Archive for July 23, 2007
Shame on you
Jul 23rd
A prosecutor in CT tried to say to a woman. The judge stopped him from doing so.
Okay, well, not literally. Manchester prosecutor Adam Scott sought to make public shaming a condition of Accelerated Rehabilitation (a pre-trial diversion program) for 55 year old teacher Angela Schmidt. Ms. Schmidt was granted AR for falsely accusing a man of sexually assaulting her. Scott wanted her to take out an ad saying that she had done so.
The article notes diverse opinions from attorneys in the state. Some came out against the idea and some didn’t think it was that bad. I
“It reminded me of the pilgrims and stockade in front of town square,” said Schmidt’s lawyer, Richard Brown. “Why would you ask a defendant, not found guilty, to be put through such humiliation? It’s a punitive sanction and is inconsistent with punishment we should give to people.”
Timothy Everett, a clinical law professor at UConn Law School, agreed.
“When a person receives accelerated rehabilitation they still retain the right against self-incrimination,” he said. “The defendant was not convicted of anything. Admitting in public print is self-incrimination and could be used against her.”
Everett called the request “pushing the envelope” and said he had never heard of it being made in the past. He has seen judges order a person to write a letter of apology, but not to advertise it to the public.
“Requiring someone to shame [himself] is a constitutional violation,” he said.
Everett and Brown also agreed that accelerated rehabilitation usually imposes conditions that are constructive and can build a person’s character. This condition would have only punished and humiliated, they contend.
While I agree that the imposition of such a condition would probably be in contravention to the purpose of AR, I haven’t made up my mind about the use of shaming punishments as a sentence.
Deep down inside me, somewhere, are still burned the lessons of childhood, where I learned the quickest when others made fun of me. Then I think back to the severe pain and embarrassment that accompanied those tauntings and I think, maybe it isn’t such a good idea after all.
Three years speedy enough?
Jul 23rd
By now I’m sure all of you have heard about the Judge that dismissed charges of sexual assault filed against Mahamu Kanneh, a Liberian immigrant who was granted asylum in the US, because the State took three years to prosecute. The sticking point was the inability to find a suitable interpreter – one who spoke the dialect “Vai”.
After three years, the judge said enough is enough and dismissed the charges. As details emerged, it became clear that interpreters had been found and used, but one couldn’t handle the facts, another had to leave for a family emergency and one was located on the day the dismissal was issued.
Not surprisingly, the blogosphere (and other places) is full of criticism for the judge. Naturally, I don’t see it that way. However severe the charges may be against him, the bottom line remains that someone was unable to locate an interpreter for three whole years.
If you do not think that the judge was right in dismissing the charges, then you are in favor of indefinite detentions while the State lethargically crawls ahead with its prosecutions.
There is a reason why all states have enacted Speedy Trial statutes (in fact, some have made it part of their Constitutions) and that is to protect against the awesome power of the state to charge and detain individuals for indefinite periods of time while they go about collecting their evidence.
Anyway, back to the story. What made me chuckle was this quote from the prosecutor:
In arguing to save the case, Assistant State’s Attorney Maura Lynch said that dismissing the indictment “after all the efforts the state has made to accommodate the defendant would be fundamentally unfair.”
It really is quite amusing that the State views fundamental Constitutional rights as “accommodating the defendant”. If I had even the slightest inkling that my client was unable to fully comprehend the scope of the legal proceedings against him, I would fight tooth and nail until I was sure that he was able to understanding what was going on.
Thoughts?
And we’re back!
Jul 23rd
After 24 hours of this blog being down, it looks like we’re finally back. Apparently, my host’s server had to immediately and unexpectedly fix itself, so everything was down. It took much, much longer than I had anticipated or what I was told by customer service.
Anyway, I hope this break hasn’t led to me losing all my readership. If you’re still here, you’re good people 
I’ve missed so much, I’ll try to cover it as best as I can.
recent comments