Category Archives: judges

Clarifying the problems with mandatory-minimums: why it’s okay to let them go

Over the weekend, Susan Bigelow at CT News Junkie had a fantastic op-ed piece arguing that Connecticut should follow AG Holder’s lead1 and revisit its use of mandatory minimum sentences.

Susan writes:

Just as important as efforts on the federal level, however, are criminal justice reforms we can and should implement here at home. The number of prisoners held in Connecticut’s facilities has, for a number of reasons, dropped from all-time highs in 2007 and 2008, but those levels are still high considering the drop in violent crime that’s occurred over the past decade. Also, the parole reforms enacted after the Cheshire murders in 2007 have contributed to the reversal of recent declines in prison population, meaning fewer prisoners are being released.

That’s accurate, with some recent reporting by The CT Mirror showing that numbers have gone up and overcrowding is a problem again, driven in large part by “reforms” to parole laws. Susan argues that in the next legislative session, we should “reform” mandatory-minimums or,  better yet, do away with them altogether.

There’s nothing to reform. Mandatory-minimums are a dangerous power to give to prosecutors. The results of that power being wielded in a heavy-handed way are evident in the war on drugs. It’s taken decades for the Attorney General of the United States to recognize that mandatory-mininum sentences have a terribly disproportionate impact on racial minorities.

In Connecticut, mandatory-minimums apply if you’re selling drugs within 1500 feet of a school or public housing project. Repeated efforts over the last few years to reduce that “drug-free zone” to 200 or 300 feet have failed.

Take a guess as to who is most impacted by this mandatory-minimum sentence2? You know where you can’t stand without being within 1500 feet of a school or public housing project? That’s right. Connecticut’s urban cities (that’s a post from 2007, by the way. We’ve been dithering over this common sense reform for six fucking years).

Mandatory-minimums are also dangerous because they are a chain that binds the hands of judges who seek to do justice and are a weapon in the hands of prosecutors who want to be unreasonable and unjust.

In Connecticut, prosecutors determine the charges to be filed and pursued. A judge, short of dismissal of a charge for legal reasons, cannot alter the charges filed by a prosecutor. Judges, on the other hand, can indicate a sentence they would impose, which can differ from a prosecutor’s recommended sentence.

So let’s say that a judge thinks an assault charge is worth a prison sentence of two years; the victim doesn’t want to the defendant to go to jail and there is no real long-term injury to any party. The defendant is a young man, with little or no criminal record and the state’s case is iffy at best.

But a gun was used in the assault, so the prosecutor charges Assault in the First Degree, which carries a mandatory sentence of 5 years. Now, no one thinks that a 5-year sentence is appropriate, except the prosecutor, but no one can do anything about it, including the judge and/or victim. Maybe the prosecutor doesn’t like the defendant, maybe she doesn’t like the defense lawyer, maybe she doesn’t like the judge or doesn’t like the system. Who knows.

But the point is that the prosecutor can hijack “fairness” in the process by “sticking” on a mandatory-minimum.

Mandatory-minimums are set by the legislature, based on precise calculations made using actuarial tables and deep meditation pulling numbers out of their ass. Most don’t have any experience in the day-to-day operation of the criminal justice system and base their ideas of “justice” and “fairness” on fairytales Law and Order. To be fair, when we’re resolving cases, we also pull numbers out of our ass, but at least our asses are attuned to the range of widely accepted resolutions.

But legislators, in someone’s infinite wisdom, have selected arbitrary numbers and have decreed not only maximum punishments, but also minimum punishments, sometimes in abject disregard for the realities of the criminal justice system.

Eliminating mandatory-minimums would do only one thing: eliminate the minimum. It would do nothing to the maximum. But it would allow judges the flexibility of making fair determinations of the appropriate sentence to be imposed, not hindered by an over-charging prosecutor. If a case is “worth” 2 years, a defendant should get a sentence of 2 years. But if a case is worth 8 years, he will get 8 years. Eliminating mandatory-minimums does nothing to alter that possibility.

