on the internet only to public safety officials. Defendants can request the court to be put on this version of the registry and in very limited circumstances, the court allows it.
The statute says in part that shielded registration is available when there is a family relationship between the offender and the victim, and if the court finds that “publication of the registration information would be likely to reveal the identity of the victim.”The court also must find that the dissemination of the registration isn’t required for public safety.
Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a big deal. The provision’s prime goal is the protection of the victim’s identity. Offenders still have to register and if anyone wants, they can walk into the department of public safety’s office and ask about an individual and they will be told if they are on any registry. As of the end of February, 4,529 people were on the public registry and 41 on the “secret” registry. That’s 0.89% of the total number of people required to register.
Technorati Tags: connecticut, sex offender, sex offender registry
Do we have a “look”?
Mar 27th
You can spot a cop or a prosecutor from a mile away, goes the myth. Polished shoes with pointy toes, short cropped hair and always looking officious are certain indicators of an individual’s service in public safety and criminal justice, it is believed. But what of us? The public defenders? Do we have a “look”? Is there anything about our appearance that alerts another person that we are public defenders? I know Blondie wears pink, but what about the rest? Anything you have observed? Do all public defenders wear tweed jackets and have ponytails? Are we more likely to have longer hair or beards?
How should the defense bar handle offender registry legislation?
Mar 27th
Steve Smith, who commented here on my violent offender registry post has elaborated his position further on his own blog in response to a comment there. He writes:
1. I do not believe it does the defense bar and its allies in the blogosphere and elsewhere to blindly rail against any and all sex offender (or violent crime registries if this law goes any further) registries. The registries are clearly here to stay and wishful thinking is not making them go away.2. The defense bar is going to be more effective assisting lawmakers in crafting RATIONAL registry laws in the first instance rather than swinging blind hay makers in the vain hope something will dissuade lawmakers from a “popular” course of action which has so far been upheld by the courts.
3. In my role as a citizen I think its entirely possible for a rationally crafted registration law to be of some use in alerting the public to dangers of which it may otherwise be unaware. I am critical of somewhat random categories of crimes being held up as a rational method of categorization rather than a scientific look at the probabilities a particular individual poses a danger.
There’s more. Go to his site to read the full post.
He does make some valid points. Obviously, sex offender (or any other offender) registries are here to stay, as are residency restrictions. I don’t think anyone in the blawgosphere is delusional about that. However, just because they’re here to stay doesn’t mean that people vehemently opposed to them should temper their criticism because of that reason alone.
The second argument he makes is a valid point going forward. Unfortunately, it assumes that lawmakers would have been amenable to anything other than draconian legislation were it not for the “ruckus” created by the defense bar in many situations.
His third argument is one that many in the defense bar are already advocating. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting New Jersey’s study on the efficacy of Megan’s Law in the state. New Jersey, to the best of my knowledge, does have a tiered system.
In summation, I will repeat what I said in my earlier post: I am not altogether against offender registries, though there has to be more of an evaluation process and the flasher does not need to be in the same category as the child molester.
However, I am and will be firmly against residency restrictions, for I believe they are another form of punishment.
Trackbacks
Mar 27th
WordPress has this cool feature “pingbacks” whereby if I cite another blog, the software will automatically ping or send a trackback to that blog. However, if you’re not using WordPress and want to send a trackback to an entry on my blog, there’s no easily visible way to do it.
So here it is:
All you have to do is copy the permalink for the post and add /trackback/ to the end of the URL. For example, in the post below, the permalink is:
and the trackback URL is:
Simple! 
Julie Amero sentencing continued
Mar 27th
In a not so shocking turn of events, Julie Amero’s sentencing has been postponed yet again. It is now scheduled for April 26th.
Amid a flurry of meetings and growing pressure on the state’s attorney’s office, the sentencing of convicted teacher Julie Amero has been postponed until April 26.No reason for the delay was filed with the clerk at Norwich Superior Court. State’s Attorney Michael Regan, who is now involved in the case, declined to comment. Amero’s lawyers also did not return calls for comment Tuesday.
No one knows yet why it was continued, so there’s no need to speculate. It could mean something; it could mean nothing.
Previous coverage:
Technorati Tags: julie amero
An abomination – AL execution sans representation
Mar 26th
It’s true. Alabama does not provide indigent death row inmates with representation (that link is to a TimesSelect article, so it’s not free. You could just sign up for a trial membership). It is the only state in the country to (not) do so. In Alabama, there is no statutory right to counsel in petitions for writ of habeas corpus, which, as everyone knows, are the last avenue for a death row inmate seeking to challenge his/her conviction.
Alabama’s attitude? To disregard the landmark provisions of Gideon v. Wainwright and basically shrug. I cannot believe that in 2007, there is still a state that doesn’t think it needs to provide representation to indigent defendants.
Inmates filed a class action lawsuit, which was rejected by the 11th circuit in 2006 [Barbour v. Haley (.pdf)]. Now they are seeking cert. to SCOTUS. Hopefully SCOTUS accepts cert and stomps down hard on this bizarre practice.
Thankfully, in CT, there is a statutory right to counsel for habeas petitioners and death row inmates.
HT: Prof. Berman, who thinks this will (and should) create a blawgosphere storm and CapDefWeekly.
Technorati Tags: right to counsel, alabama, barbour v. haley
recent comments