a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Welcome to all of you. Hopefully, everything is set to go. If you notice any problems with the site, please let me know. All the posts have been imported and all the comments, too. Please update your links if you don’t mind.

I owe a humongous debt of gratitude to Karoli for all the assistance with getting this site up and running and for helping me with the template. Without her help, I’d probably have canceled my internet subscription and I’d be curled up in a ball, shaking violently right now.

Thanks for reading!

Playboy scouts are causing controversy (the usual kind) on the campus of Vanderbilt. This story has absolutely nothing to do with this blog. I just want to share the chuckle that Vandy’s student newspaper (that originally posted the Playboy ad and has since published a contrary editorial) is named “The Vanderbilt Hustler“.

Yes, I’m juvenile.

As you can see, there are a few changes on the blog. I’m still working on it and for that I apologize. Here are some of the things I’ve done:

• Removed the top graphic to make more room for text. While visually appealing, it was moving the first post halfway down the page.
• Cleaned up the syndication options. Now all you have to do is click on either "bookmark" or "subscribe" on the right and a nifty window pops up with an extensive list of services for you to choose your favorite from to subscribe to this blog.
• Right below that, I’ve also added an e-mail subscription link. If
  you’d prefer to keep track of this blog via e-mail, you can just sign
  up there and you’ll get an e-mail digest with the latest posts.
• I’ve moved the "recent comments" to the left, so that pushed up the "recent posts" on the right. This way, you the reader have full access to the various posts on this site.
• Now at the end of each post, you will see several links: "Email this, save to delicious, digg this, technorati cosmos, etc". This just increases functionality for each post and allows you to do what you want with it.
• Finally, I’ve added a live feed from PD Stuff, right below the recent posts.

Any and all suggestions are absolutely welcome. If you think there are redundant sidebars on the site, please let me know. If you think it’s getting too cluttered, let me know. If you’d like to see something that isn’t there, let me know. You can leave a comment here or e-mail me. Thanks for reading!

Here’s a friendly tip for the criminal defense attorney: If you want the judge to do something, ask for it on the record, even if you think he/she won’t order it. Sometimes you get lucky. Like I did a little while ago. It was a strange case to begin with - the client had been in jail for a few years awaiting sentencing, but he wasn’t going to get equal credit. Most of the times, when you specifically ask for credit, the Judge will say that it’s not up to him/her and it is left to the Dep’t of Corrections to decide.

Well, I asked and I received. If you’re denied, then at least you’ve made a record for subsequent proceedings.

Normally, I don’t watch Court TV. My impression of Court TV has been colored by my opinion of Nancy Grace. So when I stumbled upon the blog of Jami Floyd, a Court TV newscaster, I expected the same vitriol toward defendants and defense attorneys.

Not so. The first clue was this statement at the end of a recent post:

Not exactly efficient.  Florida is just one of 39 states that have the death penalty — 39 examples (40, if you count the feds) of a system that doesn’t work.

Huh. Okay….that could mean a lot of things…so let’s scroll further down. Which is what I did when I came across this entry. This is a clip of something called “The Last Word”.

In this video, she makes a final statement; something akin to when Jerry Springer sits on the stool at the end of every episode and spews wisdom at us through the TV.

In this clip, she was responding to a number of e-mails she had received criticizing the defense attorneys that represented John Couey. She says they always get those e-mails.

She then says some very smart things:

“Those who complain are missing the point, because it’s not about the client but the client’s right to counsel and a fair trial… because his rights are our rights. If you love this country, you’ve read the Constitution and if you’ve read the Constitution, you know defending the accused is the most sacred role a lawyer can play.”

What she has done in those two sentences is sum up my two most frequent responses to the question: “How can you defend those people?”. The Constitution and the reality that not much separates “us” from “them”. Color me impressed.

ps: I just discovered that the video might not work from the page linked to above. If it does not, go to the main page and scroll down till you find the entry. It is on March 13 at 3:52pm.

Sorry for the lack of posting, but I’ve got hearings all week. Sentencing Law & Policy, Sex Crimes and SexCrimeDefender all have good posts on Ohio’s work restrictions proposal for sex offenders. Worth reading.

A University of Virginia study suggests that eyewitness reliability is linked to the age of the eyewitness. According to the study, older eyewitnesses are more likely to be mistaken in recollecting details and are also more likely to be certain about their erroneous recollections.

The researchers said they found through a series of experiments that when younger and older adults were matched on their overall memory for experienced  events, both groups showed comparable rates of suggestibility errors in which they claimed to have seen events in a video that had been suggested in a subsequent questionnaire. However, older adults were “alarmingly” likely to commit these suggestibility errors when they were most confident about the correctness of their response, the press release said. Younger people were more likely to commit these errors when they were uncertain about the accuracy of their response, it said.

