Category Archives: psa

How do you solve a problem like Brady? Liu-k no further.

Liu-k? Is that pronounced lieuk? Loo-K? Look? I don't get it.

Liu-k? Is that pronounced lieuk? Loo-K? Look? I don’t get it.

Scott wrote yesterday about a blisteringly ineffectual 4th Circuit opinion in U.S. v. Bartko [PDF], which was notable not only for its lengthy reprimand of the Brady practices of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, but more so for its complete failure to do anything about the numerous Brady violations it noted. Via Scott:

And yet every defendant’s conviction is affirmed because the failure to disclose Brady did not undermine the court’s “confidence” that they were guilty. But the bleeding doesn’t stop here. Lest the Circuit’s admonishment of the fine men and women prosecutors hurt anyone’s feelings, it adds:

“We do not mean to be unduly harsh here.”

But the court had no choice, faced with the rampant and recurring concealment of Brady and Giglio.

“Whatever it takes, this behavior must stop.”

Or what? After the 100th time the government has been caught doing the dirty, the Chief Judge will snap his fingers in a Z shape and lecture the prosecution on the importance of being earnest? What it takes is a court with the balls to do its job and uphold the defendant’s constitutional rights, even if it’s absolutely sure the defendant is guilty. That could have happened at any time, and this time. And yet it didn’t.

As noted repeatedly here on this blog and almost everywhere else where someone with half a brain cell writes about criminal law, the problem with Brady is that it’s essentially unenforceable as long as there is no oversight and no will on the parts of judges to do the really hard thing: punish prosecutors for violating their duty by reversing convictions and referring them to grievance committees.

Maybe, though, just maybe that is catching on. First there was Judge Sheldon’s blistering opinion a few months ago, reversing a conviction for “a deliberate pattern of improper conduct” by the prosecutor.

Then, there was this recent story out of Alaska that involved a suspension of a former prosecutor for hiding exculpatory evidence in a murder case:

Asking for a lawyer is not evidence of guilt

monopoly-go-to-jail-card

When the United States Supreme Court decided that horrible Salinas v. Texas – that silence is not the same as invoking your right to silence – it left many questions unanswered: primarily, if a person does invoke his right to be silent, can the prosecution still use that invocation as proof of guilt?

In Salinas, SCOTUS said that since Salinas had not properly invoked his privilege, his silence could be used against him. In a post providing commentary and analysis on that issue, Orin Kerr at Volokh asked two questions:

Finally, I have two major questions about how Salinas is supposed to work in practice. The first question is obvious: How clear an invocation of the Fifth Amendment right does it need to be?

Second, and perhaps more interestingly, it’s unclear to me what is supposed to happen when a suspect outside of custody clearly asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.

The Second Circuit answered that second question today: the invocation is sacrosanct and cannot be used a evidence of guilt.

City wants defense lawyer to pay for wrongful imprisonment

kevin-pagean

You’re almost 18 right? No? 16? Well, let’s just pretend you said 17. Now smile for the camera while we destroy your rights1.

The lawyer for the city of Worcester acknowledges up front that his legal argument is frivolous and has no basis in the law2:

After the hearing, [the solicitor for the city of Worcester] Moore acknowledged there is no case, no precedent to cite to support the complaint against [defense attorney] Ryan.

But he’s doing it anyway, because anything to distract from the horrible violation of civil rights that his city inflicted on 18 year old Nga Truong. Truong, 16 at the time, was arrested because her son had stopped breathing earlier in the day. Police decided, as they often do, with no evidence and no basis other than they pulled it out of their collective asses, that she had killed him.

So they interrogated her3 for two hours, lying to her, threatening her and coercing her into confessing. Which she did4. Don’t kid yourself; you would have confessed too.

Her lawyer called it the worst interrogation he’s seen in 35 years, labeling it ‘psychological torture’. A judge agreed, suppressing her statement [PDF]. In that opinion:

When the judge, Janet Kenton-Walker, threw out Truong’s statements to police, she wrote that Truong “was a frightened, meek, emotionally compromised teenager who never understood the implications of her statements [to police].”

With no other evidence, the prosecutor had to drop the charges. But that didn’t stop him or the police chief from keeping their blinders on and backing their own:

Blech-er: confronting the venomous

Odious people tend to up the ante the most when they’re schilling something: like NY Law Professor Robert Blecker1, who’s got a book out about the death penalty. So naturally he takes to the beatified pages of CNN’s op-ed section to write an unholy screed about how lethal injection is just too easy.

When the condemned killer intentionally tortured helpless victims, how better to preserve some direct connection short of torture than by that murderer’s quick but painful death? By ensuring death through anesthesia, however, we have nearly severed pain from punishment.

