Archive for July, 2007
Troubled juvenile prison may stay open
Jul 31st
Two years ago, Connecticut’s youth prison was in a boatload of trouble. It was on the verge of closing, promised new Gov. Rell. Ah, not so fast. With CT’s new juvenile jurisdiction law set to go into effect in 2010, the prison may very well get a reprieve.
The $57 million facility, which houses all but the state’s most serious juvenile offenders, is gearing up for a likely increase of its population, and an infusion of about $40 million a year.
Some say that the youth prison’s possible revival has been the result not only of the new law, but also of the power of the unions that represent the 300 employees who staff the place. Others cite a lack of resolve among politicians to shut down a boondoggle, while some point to fiscal and political realities, saying it would cost much more to close the prison and start again elsewhere.
That’s all well and good if the prison is in the same state it was in two years ago. Click on that first link above to be directed to studies about the prison and the awful conditions it existed in. However, things seem to have changed.
The building where the teenage offenders with the worst behavior problems had been housed in drab rooms, with slits for windows, has been converted into a youth center complete with arcade games and an art therapy room. Cinderblock cells once likened to “tiger cages” by Donald E. Williams Jr., a Democrat from Brooklyn, Conn., who is president pro tempore of the Senate, now have better shelving, desks, bulletin boards and carpet.
“It used to be a hellhole,” said Fred Phillips, a longtime youth services officer at the prison. What is there today, he said, “is a great improvement.”
Jeanne M. Milstein, the child advocate, said the prison, which opened six years ago, has improved enough that in April she agreed to shift the monitor she had installed there for the previous two years to a psychiatric hospital for children nearby.
Better, but still not optimal. After all, these are still kids. There’s still a chance with some of them. Studies have shown that kids that are incarcerated in adult prisons or adult-like prisons have a greater rate of incarceration as adults. We need to rehabilitate and re-integrate. Prisons are useless for that.
Jeanne Milstein still favors closing the Middletown prison and opening smaller institutions for young offenders scattered around the state, so they can stay connected to their communities.
But, she said, “I don’t think there’s the political will right now by the legislature to close it.”
I agree. It’s disappointing, but one step at a time.
For more coverage of Connecticut’s trouble with juveniles and juvenile-related posts and legislation, see these previous posts:
Gov. Rell proposes first changes
Jul 31st
The State sure does move fast. Gov. Rell today proposed some changes in light of the recent Cheshire tragedy. She has asked parole to re-classify those convicted of Burglary in the 2nd Degree as “violent” offenders, which means they will now be ineligible for parole until they have served 85% of their sentence.
She also said that the Board of Paroles will begin reviewing those convicted of Burglary 2nd who are already out on parole (38 in number). Parolees with convictions for night-time burglaries and burglaries where the home was occupied will also be subject to random night-time check-ins by their parole officers. The reasoning, echoed by some, is that a burglar who enters a home at night or has knowledge that the house is occupied has a violent strain.
Burglary II is classified as any home burglary committed at night or when a home is occupied.
“Burglary has long been considered a generally non-violent offense, but those who commit these crimes at night or when a home is occupied are far more likely to encounter a homeowner — meaning the chances of violence are increased exponentially,” Rell said.
Does this mean that if an inmate can show that he definitively knew that the home was unoccupied and only then entered, is not violent?
The governor also said that certain burglars eligible for parole will undergo psychiatric evaluation and that the Board of Pardons and Paroles will receive more information from police and the judicial system.
For those who are interested, Burglary 1st, Burglary 2nd with a firearm and Burglary 3rd with a firearm are already “violent” offenses.
Lipstick on pigs, fact vs fiction and damage done to ID reform
Jul 31st
I’ve been remiss in not mentioning EyeID’s terrific coverage of the debunking of a highly-publicized study out of Illinois that claimed to have raised questions about some of the procedural reforms being adopted around the country to improve the handling of eyewitness evidence.