Instead of a range of 5-20 years, the range simply becomes 0-20 years and a judge is free to sentence anywhere between those two numbers.

Finally, as I’ve said before, CT’s mandatory-minimum scheme has a weird interaction with its juvenile sentencing scheme, resulting in 14 year old children being tried in adult court as adult criminals and sentenced to mandatory ten years in jail. Juveniles – children – are different than the rest of us. The science is incontrovertible and established and even the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged this distinction. They deserve a second chance. While states across the country are considering altering their laws to comply with the Supreme Court, a bipartisan bill that would have done just that was defeated in the State legislature.

Because people are afraid:

“There seems to be some notion that mandatory minimum sentences make us safer and that moving away from them makes us less safe,” [State Rep. Gary] Holder-Winfield said, highlighting a stale leftover from the tough-on-crime rhetoric of the 1980s and 1990s. More people in prison doesn’t equal a safer or more just state, especially not when so many lives are being destroyed in the process.

People who commit crimes should be punished. But they should be punished fairly and proportionate to their crime. They should also be punished in a manner that is proportional to others who have committed similar crimes. They should also be punished in a manner taking into account their individual facts and circumstances.

Smart on crime means all of that. It means treating people as human beings. “Tough on crime” means being afraid of everything that isn’t you and condemning vast numbers of people because you’re scared. Tough on crime is simply continuing the narrow-minded racist policies that got us where we are today: staggering numbers of children and low-level non-violent drug offenders serving significant prison sentences, while our jails burst at the seam, corrections swallows the largest portion of our state’s budget and a trail of destroyed lives and families in its wake.

It’s time to stop being stupid on crime and start being smart on it. Eliminating mandatory-minimums is a step in the right direction.

Freed and fired: how one woman put justice over her job

Albeit a few weeks old, this story out of Jackson County is a truly bizarre tale of modern day American Justice and the confluence of a strong desire to adhere to rigid bureaucratic rules and the grander notions of Doing The Right Thing and Justice1.

A Kansas City2 man, Robert Nelson, was convicted in 1984 for a rape and sentenced to 50 years consecutive to sentences he was already serving. Those sentences ended in 2006, meaning that’s when he started serving the 50 year sentence for rape3.

Thing is, Nelson claimed from the beginning that he wasn’t the guy. He was innocent and should be let out of jail. So:

In August 2009, Nelson filed a motion seeking DNA testing that had not been available at his trial 25 years earlier, but Jackson County Circuit Judge David Byrn denied the request. Two years later Nelson asked the judge to reconsider, but again Byrn rejected the motion because it fell short of what was required under the statute Nelson had cited.

You know how this goes. Eventually, Nelson gets a third motion granted, the DNA is tested and lo-and-behold, he’s fucking innocent.

So what was different this time? Someone gave him a template to use that had been successful in another case. That someone was Sharon Snyder, a 70-year old court clerk of 34 years. She simply took a public document from another case, redacted identifying information and gave it to Nelson’s sister, saying “here, file it in this format”4.

So:

Nelson used that motion – a public document Dunnell [the sister] could have gotten if she had known its significance and where to find it – as a guide for a motion he filed Feb. 22, 2012, again seeking DNA testing. That August, Byrn sustained the motion, found Nelson to be indigent and appointed Laura O’Sullivan, legal director of the Midwest Innocence Project, to represent him.

And then Byrn finds out that it was Snyder who provided a copy of a public document. This obviously could not stand, so 90 days before she was set to retire, Snyder was fired. For. Umm. Hang on a second. Let me find a good phrase. Bureaucratic disobedience?

Five days after Nelson was released, Court Administrator Jeffrey Eisenbeis took Snyder into Byrn’s office near closing time and told her the prosecutor and defense attorney “had a problem” with her involvement in the case.

What defense attorney? You mean the one who was appointed after his motion for DNA testing was granted? I doubt it. And what problem? Making them look bad?