An unpleasant life in prison, a quick but painful death cannot erase the harm. But it can help restore a moral balance. I, too, oppose lethal injection, but not because these untried new drugs might arbitrarily cause pain, but because they certainly cause confusion.

So what is his solution?

Publicly opposing this method of execution, I have found odd common ground with Deborah Denno, a leading abolitionist scholar who relentlessly attacks lethal injection protocols. Although Denno vigorously opposes all capital punishment, we both agree that the firing squad, among all traditional methods, probably serves us best. It does not sugarcoat, it does not pretend, it does not shamefully obscure what we do. We kill them, intentionally, because they deserve it.

Some people may support the firing squad because it allows us to put blanks in one of the guns: An individual sharpshooter will never know whether he actually killed the condemned. This strikes me as just another symptom of our avoidance of responsibility for punishment. The fact is, in this society, nobody takes responsibility for punishing criminals. Corrections officers point to judges, while judges point to legislators, and legislators to corrections. Anger and responsibility seem to lie everywhere elsewhere — that is, nowhere. And where we cannot fully escape responsibility — as with a firing squad — we diffuse it.

Both Greenfield and Gamso have taken this on today, with Scott pondering the value of televising and making executions a public spectacle once again:

But it’s made me consider whether the issue would be best brought to a head by putting executions on the television, prime-time, hosted by someone who used to be on MTV, so that all the agnostics who are kinda for it without having to give themselves headaches by thinking too hard can watch it in high-definition.

and Gamso echoing Scott in that maybe, just maybe, we all don’t have this bloodlust of Blecker:

Except, you know, maybe not everyone’s so hot to kill.  Maybe not everyone thinks matching evil for evil is a moral command.  Maybe some of us absorbed the lesson that two wrongs don’t make a right.  Maybe mercy is a higher value than retribution, more something we should at least aspire to.  And maybe those folks who just don’t trust the government to get it right have something there.

They both recognize – correctly – that not everyone is like Blecker and there are those2 who are moving in the opposite direction.

But there are more Bleckers out there than Gamsos and Gideons and Greenfields. The death penalty is still heavily favored across large swathes of the country. So who, exactly, are the Robert Blecker’s of the world? And what can be done about them? Let’s start with Blecker himself. From his “bio“:

With a gleam in his eye, Robert Blecker, a nationally known retributivist advocate of the death penalty, has managed to alienate both sides of the debate on the politically divisive and morally complex issue of capital punishment.  But his position as designated outcast is nothing new, nor is his strongly held conviction that the most vicious and callous offenders deserve to die and that society is morally obliged to execute those “worst of the worst” criminals.

His entire bio is a manifesto of his “outsiderness”, his “unpalatable” positions and his “radical” agenda.

His positions, however, are hardly radical when it comes to the death penalty. Retribution is a such a simple emotion and requires little to no thought. It is base, unadulterated and intoxicating.

“You hurt me so I hurt you.”

Forgiveness is difficult. It takes understanding. It takes swallowing of pride and absorbing the wounds of pain and humiliation. Revenge is easy. As with anger, it consumes and obfuscates. It takes over one’s entire existence.

And so people across the country succumb to its allure. “Hang him by his penis“, they shout. “All murderers should be executed.

These are our jurors. Our death penalty jurors. Some of whom might even be death-qualified. So what do we do about the Bleckers of the world? How do we confront that which is so venomous, just as Blecker would have those condemned confront the guns of a firing squad?

A commentator on a national listserve pointed out that one might be able to look at Blecker’s philosophy itself to counter this wall of rage and retribution.

Blecker makes much of executing only “the worst of the worst”.

Yet we all know that there’s no such thing. That “the worst of the worst” is an euphemism for the defendant du jour. There’s always someone, somewhere, who’s done worse. Or appeared to do worse.

In Lockett v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court held that the decision to sentence someone to death must be based on an individual assessment of moral culpability.

The decision to vote for death is a deeply personal, moral and individual one. Even people like Blecker must be forced to admit that not every case is “the worst of the worst” otherwise that distinction will have no meaning to him.

The death penalty is a punishment imposed on an individual, not on an act. Acts may be the “worst of the worst”, but as applied to people, that term is meaningless. Because people are damaged and broken and flawed and disabled and mentally ill and provoked and oppressed and angry.

In the end, this approach perhaps covertly reinforces the abolitionist position all along: that no matter what people do, they are still people, individual human beings who don’t deserve to be summarily executed in anger, or in the name of some collective good.

So, Robert Blecker, you’re closer to a true abolitionist than you thought.

Playing games

The internet is a series of tubes, about....this big.

The internet is a series of tubes, about….this big1.

Isn’t it just so darling that these befuddled old justices get to pretend that its still the Bronze Age? It’s so adorable that they decide cases involving video games, but oh no, they’re a loveable bunch of pensioners who’ve never heard of video games, so they “try out a few”.