Previous studies by other investigators have shown that older adults are more likely than younger people to “remember” events that did not occur, and to misremember events that did occur. The U.Va. study further suggest that this occurs because older adults are more inclined to miscombine details of events, which results in a high degree of confidence that they are remembering these details accurately.

Here is a press release regarding the study. I have been unable to locate a copy of the study. If it is available online for free, please leave a comment with the link and I will add it to the post.

You know what I hate? Those scrolling ads on websites that cover half the page and don’t have a close button. It’s annoying, intrusive and annoying. Have the decency to display a visible close button. Please. Thank you.

A Michigan coalition, called The Michigan Coalition for Justice is suing over the state of the public defender system.

Vanita Gupta, ACLU Attorney: “It’s the system, it’s absolutely failing defendants at this time.”

The group is calling for changes through a lawsuit. They want the state to provide funding and oversight of trial level public defense services. They are also calling for an overhaul of the public defense system, to ensure everyone has a right to counsel.

Vanita Gupta: “We are asking the court to declare the current system unconstitutional. It’s not meeting standards, and once that declaration is given, the state legislature should step up and figure out solutions.”

The Governor is reviewing the allegations.

Update: PD Stuff has more (as always).

As you can see, a public defender has a brand new banner. I’m modifying the layout and design of the page, so I will continue to tinker with this in the coming days. Like, don’t like? Use a reader so you just don’t care? Leave a comment!

The CT Supreme Court ruled yesterday that sex between consenting adults who happen to also be students and teachers is a per-se crime.

Richard Emanuel, the lawyer representing teacher Van Clifton McKenzie-Adams, who was sentenced in 2004 to seven years in prison for having sex with two New Haven high school students, argued before the Supreme Court last year that state law prohibiting school employees from having sexual relations with students was overly broad.

The reason, he argued, is that the law does not require prosecutors to show that a student was coerced by a teacher’s power or authority, or that a student had any professional contact with the teacher in question.

Both the students in question were above the age of consent in this case. You can read the opinion here [.pdf file]

My computer has decided to act up, so blogging will be light until I punish it and make it behave.

powered by performancing firefox

I am hereby officially inviting my fellow CT PDs and defense attorneys that read this blog to contribute by posting about any legal developments in the state or any legal issues that “grind your gears”. If you’re interested, send me an e-mail and we’ll start the process!

The CCSU furor over the poorly written satirical editorial has resulted in John Petroski resigning. Here [.pdf file] is a copy of that edition of The Reporter. The editorial is on page 7, for those who are interested. (credit: Hartford Courant)

Petroski took the podium before a hushed, tense audience - his first
public appearance since the publication of a controversial article he
wrote last week in the student newspaper describing rape as a “magical
experience.”

Many in the audience felt Petroski had a lot to answer for, especially
those who were familiar with some of the articles and comic strips he
had previously written for the paper poking fun at sensitive topics
such as abortion and affirmative action.

Was his resignation the right thing? I don’t know, but I do know that it was a poor attempt at satire. Hopefully now, all can move on and learn a valuable lesson.

Mike at C&F lamented yesterday that plea bargaining

has turned our system into one that is supposed to convict the guilty and free the innocent into a risk-management system. It has turned lawyers into actuaries . “Is going to trial worth the risk?” is what lawyers ask clients. Innocence has little to do with the decision to take a deal.

Cases that highlight this dilemma abound. Julie Amero, for one. The border agents case is another. So what can be done? The logical suggestion is to leave the state to its burden of proof in each case and take everything to trial.

Windypundit jumps in with some radical ideas for criminal justice of his own. His suggestions:

Reverse Truth-In-Sentencing - if you don’t serve felony time—a full year—it doesn’t count as a felony.

Performance Pay for Indigent Defense - pay indigent defense lawyers for their performance.

Punishment in Lieu of Exclusion - If a judge rules that a piece of evidence was obtained illegally, allow the prosecutor to immediately indict the responsible police officers for “improper evidence obtainment,” a newly-created crime with a mandatory minimum sentence of, say, 60 days in jail. If the officers are convicted and sentenced before the main criminal case goes to trial—easily done if the prosecutor and the officer have agreed ahead of time that the officer will plead guilty immediately—the illegally obtained evidence is allowed back in.

Limited Incarceration Without Trial - This would allow the worst of the worst to be imprisoned even if the cases against them have technical flaws.

No Miranda Warning

While I have not yet given full thought to his suggestions, one not so radical idea did seem to me a way to streamline the process. As several jurisdictions have done, all interrogations should be videotaped. This, in many instances, will eliminate the problem of the forced confession and lead to less Motions to Suppress.

This idea is gaining steam in some sectors, but I’d like to see it implemented nationwide.