Archive for January 7, 2008
Tips for the Connecticut practitioner
Jan 7th
Probably since I started blogging as a Connecticut public defender, I’ve received e-mails from readers asking about particular courts and what the practices there are like. I’ve also received e-mails from new attorneys asking about “essentials” – what must you know about Connecticut law.
So, after nearly four years of blogging, I’ve decided to embark on this ambitious journey. I’m creating a new page on this blog – “Tips” – which will contain links to tips for Connecticut practitioners. Maybe if I get enough tips from all JDs, I’ll create a new subdomain. For now, I’ll try and break them up by GA/JD alphabetically.
So get it started! We need a repository for information such as this. What must you know before setting foot in Bridgeport? Who do you talk to in Hartford for MV cases? What’s the name of that case that deals with admissibility of videotaped statements by a minor victim (Jarzbek)?
So send in your tips to threegenerations at gmail dot com and I’ll have them up as soon as I can!
To start off with, here’s one from me:
Always, always perform an elements analysis. Always. Go to the library in your office (or use Lexis). Pick up volume 13 and flip to the 53s. All our statutes are in there. As Miranda snarkily pointed out, you might also need Volume 7, Title 21a (drug offenses) and Volume 5, Title 14 (DUI statutes). Turn to the appropriate one and write out, by hand, the elements of the offense.
You can’t practice criminal law without performing an elements analysis. This is basic stuff. Make sure you do it before you embark on the journey of representing a client.
Let’s hear what you have to say!
Phoning it in
Jan 7th
While all the hullabaloo surrounding SCOTUS today may have been centered around Baze, the Court also issued a minor, but nevertheless terrifically interesting decision. In Wright v. Van Patten [pdf], the Court wrote, per curiam, that the Circuit Court’s grant of a habeas was improper because the State supreme court’s decision denying the habeas was not contrary to clearly established federal law (which is one of the two grounds on which a valid State conviction can receive federal habeas corpus review).
Mr. Wright sough habeas review in the first place because at his plea hearing, his lawyer phoned it in. Not phoned it in in the colloquial sense (or even the widely used “he was crappy” sense that forms the basis of most habeas petitions), but rather in the literal sense. He appeared for the plea hearing via telephone.
In a state as small as CT, that is unheard of. Perhaps in them larger jurisdikshuns where theys gots lots of open land and such, it may be common practice (what was I going for there? I have no clue). Still, the idea seems very…dirty. If my client is pleading guilty, I want to be there to stand by him – if for nothing else than to offer support. It’s not only my client’s case, it is my case as well and having been through the whole process side by side, I’d rather not end it speaker to ear.
Anyway, the Court reserved for another day the substantive question of whether appearing by telephone is legally adequate (maybe that answers your question, Scott?). This case was reversed on purely procedural grounds.
Image license info here.
Monday Morning Jumpstart
Jan 7th
As we head into the first full week of 2008 (with some mild weather), here are some stories and posts that caught my eye:
- The biggest story this morning is oral argument in Baze v. Rees. Audio of the oral argument will be available on the SCOTUS website later this morning.
- Also making headlines this past week was SCOTUS’ granting of cert in Kennedy – the capital punishment for non-murder case.
- Kevin at Lexblog writes about this NYTimes piece on the legal profession’s “fall from grace”.
- Concurring Opinions brings us the story of the Chicago restaurant whose wings are so hot, they require customers to sign releases.
- Exoneree #211 (or is it 212?)
- Dahlia Lithwick at Slate runs down the Bush administration’s dumbest legal arguments of the year.
- Ken at CrimLaw discovers that banishment is legal in Virginia.
- Speaking of Ken, you absolutely must watch his new feature: CrimLaw TV. Ken has always been ahead of other crim law blogs in the technology department and now he’s done something that has been missing thus far: a vidcast. Here‘s the latest episode.
- Finally, a story from around these parts: This year marks the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Connecticut Turnpike.
Have a wonderful day!
recent comments