The study, taking the form of a pilot project spearheaded by Chicago police across three counties, purported to reveal that current identification procedures protected against mistaken identifications better than reforms (PDF) proposed by respected social scientists, based on extensive research on eyewitness memory. In other words, the Chicago police were happy to report that, notwithstanding the 19 wrongful convictions recorded in Illinois that resulted from faulty eyewitness evidence, everything was just fine and no pesky (scientific) reforms were needed.
Two immediate red flags: The report was not subjected to peer review and it was authored by a lawyer for the Chicago Police Department. EyeID notes sadly that the study’s findings “were trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times and have since served as serious impediments to reform in Legislatures around the country.”
Then some scientists decided to take a look. They released their own analysis [pdf] of the CPD report and found
“the design [of the Illinois study] guaranteed that most outcomes would be difficult or impossible to interpret,” and the study’s fundamental flaw has “devastating consequences” with respect to its scientific merits.
Then the Chicago Tribune runs this curious story, suggesting that the best lineup format has yet to be identified. This is utter nonsense. As EyeID rightly notes,
The first problem is that the “disagreement” is one of conflicting agendas, not unresolved questions of science. Scientists, with their well-known bias in favor of facts, are in general agreement that sequential lineup procedures are less likely to put innocent people in prison. Every peer reviewed study on the topic bears out this finding. A meta-analysis (PDF) was conducted by leading psychologists to extrapolate the comparative accuracy rates of the two types of procedures, and the clear finding was that sequential lineups are far less likely to result in an innocent person being identified. When “moderator variables” are considered, the two methods are also largely equivalent in their likelihood of bringing about a correct selection of the actual perpetrator, when he is present in the lineup. The general consensus among scientists is that “sequential lineups are superior.”
To the extent that there is disagreement on this point, it is not a disagreement among scientists or any sort of conflict in empirical findings. Rather, it is an objection by prosecutors at the audacity of scientists who dare to suggest that science should inform criminal justice policy. After all, the Chicago Police Department has been doing lineups for decades. Who are these scientists to tell them their procedures are flawed? It’s like a bunch of M.D.s telling cigarette manufacturers that smoking causes cancer.
While the Illinois study may have stalled ID reform in some states, or made others question the validity of their pilot programs in the short term, it has also resulted in an explosion of interest in the area of ID reform. This can only be a good thing. As more and more people become aware of these proposed reforms and there are more studies confirming their effectiveness, states will have to take notice and ID reforms will gain more acceptance. As the study I reported about earlier noted, “the leading cause of the wrongful convictions was erroneous identification by eyewitnesses, which occurred 79 percent of the time.” It should be in everybody’s interests to significantly reduce that number.
Monday Morning Jumpstart
Jul 30th
Here are some stories from last week to make this Monday morning more palatable:
- Southern Crim Law has compiled advice to new criminal defense attorneys from several bloggers in the form of responses to questions every newbie might have.
- In Florida, sex offender status will be listed on licenses.
- May it please the Court, Scott at Simple Justice doesn’t like old lawyer phrases.
- Mark Bennett has written up some legal first aid cheat sheets and one Motion to Change the Facts.
- EyeID writes about North Carolina’s new lineup ID rules.
- SL & P has a collection of stories questioning sex offender residency restrictions in Ohio and Kentucky.
- Norm Pattis writes about a recent CT Supreme Court opinion, which changes the language for a reasonable doubt instruction.
- The Lonely Abolitionist is back.
- Federal judges in California are considering imposing a cap on the number of inmates in California.
Enjoy!
Subscription reminder
Jul 29th
I seem to have picked up a few more readers these past few months, so I’d just like to remind everyone that you can subscribe to this blog in a few ways.
You can click on the icon above (or either of the two buttons under “syndication” on the right) and then pick your favorite feed reader or just enter your e-mail in the space on the right and you’ll receive daily e-mail updates.
Thanks for reading!
