Gideon
This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Homepage: http://apublicdefender.com
Posts by Gideon
Michael Ross – Groark to zealously argue incompetence
Feb 11th
The Courant has this article on Thomas Groark, who was appointed by Judge Clifford yesterday to investigate Ross’ incompetency and present any evidence of that at a future competency hearing. Groark is a senior litigation partner at Day, Berry & Howard in Hartford. I’m not so sure about this, knowing that he has little to no criminal experience. But at least it is a start.
May 11 – new execution date
Feb 10th
Judge Clifford in New London has set a new date for the execution of Michael Ross: May 11, 2005. He also appointed Hartford attorney Thomas Groark as special counsel to investigate the competency of Michael Ross.
Paulding will continue to assist Ross in his quest for his execution, while Groark will "have to take the counter position and argue that Ross is not competent." The Courant quotes
Paulding,
"This is the ideal resolution of the dilemma I was in and the
dilemma the court system was in. This allows me to do what I was
hired to do, which is represent Michael Ross"
I’m not sure if Groark volunteered to do this or was proposed by Paulding and/or the Public Defenders or how effective he will be if he is "forced" to take a position. Time will tell, as will more updates as
they become available.
Aaron, over at Crime and
Feb 10th
Aaron, over at Crime and Federalism
about the effectiveness of prisons and alternate programs. I commented,
to which he responded in length and I replied with my two cents. It
certainly is an interesting conversation, one that we must all have.
Please give it a read and post your thoughts if you feel the need to.
CrimProf points out this new
Feb 7th
CrimProf
this new Eight Circuit case
pdf./) in a post
today, where the Eight Circuit held that an interrogation conducted in a
police station without Miranda warnings, lasting 90 minutes, starting
out friendly and ending accusatory is not “custodial” and the confession
obtained therefrom should not be suppressed. Defendant Brave Heart was
called to the police station to be interviewed about the death of an
infant in his care. Prior to him coming, the officers had determined
from a pathologist that the wounds to the head were inconsistent with
Brave Heart’s story given to a 9-1-1 dispatcher the previous day. They
already suspected him. The officers informed BH repeatedly that he was
free to leave and began to conduct questioning in a polite manner. They
told him he was not under arrest and he could leave at any time. BH
recited a version consistent with his previous recitation. This is where
it got tricky. After about an hour the officers told BH that they
“needed to take a break to make some phone calls”. They asked him if “he
needed anything to drink”. They then left the conference room leaving it
ajar. They returned in 10 minutes. Now they started acting as if they
had /just/ spoken to the pathologist and were /only now/ beginning to
suspect BH. The pressured him into confessing with fake sympathy and the
promise of relief. He, of course, obliged. The Circuit court held that
the facts did not combine to undermine the officer’s express advice that
BH’s participation was voluntary. They held that the district court’s
finding that the officers always intended to arrest BH was erroneous.
“Thus, because [officer] did not articulate his plan to arrest BH,
[officer's] intentions do not affect the question of whether BH was
in custody.”
The court then finds that because BH was not physically restrained and
was treated with respect, he was, in fact, free to leave. Hardly. My
experience (limited as it may be) and whatever cases I read in law
school lead me to believe that no person in that situation, when being
interviewed by officers, who then ask if one wants to drink something
while they ‘make some phone calls’ would feel free to leave. That is
custody. The statement obtained after that should have been supressed
and the circuit court should have upheld the district court. But
ofcourse, there has been a trend lately of eroding Miranda as much as
possible. This continues that trend. Hopefully, SCOTUS will grant cert
and set things straight.
Virginia may well be on
Feb 7th
Virginia may well be on it’s way to executing Daryl Atkins
in whose case three years ago
the Supreme Court held that executing mentally retarded people is
unconstitutional. Now, after re-testing, Mr. Atkin’s score has gone up
from 59 to 74/76 (the cutoff in VA is 70). Slate
has the best spin on this:
Cynical spin: The test nails exactly the wrong people, because
anybody too dumb to figure out how to score below 70 when his life
is at stake really is too retarded to be executed.
How true.
CrimProf provides this interesting story
Feb 7th
CrimProf
interesting story about a website
“Who’s a Rat?”. He raises an important question: Should we be
advertising this? While I understand snitches are looked down upon in
the inmate “community”, I also do understand their value in law
enforcement. It is quite a dilemma.
Judiciary Committe to consider same-sex marriage, civil unions
Feb 7th
The CT legislature’s judiciary committee is holding a hearing on recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples today. Besides the obvious conservative opponents, there will also be opposition from a surprising group: the gay rights establishment. They say they are opposed to civil unions because they will settle for nothing less than same-sex marriage legislation.
For the past year or so, I have been dumbfounded by this particular debate. I see this as the weakest of the ‘hot-topic’ issues in our society today (others being the death penalty, abortion, social security). I do not understand what the hubbub is all about. Two men or two women marrying affects my life as much as Paris Hilton’s dog marrying Nicole Ritchie’s parrot.
I’m straight. Looking at gay men getting married isn’t going to make me not want to marry. It isn’t going to make me turn gay, much less want to marry a gay man. It simply does not affect my life. Opponents argue that marriage is defined as ‘between a man and a woman’.
Sure it is. But the question is by whom is it so defined? The meaning attributed to words can change over the course of time, with changing social mores. Undoubtedly, society’s perception of homosexuality is changing. I don’t even see it as a debate about marriage. I see it as a debate about the freedom of choice. If they choose to marry their loved one, who am I to say otherwise?
