Archive for April 20, 2007
The Importance of Being Earnest
Apr 20th
Grits has another great post (sorry, I have nothing original today) about Anderson Cooper’s upcoming 360 segment about snitching. According to Grits, the segment seems rather lightweight and I’d tend to agree. It involves a single interview of a rapper “Cam’ron” who states unequivocally that he would never, ever snitch.
Grits points to some very good posts about snitching and effectively argues that the 360 segment seems sensationalist more than anything else.
I’m going to put the “lawyer” spin on this. I’ve encountered more than a few criminal defense attorneys who state that they will “never represent snitches” and in fact have told clients as much. What do you guys think? Would you represent a snitch, when it would benefit him by reducing his sentence? I think I would certainly consider it.
A (lone, thus far) comment to Grit’s post raises another interesting question: Would you snitch on a fellow attorney? We all know that the ethical rules require us to report another attorney’s unethical behavior. How many of us do that, though? How many times do we turn a blind eye to some questionable action, with an eye to quid pro quo? Being a lawyer is tough and sometimes we get overzealous and cross a line here and there, but we’ve all come across egregious actions and have let them pass.
Are we any better than Cam’ron?
There are two polls on this: One below on whether you would report a violation of an ethical rule and one in the “polls” sidebar section on whether you’d represent a snitch.
[poll=3]
Technorati Tags: snitching, anderson cooper
“Anti-Innocence” bills: Tender years exception
Apr 20th
Scott Henson reports on a bill pending in the Texas “lege” that would allow hearsay evidence in sexual assault cases where the victim is 14 or younger. He writes:
I don’t get this – Texas has seen a rash of wrongful convictions uncovered, but rather than pass legislation that would reduce the number of innocent people convicted, these bills are essentially what I’ve called “anti-innocence” initiatives, proposals that make it more likely that flawed or biased testimony generates a wrongful conviction.
This bill invites false testimony that cannot be cross examined, and expands the use of hearsay testimony to imply intent regarding offenses that were never even committed.
As I’ve said before, these bills are very dangerous, but they seem to be gaining steam across the country.
Previous coverage:
Skakel hearing takes Brady twist
Apr 20th
Michael Skakel’s hearing for a new trial wrapped up day 3 yesterday and the testimony took an interesting turn. His trial counsel, Mickey Sherman, testified yesterday that the state withheld key evidence suggesting that the killer was someone other than Skakel.
The profiles at issue are of former tutor Kenneth Littleton and of Skakel’s older brother, Thomas Skakel, who was 17 at the time of the crime. In the profiles, two lead investigators on the case state it had been established that on the night of the killing, Oct. 30, 1975, then 15-year-old Michael Skakel left Belle Haven with two of his brothers and a cousin to drive the cousin home and stay there to watch a Monty Python comedy on television.“We had a very definite alibi defense; it was the bulwark of our case,” Sherman testified. “Michael Skakel wasn’t guilty. Michael Skakel wasn’t there.”
Sherman said the reports, co-authored by former lead inspector Jack Solomon and subsequent lead inspector Frank Garr, amounted to “independent corroboration … of the belief that Mr. Skakel was not there.”
A third document, referred to as “the time frame” that Skakel’s attorneys claim was also withheld, documents Littleton’s moves in the years following Martha’s murder and corresponding crimes, including murders, that occurred in his proximity.
However, these claims seem to do little to bolster the claim for a new trial. On the other hand, they might serve to make a future Habeas claim only stronger.
During Skakel’s trial in 2002, Sherman, with Solomon on the witness stand, asked to be given the reports. The trial judge said, “Not now,” and Solomon’s testimony proceeded. Because Sherman never renewed his request for the reports before the trial ended, this prong of the petition for a new trial may be in jeopardy.Skakel’s current lawyers, Hope Seeley and Hubert Santos, also claim the prosecution’s failure to turn over a police sketch of a man a Belle Haven security guard saw walking in the area of the crime scene warrants a new trial.
The sketch arguably bears a strong resemblance to Littleton, but this is another area where Sherman dropped the ball at trial and Skakel may not be able to benefit.
The state Supreme Court, in unanimously upholding Skakel’s conviction last year, noted that the state should have turned over the sketch. However, because the sketch is referenced in two reports that Sherman clearly had in his possession before trial, the high court deemed it harmless error, because Sherman had notice of the existence of the sketch and didn’t pursue it.
The new trial claim centers around “new evidence” that Skakel was not the killer, based on testimony of one individual who was present in the area, but was not mentioned in any police report. However, these instances of Sherman dropping the ball are more effective in a Habeas trial, seeking to overturn his conviction.
Technorati Tags: michael skakel, petition for new trial, habeas corpus
recent comments