Lying lies and the jurors that tell them
Jul 28th
Look, we know juries are an enigmatic group. Take a look at Anne Reed’s deliberations and you’ll get the idea. But how brazen did you expect them to be? A fellow defense lawyer explains:
I did this first degree murder case last fall. My client committed the homicide. The defense was not guilty by reason of mental illness. My client got convicted, despite his really tragic history and diagnoses, and despite the fact that I came this close to getting the state’s dr. to admit that, indeed, my client met the statutory criteria.Some of the jurors were interviewed for some law day article. And one of the jurors said (who sat on my case) that he actually had a bias against mental health defenses, and did not think the mental health defense excused the conduct. AND he said no-one asked that question during jury selection.
Well, guess what? I did the v.d. I spent pretty much the whole time talking about mental health issues, and the venire folks were all talking back. And I asked that very question (in more than one way) and said juror did not respond. Another prospective juror indicated he did have reservations, and I spent a lot of time with him and then tried to get him excused for cause (failed, of course).
THEN (after being duly appreciative of the honesty of the venireperson), I asked who agreed with that person, and the guy who ended up on my jury, and who made the statements in the interview, actually indicated that he did not have such biases because he had a mentally ill person in his family, and he would certainly want to be more compassionate and fair. He lied to me. I cannot put any other construction on events, having (finally) received the appellate transcripts for the case.
It’s one thing to lie to get on a jury (although most lie to get off). It’s another to lie, then play like you didn’t, because no one asked you, when it’s damn simple to just get a transcript and prove you wrong.
What’s the point, you ask? I don’t know. It just got me steamed up enough to post about it.
Loan forgiveness bill passes Senate!
Jul 27th
Just received word that the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007 passed as an amendment to S. 1642 [pdf - scroll to page 600] by a vote of 95-0. This loan repayment bill had earlier passed the House.
Here are the main points:
(i) $10,000 for any borrower in any calendar year; or
(ii) an aggregate total of $60,000 in the case of any borrower.
Death charged
Jul 26th
Update: I don’t want to write a new post, so I’ll just add on here. Things are getting stranger. Bob Farr can’t get out of his own way:
Earlier this week, Robert Farr, chairman of the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Parole, said that the release of the two men was appropriate based on the available evidence.
Farr then said the board didn’t have all the facts on Komisarjevsky’s background when it chose to parole him. If it had, he said, the board’s decision might have been different. Farr has said that the board had no idea a Superior Court judge had called Komisarjevsky a “cold, calculating predator” during a 2002 sentencing because a transcript of the sentencing was not included in his parole file, even though state law required it to be there.
I’ve seen worse things said during sentencing. Nasty things get said during sentencing. I very much doubt that the parole board would have denied parole based on comments at sentencing. I do find funny the notion that they didn’t have the transcript and the implication that they couldn’t do anything about it. It wouldn’t have been the first time that they canceled or postponed a parole hearing for want of documentation.
Now Gov. Rell is jumping into the act:
Rell said she is forming a special panel to review not only how Komisarjevsky and Hayes were paroled, but also to take a look at the entire process of who gets released from state prisons.
“I want a top-to-bottom assessment of all the procedures and processes involved in charging, sentencing and releasing those convicted of crimes in Connecticut. I want the facts of the Cheshire case to be used as a touchstone during the course of this examination,” she said.
I’m not quite sure what that second paragraph means. She wants a review of the judicial system in CT? Okay…
And Rep. Caligiuri has another idea:
Word that the parole board released Hayes and Komisarjevsky based on incomplete case information and without a full hearing prompted one state senator to call for an immediate moratorium on further parole decisions until a full review is complete.
“I think the entire parole process seems to be in shambles,” said Sen. Sam Caligiuri, R-Waterbury. “We can’t afford to have another mistake made. We can’t afford to have another person go out on parole until the board of parole gets its act together.”
Sigh. Screw you Hayes and Komisarjevsky.
Original: As expected, New Haven State’s Attorney Michael Dearington has charged Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky with six capital felonies each in the triple homicides in Cheshire, CT [previous coverage here].
As a colleague pointed out today, the question now becomes: Can they get a fair trial an impartial jury anywhere in this State given the publicity this crime has received?