If you want to paint it as a religious no-no, then the argument against same-sex opponents becomes stronger. One of the great pillars of this society is the freedom of religion. If your religion prohibits you from "being" gay, then don’t be! That belief should in no manner be imposed onto someone who doesn’t subscribe to it.
As Jon Stewart put it, if you see a man having sex with a pinata, will that make you want to have sex with a pinata too? No. So why is homosexuality any different? I ask any and every one of you: How does same-sex marriage affect your individual life? I venture to say that the answer for all is the same (unless you’re gay): It doesn’t.
It’s a non-issue.
Chatigny recuses himself
Feb 3rd
Channel 8 is reporting that Judge Chatigny has decided to remove himself from any further proceedings. What motivated Judge Chatigny to remove himself from the matter is unclear, but I doubt it has anything to do with public outcry.
Most likely, Judge Chatigny removed himself to avoid any impression of impropriety.
Update: More details are available. What Judge Chatigny did is dismiss the motion before him without prejudice. It does leave open the possibility that it may come before him again if it goes through state courts and is appealed to federal district court. However, it is extremely unlikely that it will be scheduled to be heard by him. Well, he did what he had to do. Thank you Judge Chatigny.
Ross agrees to new competency hearing
Feb 3rd
The first reports on the Ross hearing in New London today indicate that Michael Ross has agreed to a new competency hearing.
Judge Clifford has given Paulding one week to resolve any potential conflicts he might have and encouraged Paulding to hire another pyschiatrist to examine Ross.
You know what they say. Two (Dr. Grassian and Dr. Norko) are better than one.
Ross due in court today
Feb 3rd
Michael Ross is due in New London Superior Court this afternoon,
possibly for a hearing to investigate the potential conflict of interest cited by T.R. Paulding. The hearing is before Judge Clifford, who earlier found him competent. /Key quote: Paulding says that new evidence suggests that Michael Ross is not competent to make his own decision to die. Will keep updating as more news becomes available on this story.
Death row inmates on hunger strike
Feb 3rd
The Courant reports that five out of the eight inmates on death row are
going on a hunger strike to protest the insufferable conditions at Northern Correctional Institution. The DOC will not say which five they are. The five inmates issued a statement that said
"What we request is not unreasonable: communal recreation. While
housed in Northern with the ‘worst of the worst’ prison offenders
who are being punished for their behavior, death row inmates are
extremely well-behaved and cause no problems or dangers to the
correctional officers or each other."
The statement then rides the coat-tails of the Ross saga and mentions SHU syndrome. The inmates said problems associated with solitary isolation are constantly expressed to DOC mental health staff.
"And their only response to these issues is to medicate inmates or
put them on a temporary suicide watch."
More opinions on Chatigny
Feb 2nd
Here is one more news article on Judge Chatigny and the opinion of legal experts on his behavior. The
journalist interviews Paul Chill, professor of ethics and dean of academics at UCONN Law and Norm Pattis, who is slowly emerging as Chatigny’s most vocal critic.
Excerpt:
"All Judge Chatigny is trying to do is allow enough time to hold a hearing on whether this ‘death-row syndrome’ affected the voluntariness of Ross’ waiver" of further legal challenges, Chill
said. But Chill also called the judge’s threat to Paulding’s law license "extraordinary," adding that it was essentially a threat "to take away Paulding’s livelihood."
Among the most outspoken critics of Chatigny’s remarks is Bethany lawyer Norman Pattis, who suggested that Congress should undertake an impeachment inquiry as a mechanism to force the judge to answer questions on the subject. Asked what provision of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges was violated by Chatigny’s remarks, Pattis had no immediate response.
Canon 1 of the code says, "A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct." Pattis conceded that Chatigny was "apparently" trying to do that in the telephone conference. But the lawyer added, "He apparently abandoned his role as a neutral and detached magistrate."
Criminal Appeal has an interesting
Jan 31st
Criminal Appeal
Caballes/
pdf./), the Supreme Court decision where they held that reasonable
suspicion is not required for a dog sniff of a car during a legal
traffic stop.
Yesterday, I posted about Juan
Jan 29th
Yesterday, I posted
about Juan Manuel Alvarez and indicated that California is seeking the
death penalty. One of my first reactions was that he had no intent. A
few blogs have explored this further and I am linking to them with links
to my comments there as well. CrimProf
intent issue here
CrimLaw
same issue and my comment is here
In essence, the question is about specific intent to commit murder and
did Alvarez have that specific intent. I say that he did not and that
could help lower his culpability to criminal negligence or at the very
least, involuntary manslaughter. California really shouldn’t be trying
to pursue the death penalty.
Michael Ross’ execution has been
Jan 29th
Michael Ross’ execution has been POSTPONED till Monday to address a
possible conflict of interest
the press conference, Paulding says “because of events that have
transpired today, I have requested that the execution be postponed till
Monday. I want to make it clear that this postponment is not being
requested by Ross. However a concern has arisen whether there is a
conflict of interest regarding my representation of Ross. I feel that it
is imperative that I take the appropriate steps to thoroughly address
that issue before his execution is permitted to proceed. I will be
taking those steps with all due diligence in the next two days.” I think
he is referring to Judge Chatigny’s request that he talk to Dr. Norko
again and to talk to inmate Ramon Lopez and former deputy chief warden
John Tokarz who had close interaction with Ross. It seems Judge
Chatigny’s words /did/ have an impact on Paulding!
recent comments