Keep in mind that nothing in the article or in the facts that can be gleaned or inferred from the reporting indicate that Nelson’s first two motions were denied because of their merits. They weren’t rejected because he didn’t make a sufficient factual claim that he should get DNA testing. It appears as though they were rejected for bureaucratic, ‘not-filed-in-triplicate-signed-by-your-deceased-great-grandmother’ reasons. They were rejected because the format of the motions didn’t comply with the statute.

So who is Nelson to turn to? An incarcerated inmate who took two cracks at filing a pro-se motion just to get an attorney appointed to get DNA testing performed to prove that he wasn’t guilty of the crime he was convicted of. No one. The point was that he was on his own or out of luck. That’s what the system does to pro-se litigants.

There is such a stubborn desire across the nation to protect convictions at all costs. There’s also a very strong sense of territorialism in county and district courts in some parts of the country where some judges rule like petty kings. Anyone who may dare to cross their path shall be smited, ridiculed and fired.

Prosecutors, judges and legislatures are so invested in this idea of “finality” and are so afraid of finding out that they’ve convicted an innocent person that rules across the country have cropped up erecting the most intricate and elaborate obstacles to post-conviction review of convictions. The Great Writ, once a pillar of the vindication of justice, a shining beacon and last resort of the illegally detained, has been eviscerated to the point that it’s unrecognizable. Post-conviction DNA statutes are absurd in their requirements and innocence has been held to mean not only your innocence but proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of another identifiable person. A technicality, I’ve said recently, isn’t what you think it is. A technicality is more often the tool of the state to protect its interest in the finality of convictions it obtains, the validity and legality of those convictions be damned.

Here, Nelson was, indeed, innocent, about to serve 50+ years for a crime he didn’t commit. And if Snyder hadn’t given him the magic form to fill to get Byrn’s attention, he’d be stuck in jail for the next 50 years, banging his head against a wall, wondering just why he couldn’t get anyone to listen to him.

“The document you chose was, in effect, your recommendation for a Motion for DNA testing that would likely be successful in this Division,” Byrn wrote. “But it was clearly improper and a violation of Canon Seven … which warns against the risk of offering an opinion or suggested course of action.”

What is Canon Seven? Can someone find out?

I think, in the end, whether she was “rightly” or “wrongfully” 5 fired is but a sideshow. Snyder is happy with her pension and the knowledge that she was able to help an innocent man get out of jail, bureaucratic nonsense notwithstanding.

The real tragedy here is that our system of justice is so adamant to put form over substance that an innocent man being denied a chance to prove his freedom is an acceptable consequence of failing to color inside the lines.

There are rules – don’t kill/harm/rape and don’t let innocent men go to prison – and then there are rules – submit on yellow typepaper, scrawled with the ossified tooth of a wildebeast’s carcass found in the northwest region of the Massai forest. There should be no confusion as to which rules are to be followed and which are not to be strictly so.

When we start sacrificing the former for the latter, we know the system has gone mad6.

 

 

The problem with the justice system (in a nutshell)

While doing an updated analysis of this post, I came across this “concurrence” [PDF] by the Chief Justice of the CT Supreme Court that perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with our “justice” system. Here it is, in its entirety:

ROGERS, C. J., concurring. I agree with the majority’s conclusion in part II of its opinion that appellate review of a waived constitutional claim that the jury instructions failed to include an essential element of the crime charged is barred by this court’s decision in State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). I write separately to emphasize that it is an unanswered  question whether such claims are subject to plain error review. Because the defendant in the present case did not seek plain error review, however, I leave that question for another day.

Those 6 lines make me want to throw up.

The defendant claims that the jury was not told that the State had to prove an essential element of a crime. Imagine, for example, the scenario that in order to find a person guilty of stabbing someone else, the judge doesn’t tell the jury that they have to find that the victim actually got stabbed. That’s an “essential element of the crime”.