Technorati Tags: death penalty, connecticut, triple homicide, william petit
Fabricating PC thread disappears
Jul 25th
Grits’ reporting of the fabricating probable cause thread on the Texas DA’s website caused such a stir in the blogosphere, that they have now taken down the thread and it is no longer available.
I never understood why they’d have these threads open to the public anyway. No good can come of it [well, except a chuckle here and there and a general affirmation of defense counsel's mistrust of prosecutors].
The image above is a rip-off of Grits‘ rip-off of my earlier post.
Gadzooks! Appellate Court decisions
Jul 25th
Two – count ‘em! – two reversals (among other denials) from the Appellate Court today. The first, State v. Phillips [pdf], revolved around whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for new trial following a hearing that revealed evidence of possible racial bias on the part of a juror.
Four of the jurors testified that they believed juror B to be racially prejudiced against the defendant, who is a black man. Juror H, a black man, testified that juror B, a white man, made racist remarks to him. Juror H also reported that juror B told him that ‘‘when he saw [the defendant] he made up his mind that [the defendant] was guilty because of his demeanor. . . . He said when he first saw [the defendant], he knew—he knew that he was guilty.’’
According to juror H, juror B made reference to the fact that a person alleged to be part of the crime was Puerto Rican and to the way that ‘‘those people treat their women,’’ and also made a comment to one of the jurors of Vietnamese origin. Juror B also asked juror H why he had big feet. Juror H stated that juror B was very difficult to interact with and that it reached the point where juror H did not want to attend court any longer. In response to the judge’s question whether juror B’s conduct influenced his verdict, juror H stated, ‘‘yes, trying to get him to see the other part of the case.’’ He also said that ‘‘it was a compromise on my behalf.’’
Juror K, another black member of the jury, testified that he believed that juror B was racist. He said, ‘‘you didn’t hear the word n**** in that room, but you could feel it.’’ Juror M, the jury foreperson, testified that juror B made inappropriate comments of a racial nature during deliberations, including asking the black jurors questions that did not belong in the jury room, questions that he did not ask of the other jurors. Juror M also testified that juror B’s particular racial bias against the defendant presented some confusion in the room that may have affected the jurors’ ability to deliberate openly and fairly. Juror M said, ‘‘I think that we came to the decision that we could no longer go forward [and that] was because of the . . . I believe and we all believe . . . the racial bias by [juror B] in the room.’’ Juror R confirmed that one of the jurors made racially motivated comments and that his conduct caused the other jury members to ask him whether ‘‘he had racial problems.’’
When he testified at the postverdict hearing, juror B acknowledged the racial overtones throughout the jury’s deliberations. He testified that two members of the jury called him a racist. He said that during deliberations, he commented about the defendant’s demeanor at a certain stage in the trial and that as a result, ‘‘I was told I was a racist because black people and people of minority are more apt to demonstrate with their hands and to say things like that.’’ Juror B also believed that indirect threats were made to him. Juror B testified that juror K at one point said ‘‘something along the lines [of], ‘Boy, if this was a basketball game, I’d beat the shit out of him,’ or something like that.’’
The trial court found that there was no evidence that Juror B’s conduct affected the deliberations or the verdict. The Appellate Court held that the trial court had applied the wrong standard. Instead of requiring actual prejudice, it should have limited its inquiry to objective evidence of racially related statements and behavior. The court should then have decided whether that evidence amounted to racial bias against the defendant on the part of one or more jurors, which would have automatically warranted a new trial.
The second reversal was in State v. Moore [pdf], where the conviction was overturned on the grounds that the trial court erred in not striking the re-direct testimony of a state witness. This state witness was a co-conspirator and after implicating the defendant on direct, changed course and absolved him of any involvement on cross. He stated that he was pressured by the State into fingering the defendant and did so for considerations in his own case.
The state attempted a rehabilitative re-direct, but the witness soon invoked his 5th Amendment privilege and refused to answer any more questions. Re-cross was not possible. The defense objected and argued that the testimony on re-direct should be stricken, because to let it stand without doing so would violate the defendant’s 6th Amendment confrontation right. The Appellate Court agreed.
