Archive for October 19, 2007
The best laid plans…
Oct 19th
…wrote Robert Burns and it is a reality of criminal defense practice. The cross all worked out in your head – the witness trembling on the stand, your questions like a scythe cutting through their nonsensical story, the jury snickering, nay, laughing at the foolishness of this witness. A glorious not guilty verdict.
And then you come crashing to reality. The witness obfuscates. He hems, he haws, he doesn’t remember. The scythe is dull, the blows timid. The best laid plains…
I often get excited about “test cases”. The factual scenario is perfect, the law needs changing. This is the “test case”. The case that shall alter the landscape of anti-defendant legislation and jurisprudence. This is the case where the statute will be declared unconstitutional. I have it all played out in my head. Me, standing before the Supreme Court, arguing passionately, emphatically. The justices nodding their head in approval and understanding. A lucid, insightful opinion released shortly thereafter, setting right all that is wrong with the world.
Except, clients plead guilty. You sigh, nod understandingly and move on to the next case. The best laid plans…
Vote for the new tagline
Oct 19th
Back in August, I conducted an informal poll on changing the tagline of this blog. Several readers responded with good suggestions. I’ve picked the best from those and created the poll below. This is your chance to influence my decision. Be a part of history!
The nominees are:
- “Haven’t you paid enough for your crimes already”? from Miranda
- “Defending You People” from Windypundit
- “Why pay more?” from Scott Greenfield
[poll=17]
Cheshire warrants to be unsealed
Oct 19th
Yesterday, Judge Damiani ruled that redacted versions of the 11 search warrants used by police to investigate the Cheshire killings be unsealed. The Hartford Courant sought to have the warrants unsealed, presumably to keep publishing sensational stories.
The defense’s argument is a logical one: Given the existing media coverage, it will be difficult to find an impartial jury. If further details from the warrants are made public, specifically the alleged confessions, the task gets even more arduous. Judge Damiani’s response was to have portions of the warrants redacted. Which portions? We do not know.
Tom Ullman showed up at the last hearing with a thick binder with contained all the media coverage of the killings up to that point, documenting the extreme reactions of the people of Connecticut. That folder is about to get thicker.
Besides the fact that this would be a cash cow for the press, I cannot think of another reason why the Courant is so invested in having these warrants unsealed. Their argument that “the citizens want to know” or “have a right to know” or some such nonsense doesn’t outweigh the defendant’s right to have a fair trial by an impartial jury.
This will just make the already difficult task of picking a jury for a capital trial that much more difficult.
recent comments