That’s what the defendant is arguing the jury wasn’t told about. But no. We (the Appellate Courts) don’t care, because we elevate form over substance. We are a bureaucracy first and a judiciary second.

Kitchens is a case that says if a defense lawyer doesn’t specifically request X or Y – even if the absence of X or Y would be a gross Constitutional violation – we don’t care and the person can rot in jail. Too bad.

The second part of that paragraph is even worse.

Courts are – we would hope – entrusted with the administration of justice. They are – or should be – charged with, in the end, doing what is right and what is just and fair. They should be zealously and jealously guarding our rights and our protections, not running roughshod over them in an attempt to adhere religiously to some overwrought ideal of being an umpire first and an inspiring jurist never.

Plain error. Error that is plain to see. Error that is apparent to everyone. A mistake that has so infected the trial that it cannot have been fair.

Except now it is not available unless you “request” it. The defense attorney has to fill out a form in triplicate, signed by your mother, asking permission, pretty please, could you acknowledge the existence of the manifest error that you clearly know is there but pretend not to. And then, maybe then, we will deem it worthy of our review. Until that time, we are quite okay with a conviction obtained by a trial infected with Constitutional error.

This is what “justice” has come to.

The error of their ways should be plain for everyone to see.

CT: New rule for jurors and media

New Rule for Jurors: Don’t listen to media coverage about the case you’re serving on and if you do, let a judge know.

Oh? That’s not so new, you say? Well, welcome to CT, where yesterday is 1950 and tomorrow might be the landing on the moon.

Roughly 30 years after the invention of the internet and about 15 years after the invention of internet comments, the CT Supreme Court has issued an order [PDF] directing all trial court judges to instruct jurors after they’re selected that they have to avoid all media coverage.

This all came about in a civil case that was really contentious 1 and the New York Times published an in-depth article about the case. The plaintiff got mad and asked to poll 2 the jury if anyone had read it. But by this time the jury was already seated, because in CT, in civil trials, the judge doesn’t sit on the bench for jury selection. Seriously. He’s got other “judicial business” to attend to, while civil lawyers civilly agree on jurors. Bizarre. Anyway. The judge refused because, I don’t know. 3

The Supreme Court, while not agreeing that the trial court should have inquired into whether anyone was exposed to the media, nonetheless said that going forward trial courts should give an instruction to disregard the media and inquire into it, if brought to their attention. Because logic.

So they exercise their supervisory authority, which means, “we decree”:

Pursuant to our supervisory authority, we now direct all trial judges in this state to enforce the following policy when presiding over a jury trial: immediately after each juror is selected, he or she must be instructed by the court, either orally or in a written order from the presiding judge, which the juror must read and sign  before leaving the courthouse, that: (1) his or her sworn duty as a juror will be to decide the factual issues of the case for which he or she has been selected based only upon the evidence presented at trial; (2) consistent with that duty, he or she must avoid all publicity about the case and all communications to or from anyone about the case or any issues arising in it; and (3) if he or she is exposed to any such publicity or communications despite his or her best efforts to follow this instruction to avoid it, he or she must immediately inform the court about the exposure in writing, without advising any other jurors about the fact or the nature of the exposure, so that the court can follow up, as necessary, with him or her and/or other jurors, to protect the parties’ right to a fair trial.

Welcome to 2005.

Alaska bans plea bargaining

Well, it’s happened. Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Alexander are going to get their wish. Alaska – for the second time in the last 35 years – has banned plea bargaining.

Straight up. No deals. No agreements on sentencing. Done, with the swift stroke of the pen of their Department of Law 1. Prosecutors can negotiate charges, but in any case that is a sexual felony or involves domestic violence, they no longer have to discretion to agree upon a sentence in advance.

Essentially, they’re going to charge – or overcharge – and leave the sentencing up to the judge. Welcome to a world of “open pleas” 2.

How does this come about? As with all “great” ideas, it comes about with a horrific rape and murder by a guy who got out of jail earlier than he should have.