Triple homicide behind calls for review of parole system. Or “Ugh.”
Jul 25th
I resisted. I tried very hard. I clenched my fists. I got up and walked away from the computer. I let it be for a few days, thinking it would pass. Then I read this story.
Heinous, depraved, disgusting crimes no doubt. Do they warrant a review of the parole system? Absolutely not. [That's not to say that the parole system doesn't warrant reviewing, but my point is that this should not be the sole cause. There are plenty of things wrong with the parole system here.] Both men had lengthy criminal records, but the crimes were non-violent. In Connecticut, there are two eligibility classes: 50% (non-violent) and 85% (violent).
Here’s the thing, though: Even if you’re convicted of a non-violent offense, parole has the authority to (and frequently does) classify you as violent based on history, facts of the case, even nolled or dismissed charges. In some cases, the history stretches back 10 years. Their “unofficial” policy is that if an individual has two violent felony convictions in the last 10 years, then even if the current conviction is non-violent, they are automatically classified at 85%. I have previously written about CT’s parole system here.
One of these guys had served almost 4 years of a 5 year sentence and the other had served half of a nine year sentence. By all accounts, they were model inmates and not a hint of violence in their backgrounds.
Bob Farr, Chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles said:
“Both offenders were deemed to be appropriate candidates for supervised parole based on their criminal history, which involved the minimum level of violence.”
“The board took a look at the history. They took a look at crimes and whether they were violent offenses, and under most standards, the individuals had no history of violent crimes they have now been charged with.
A Department of Correction spokesperson had this to say:
“Both were on a weekly reporting schedule with their parole officers and had been in full compliance with the requirements of their release, including being employed on a full-time basis.”
Yet state lawmakers are calling for a “review of parole procedures”. I hate to say it and I feel awful doing so, given the tragedies, but sometimes, these things happen. You cannot control it. As much as I dislike parole policies in Connecticut, I cannot blame them here. They are not soothsayers; they cannot see into the future.
“How do we review candidates for parole? Even though violence is not in their past record, but it shows what they can do in the future. We have to ask that question,” [State Rep.] Caligiuri said.
Read that again. Tell me if that makes any sense. Violence is not in their past, but it (what is it?) shows what they can do in the future. What shows what?
He also said
“…these men seem to have conspired to commit even more heinous crimes, instead of being rehabilitated in the state system.”
Ah, there you have it. Although he doesn’t realize he’s saying it, the question is truly: Do prisons rehabilitate and do our prisons rehabilitate? What is being done in correctional facilities in Connecticut to ensure that inmates re-enter society as productive, responsible members? Frankly, given the state of overcrowding in facilities, how much can they do?
Which is what makes this State Rep’s suggestion mind boggling:
State Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, said Wednesday that in light of the Cheshire home invasion, the state needs to reassess the penalties for those convicted of burglary.
Kissel, who serves as a member of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee as well as chairman of the Connecticut Sentencing Task Forece’s subcommittee on racial and ethnic disparity, said that the current law considers burglaries to be a non-violent crime. He suggested that the law be changed to require mandatory prison sentences.
Again, instead of focusing on the real problem, let’s give out harsher sentences across the board.
I’m not even going to touch the death penalty issue.
Having said all this, I would not want to be the guy who has a parole hearing scheduled in the near future.
Connecticut readers
Jul 25th
Do I have any? Please take the time to answer via the poll below. I want to get an idea of what my readership consists of. Thank you. (Miranda, you’re not allowed to vote. You can leave a comment, though 
)
[poll=12]
Residency restrictions map
Jul 25th
This [pdf] is a map of Tippecanoe County, IN, where “John Doe” is asking to be found not to be a sex offender anymore and also challenging the legality of residency restrictions [previous coverage here].
I know next to nothing about the geography of Indiana and even less about Tippecanoe County, but doesn’t it look like most of the inhabitable urban area of the county is covered by the restrictions?
recent comments