Archive for January 17, 2008
Blawgosphere pay attention: AT & T might have lost its mind
Jan 17th
I try very hard to keep this blog focused on criminal law issues. Sometimes, however, I see something that just blows my mind.
AT & T is considering filtering internet content. Odd, in light of the fact that Comcast might just get hit bigtime. For more on net neutrality (including: “What is it?”) go here.
Who needs merit when you’re in habeas
Jan 17th
As has been pointed out to me by several readers, I missed a troubling portion of an opinion earlier this week when I recapped the latest Appellate Court opinions. In Kaddah v. Comm’r, which I summarily dismissed, I ignored habeas counsel’s shocking admission that he intentionally pled a meritless claim just to please his client.
Perhaps I was subconsciously taking a cue from the Appellate Court who also let it pass without a reprimand.
The story goes thusly: Petitioner, represented by Attorney A, claimed in his first habeas that his appellate counsel, Attorney B was ineffective. However, at the habeas trial, Attorney A did not call Attorney B to testify and seemingly abandoned that claim. So petitioner filed another habeas, this time against Attorney A, alleging IAC for failing to establish his claim the first time around by not calling Attorney B.
At that second habeas:
[Attorney A] testified that the inclusion of the ineffective assistance allegation against [Attorney B] in the first habeas petition was done merely to placate his client—[Attorney A] did not believe the claim had any merit. On the basis of his assessment that the claim was meritless and would fail, [Attorney A] decided it would not be prudent to call [Attorney B] to testify.
Whaaaaaa? Did I just go through a worm-hole and end up in BizarroConnecticut where the rules of professional conduct no longer apply? Let me check. No, Rule 3.1 still exists. For those not in the know, it states:
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
So how does the court get around it? By changing Attorney A’s characterization of the claim as “meritless” to “weak”.
In light of this uncontradicted testimony, [Attorney A]’s abandonment of the claim against [Attorney B] was a strategic decision that merely eliminated a weaker argument from the petition.
Weaker? It’s frivolous! Weak is when the only support for your claim is your client’s testimony. Frivolous is when you have no support for a claim.
They can’t make up their mind, apparently. For, a sentence later, they say:
The petitioner has set forth no persuasive arguments as to why [Attorney A]’s failure to pursue a meritless claim amounts to deficient performance.
At a time when courts openly question why habeas cases take so long to prosecute, you’d think the Court would want to stamp down on those that plead meritless claims just to please their clients.
Oh, and I’ve said this before, but if you’re an attorney whose former client has filed a habeas petition, why don’t you just co-operate and talk about your representation? It would make things so much easier for the habeas attorney. You talk to them; they can better determine if there actually is a claim – then we don’t end up clogging the courts with frivolous weak claims.
Banned words trial no more
Jan 17th
Bringing a case that drew national attention to an end, the prosecutor in the “banned words” trial decided not to try the defendant for a third time.
This is the case where the judge banned the use of the words “rape”, “sexual assault” and “victim” (rightly so, in my opinion) and in which the accused later sued that same judge.
Two trials ended in mistrials and after initially indicating that he would try it a third time, the prosecutor announced that he wouldn’t.
Lancaster County Attorney Gary Lacey says he decided not to pursue a third trial in a sexual assault case because the judge barred the testimony of 2 key witnesses.
Bowen’s lawyer Wendy Murphy says Lacey’s explanation doesn’t make much sense because the judge barred testimony from those two witnesses before the second trial last summer.
Murphy says the loss of those witnesses didn’t prevent Lacey from trying to prosecute Safi last summer.
Double jeopardy isn’t a bar to retrial after a mistrial, but at some point the state has to decide whether it’s worth pursuing anymore. It seems that this prosecutor reached that point.
recent comments