The change comes in the wake of a state review that shows prosecutors botched a 2009 plea deal involving accused killer Jerry Active. Active is the 24-year-old Togiak man accused of killing an elderly Cambodian couple — Touch Chea and Sorn Sreap — in their Mountain View apartment in May. He also is accused of sexually assaulting three generations of the family, including Sorn, a toddler and a 90-year-old woman.  Active had spent much of his adult life in the correctional system before the killings, which took place on the same day he was released from his latest stint in jail.

Well, I mean, if you put it that way. And so:

A new policy from the state Department of Law, effective immediately, instructs state prosecutors to stop negotiating sentencing terms in plea bargains for crimes like homicide, sexual assault, and other major felonies.

I have entirely mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I want to see if this experiment will work. On the other, I’m petrified that there are many people in Alaska who’re about to get fucked.

The system works as it currently does because there has to be a balance. While the defendant can always dangle the threat of trial, it’s usually a hollow one, because the potential for punishment after a guilty verdict – and it’s almost always a guilty verdict – is tremendous. You can bluff only up to a point. Pleas are entered to avoid that excessive punishment and to cut a bargain, essentially.

So what was the problem in Alaska?

Judges can now decide what sentence is fitting during hearings that make more information available to them: victim and witness statements, police reports and other information previously not known to the court.  While judges could always request the information and reject plea deals, Niesje Steinkruger — a retired Superior Court judge from Fairbanks — says that it rarely happened under the old rules.

She describes the absence of information previously presented to judges as troubling.  “When a plea is taken, usually all the judge has in front of her is a pretty thin file that only has the charging document, the complaint or the indictment,” Steinkruger said. “Judges do not have police reports. Judges do not have information from the victim, unless the victim has written a letter or is in the courtroom and provides information to the judge.”

Still not seeing it. What do defense lawyers say?

James Christie, an Anchorage defense lawyer, says the changes are beneficial even for lawyers who are intent on minimizing time served by clients. Christie says he supports the change because it puts an unbiased mediator in charge of decision-making, instead of biased defense lawyers and prosecutors.  “I would much rather have sentencing narrowly tailored in each individual case by an impartial judge than I would have the conditions crafted by somebody who has a dog in the fight, which typically are the prosecutors,” Christie said.

Let’s keep in mind that the prosecutors’ office has revoked the policy of plea bargaining. They’re not revoking it because their prosecutors were too harsh and they felt bad for defendants. it’s probably being revoked because it was too lenient and some guy got out and killed someone and they don’t want to be blamed ever again. This is not a policy change designed to benefit defendants. If it were, it wouldn’t be implemented.

So, you think you’re going to do better with judges? Judges who are almost certainly former prosecutors? Judges who’ve been watching his policy change and thinking oh, now you want us to put our necks on the line?

Defendants typically get higher sentences after “open pleas”. If it weren’t the case, wouldn’t that be the prevalent method of resolution of cases?

When you’re negotiating a plea – at least here in CT, for serious cases – the judge is almost always involved. In order to maintain a semblance of credibility, the prosecutor needs to make a “reasonable” offer: one that isn’t too far outside the norm of sentences for similar crimes and defendants. The judge “mediates” or negotiates and usually isn’t too far from either number.

With an open plea, however, the prosecutor is free to ask for the maximum in each case. And why wouldn’t they? it’s open season. And when faced with the choice of two recommendations: the harshest sentence from the prosecutor and the most lenient from the defendant, where do you think the judge will end up?

Almost everyone quoted in the news reports acknowledges that this change will place a greater burden on the resources of the judicial system in Alaska. So, in a time when the defenders of the accused are already overburdened and overworked, and indigent defense systems are crumbling and the injustices in the criminal system are racking up and sprouting up under the spotlight, Alaska has found the one remaining way to make it even harder for defendants to get individualized justice. You think having to hold a sentencing hearing in every single serious felony case is going to free up time for defenders to work on more cases?