Hilarious. Just fucking hilarious.

It does sound quaint and endearing, until you remember that these are the people charged with interpreting the law of the land on issues like online privacy and digital surveillance.

Or criminal justice. Which not one of them has any experience with, but which forms a significant portion of their docket. Which is why their opinions are constantly unenforceable and unrealistic. And out of touch. Did I mention out of touch? For which you have to look no further than Justice Thomas, who during his confirmation paid great tribute to the criminal defendant and the adage that “there, but for…”, but who, in reality, just doesn’t give a fuck.

So while we all sit around and laugh at just how damn adorbs these old-timey justices are, realize that the joke’s on all of us.

They have no understanding beyond a vague intellectual appreciation for your rights or mine, which is why Scalia is such an intellectual donkey2 and Thomas can go the entire run of 30 Rock without uttering a fucking word and why Alito can roll his eyes at others and behave like a petulant child.

For the most part, the cases they rule on have no impact on them and their interest in the jurisprudence is nothing more than cold, detached calculation. Maybe it should be that way. Or maybe we should have justices who can claim to have more than some vague idea of that whatsit gizmo thing they want us to rule on.

How do you think they can competently rule on the intricacies of cell phone privacy and GPS when they haven’t a fucking clue what a mobile phone is? Or email? Did the NSA even exist in their youth?

As Scott wrote three years ago:

The disconnect between the politics of the Supreme Court and the reality of the trial court, or more to the point, the life of real people with the misfortune of finding themselves in court, is the wrong that the trench lawyer movement seeks to right.  That presidents and senators pontificate in such a way as to make it politically expedient to avoid any lawyer with actual experience doesn’t mean that putting another theorist (more or less) on the court is the solution.

There used to be real lawyers on the Supreme Court, but that was before every nominee underwent a political proctology exam, and when the other two branches in Washington played together a little better.  Now that it’s a life and death struggle for political hegemony from two political parties whose members can’t be distinguished without a scorecard, the risk of nominating a real lawyer is far too great.  There might be a tea party, or coffee klatch, or beer bash, because of it.  We can’t take the risk of doing something right.

Because the last thing we want on the goddamn Supreme Court of the United States of America is a lawyer who might know a thing or two about the practical applications of laws the Court is frequently called upon to express its opinion on.

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.

Things that are also good at stopping crime/terrorism

Stopping crime and/or terrorism is a noble, if unattainable goal. So it is with that in mind that the governments of various countries (most pertinently to this snarky post, the U.S. and now the U.K.) employ tactics such as the round-the-clock-surveillance of its citizens or collection of “metada” in bulk.

But these are only half-hearted measures. There are many, greater measures that would be infinitely more effective in stopping/preventing dastardly and nefarious acts.

First, though, let us set the ground rules for who is or is not a terrorist:

As gleaned by that, in light of yesterday’s revelations about Glenn Greenwald’s partner, it’s pretty clear that a terrorist or criminal is someone who is defined as such by the Government. When they make it a crime to be you, you will be a criminal, even if you were the same person as the day before the change in status.

So, dear criminal, let us count the ways the government is not extracting information from you, you evil scumbag who is here to hurt my precious children!

1. Detaining your loved ones and interrogating them for 9 hours under an “Anti-Terrorism” law. [Scott has more on this.]

2. Preventive detention: where we hold you in custody before you’ve committed a crime, because we want to prevent that crime, because you might be a criminal1.

3. General warrants [PDF]: This one, for you history buffs, dates from the time of Colonial America. Such an ancient ritual surely can’t be wrong! Broadly, the authority to search anything belonging to anyone they suspected of being, you know, someone they didn’t like.

4. Warrants with no standards: Here’s a clever way: require a warrant, but set the standard for getting that warrant so vague and nebulous that no one will ever know what doesn’t satisfy that standard, ergo the warrant is but a rubber stamp. Everyone start queing for the Government’s office to turn in your criminal papers.

5. No warrants: The above, but with less work. See also: NSA.

6. Waterboarding/torture/rack and pinion/Room 101: Because nothing prevents terrorism and crime than beating the shit out of someone to get them to confess to something they didn’t do.

7. Racial Profiling: Wouldn’t it be great if we could just tell who was a terrorist/criminal simply by looking at them? I like this one the best. Start with this and apply a healthy dose of the above and viola! No crime.

Why waste your time defending “secret FISA courts” and “Hey-that-guy’s-name-is-Miranda-is-he-a-journalist?” There’s plenty more out there to stand up for! The rights of your Government to eviscerate every modicum of freedom and privacy have not been adequately defended yet. They’re doing so much more.

If you don’t, that makes you a terrorist, right?