Daily Archives: September 11, 2007

Selective representation

Mark Bennett wrote yesterday of “principles” that we live by and how he’s thinking of a new personal policy of not co-operating with the government (read: representing snitches).

His post is nice and heroic and principled, but I think it misses some practical aspect. These principles are fine in theory, but in reality, you may just end up harming your client. Not all cases are obviously snitch cases from the beginning. Sometimes you have a client that overhears something in prison and if it will help him, why not? Our ultimate duty and obligation is to our client and as defense lawyers we must explore every avenue that will result in benefit for the client.

To foreclose an avenue entirely in advance, arbitrarily, is doing the client a disservice. I’ve written about this before (here and here) and my thoughts haven’t changed. What’s the difference between declining to represent snitches and then saying murder is repugnant so I won’t represent murderers? It’s a slippery slope and if you start going down that road, don’t you have to ask yourself whether this is what you want to do?

Hearing on criminal justice reforms today

Today, the legislature will hold its first hearing on the criminal justice system and any reforms in the wake of the Cheshire killings and the media is having a field day. I was going to write about the one lone story in the Courant last night, but upon awaking this morning, I see that the Courant now has 5 – count ‘em – 5 more stories. So I’ll just highlight each.

First, here comes the classic conundrum: We want to be tougher on crime, but if that involves building a prison and you choose to do it in our town, we’ll fight you tooth and nail. Meriden is apparently, the “only” viable site for a new prison and the residents are not happy and ready to fight.

Second, there’s this lengthy piece on Bob Farr and how he had no idea his job would become this difficult. However, if some people are to be believed, he should have had every indication that this nightmare would occur, because, you know, this was predictable.

Third, this story highlights the differences between both sides of the aisle in their proposals and details the Office of Fiscal Analysis’ report on the cost of these proposals: Prison population increases by 1000 a year and the new prison costs $10  100 million. GPS monitoring costs $212,000 for every 30 inmates.

Fourth, this piece analyzes whether Hayes should have been allowed to remain free after being released on parole, because he had to reschedule two meetings. Buried in the story is the fact that he had two jobs and a place to live.

Finally, the media takes this story of a death in Hartford and ties it in to the Cheshire hearings. It also misrepresents in the title: “Parole violator at scene of death”. What it doesn’t tell you (or does so ineptly – whether intentionally or otherwise) is that he was charged with violation of parole because he was at the scene. Stupid sensationalism.

I’ll be looking to the news for updates on the hearings and to Undercurrents, which I suspect will have a detailed report. There is a press conference prior to the hearings, held by, among others, A Better Way Foundation. Details here. It sure is going to be a fun day.

Penalty phase hearing in Bridgeport case starts

Yesterday the penalty phase hearing in the capital trial of Russell Peeler got underway in Bridgeport Superior Court. This is his second penalty phase hearing after the first one ended with a hung jury. Already there’s some drama. Two jurors asked to be dismissed after the Connecticut Post mentioned their names in a story over the weekend.

Defense attorney Erskine McIntosh moved for a mistrial, saying he was concerned about the possibility of future problems with jurors. “I just don’t think it’s worth that type of risk, particularly when this man’s life is on the line,” McIntosh said.

Judge Robert Devlin Jr. denied the request. “I detected no hesitation in their ability to be up to the task,” he said of the remaining jurors.

Peeler’s hearing is one of two set for this month. Lazale Ashby’s hearing in Hartford is also scheduled for this month.