If none of this convinces you, let’s go back to the last time Alaska tried this. It banned plea bargaining in 1975, before the ban eroded and plea bargaining was back in use by 1990. But in 1978, the ban was called “successful”. What do you mean by successful? I’m glad you asked:

[...] the length of prison terms for violent crimes had increased 50 percent; terms for felony sentences rose 200 percent for white-collar crimes and 300 percent for drug violations.

Oh. I see. Success means more people getting fucked and put in jail. You can’t rely on an “unbiased mediator” when the system within which the mediator operates is rigged against the defendant. Such faith presumes that the system is inherently fair. Anyone who has spent a minute observing the system can attest to the falsity of that presumption.

There seem to be some legitimate problems with the way criminal cases are handled in Alaska. Eliminating plea bargaining will only add another.

 

You’re to blame: an excuse for courts to deny justice

The Connecticut Law Tribune has published this very important and necessary editorial, criticizing all the arms of the criminal justice system for their complicity in repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments by Connecticut prosecutors.

Written in the wake of the extraordinary opinion in State v. Santiago last month, the editorial rightly questions whether prosecutors in the State are paying any attention at all to the steady stream of opinions coming from our appellate courts that deem their comments improper. The editorial also rightly questions the efficacy of such chastisement when our appellate courts also routinely renders these improprieties harmless: a sort of get out of jail free card. A wink and a nod, as the editorial calls it.

What’s to prevent a prosecutor from taking a calculated risk in crossing the line of acceptable conduct when our appellate courts on a regular basis give a wink and a nod to this kind of improper behavior? Maybe it’s time for grievances to be filed where certain kinds of misconduct, like that detailed in the Santiago case is documented.

With appellate courts reluctant to even name prosecutors, let alone find that their misconduct impacted the outcome of the case 1, with still no referrals to the grievance committee and with no financial incentive to “behave”, as it were, there really is no effective way to enforce Constitutional limits on prosecutors’ conduct and arguments.

But the editorial also rightly points the finger at the defense bar: we are just as complicit in numbing everyone to the real extent of the impropriety in these cases. While it is true that lack of an objection by defense counsel to improper argument is but one factor 2 to be considered, it is fast becoming the predominant factor.

This highlights another massive problem with the fair administration of justice that has fundamentally altered the way due process is dispensed in Connecticut that has been left untouched by this – or any other – editorial as far as I know. I’ve written about it here, though.

Our court has become extremely outcome oriented and that outcome is predominantly this: sustaining convictions obtained by trial courts and juries. In order to achieve that outcome, the Court has – with the Prosecution’s urging and prodding – made it optional and less desirable for trial judges to be the arbiters of the law and of what is admissible and what is not. It has blazed a path that absolves trial judges of any responsibility for gaps in knowledge of the procedure to govern the orderly administration of justice.

It has taken this awesome responsibility and placed it squarely on the shoulders of defense attorneys. We are the lighthouses by which the appellate courts will guide the ships to safe port. There used to be a time where trial lawyers could afford to sit back in their chairs, roll up their sleeves and “try cases from the file”, making statements that border on ineffective assistance of counsel like “I try to win at trial, not on appeal”.

Well you better win at trial now, because given the way the majority of the defense bar practices, no one is winning on appeal. Defense attorneys are complicit in not preserving objections, not objecting properly, not filing motions in limine, not filing requests to charge: in other words, every single thing that is necessary to properly preserve Constitutional and evidentiary claims of error for appellate review.

Appellate review isn’t the wide open football field that it used to be – or even should be. Rather, our appellate courts have reduced securing appellate review to jumping through flaming hoops that move unpredictably and narrow impossibly to the head of a pin.

Appellate courts repeat incessantly – in some areas of the law – that “talismanic incantations” aren’t required to invoke the protection of rights, or that to be valid, a plea canvass need not have specific utterances, but rather simply the gist of the matter.

Not so if you want to vindicate your Constitutional rights. A most specific and almost entirely accurate objection must be noted and repeated several times.

Appellate review has turned into a game of hide the ball and you’re it.

If we are to vindicate all the Constitutional rights that every citizen of this country is entitled to, then we have to start getting better at our jobs. We need to understand the game the court is playing and we need to play that game. We have to think of the long game: trial, appeal, habeas, federal habeas.

Because, for our clients, this is their life, not a game.

Martin, Zimmerman and the colors of injustice

This is not a Trayvon Martin post; this is not a George Zimmerman post. For that, go read these fine pieces with which I wholeheartedly agree.

This isn’t even a post about race, although race certainly fuels much of it.

This is a post about injustice. Injustice doesn’t come in one shape: the acquittal of a seemingly obviously guilty white-ish man for murdering a black teenager. Injustice comes in many stripes, shades and hues. Injustice is smaller than the Zimmerman acquittal and greater than it too. Injustice happens every day before your eyes, but you don’t see it.

Injustice is Warren Hill. In 2002, the United States Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to kill mentally retarded people. Georgia is a part of the United States. Warren Hill is a prisoner in the State of Georgia. Warren Hill is mentally retarded. His experts agree. The State’s experts agree. Yet Warren Hill is scheduled to die tomorrow. A mentally retarded man, in direct contravention to the Constitution of the United States. Because it’s Georgia and Georgia does what it wants.

Injustice is the hundreds of thousand of black men who went to jail for years longer than their white counterparts because of an imaginary crack-cocaine disparity.

Injustice is when children like Trayvon Martin or younger are arrested and treated as adults by a harsh, unrepentant adult criminal system, sending them to jail automatically for a decade or more.

Injustice isn’t at the fringes of the criminal justice system; it isn’t in the extreme corners and reaches, rearing its head every 6 months or so for you to vent your moral outrage at.

Injustice happens to the wrongfully convicted, like Ronald Cotton or James Tillman or Miguel Roman or the hundreds of others who were convicted by duly sworn juries just doing their jobs.

Injustice is every day. Injustice happens like a death by thousand cuts. Injustice happens to the guilty and the innocent. And every injustice to the guilty is injustice to the innocent.

Injustice is when we spend millions of dollars to fund police and prisons and prosecutors and our legislators increase the number of crimes and multiply the punishment without nary a thought to covering the costs of defense. Injustice is when your rights are in the hands of underpaid, overworked lawyers who are doing their best but are overwhelmed by an overwhelming system. Injustice is when “tough on crime” trumps the promise of equality in access to justice.

Injustice is when prosecutors get to decide what to turn over and what not to. Injustice is when they don’t turn over evidence proving innocence. Injustice is when the courts protect their illegal and unethical ways.

Injustice is when the police department in New York has a policy of stopping every minority and “frisking them”, because they were “wearing clothes commonly used in a crime“. Injustice is when the police department wants the power to stop anyone on the street, for any reason, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Injustice is when “technicalities” are used to deny people their appeals, to forcibly impose convictions no matter the Constitutional violations or error. Injustice is when we elevate form over substance, format and rules over rights and freedoms. Injustice is when you punish people for exercising their rights.

Injustice is when they use fear to scare you into giving up your rights, telling you tales of the terrorist or the criminal whom you must punish.

Injustice is when you believe that you have nothing in common with the individual subjected to the full force of the government’s ire. Injustice is when you believe that you will never be a persecuted minority. Injustice is when you believe that you have nothing to hide, so you don’t say a word when they illegally look inside my house.

Injustice is when you pay attention when the media tells you to and you stop thinking for yourself. Injustice is when you go into court, predisposed to convict.

Injustice is when you think justice only applies to the innocent or the likeable. Injustice is when you decide that one set of rules apply to you and another set of rules to those that you don’t like. Injustice comes in a dazzling array of colors. Do you have the courage to not be afraid anymore?

Can you stop being colorblind to injustice?