I’m channeling my buddy Ryan McKeen here, but, the other day on the local listserve someone mentioned that a client had been given a ticket for “passing on the right“. It’s one of those things that we all do (you can admit it here, we’re all friends), like “following too closely” and don’t ever expect to get ticketed.
But since there are over a thousand crimes on the books, passing on the right being one of them* should come as no surprise. Being the intrepid blogger, it is my duty to inform you of the following:
The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only when conditions permit such movement in safety and under the following conditions: (1) When the vehicle overtaken is making or has signified the intention to make a left turn; (2) when lines of vehicles traveling in the same direction in adjoining traffic lanes have come to a stop or have reduced their speed; (3) upon a one-way street free from obstructions and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles; (4) upon a limited access highway or parkway free from obstructions with three or more lanes provided for traffic in one direction. Such movement shall not be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the highway except where lane designations, signs, signals or markings provide for such movement. Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction.
So, to break this down, you can pass on the right pretty frequently and in most driving conditions. For example, subsection (2) is horribly ambiguous. What does “lines of vehicles” mean? For that matter what does “reduced their speed” mean? If I’m in the left lane of a two-lane highway and the cars ahead of me start to slow down, from say 70 to 50, can I switch to the right lane to overtake? I assume the use of the plural “vehicles” eliminates an argument that the stupid car ahead of me was going 70 in a 65 zone and I’m late to work dammit so get out of the f*cking way you damn red Nissa-oh, hi there.
Subsection (4) is great to know. Most highways in CT have 3 lanes in some stretches; some like interstate 91 have 3 lanes for most of their journey. I shall pass on the right with impunity henceforth.
You can thank me later.
[Apparently, this is quite the hot-button issue that perplexes many. Check out the Google result for the search.]
*yes, I know that an infraction isn’t a “crime”, but stop getting in the way of my flow.
Well, folks, now you’ve gone and done it. The stupid has taken over the world. In addition to the “honey I found a shotgun in the yard” crime in Britain, Virginia has now gone and convicted the coffee guy who was walking around his house naked and was spied by some peeping toms.
Add to that this by now well worn video of the DC cop who pulled a gun on snowballers and it might be time to scratch this whole homo sapiens project and start over:
I am now going into isolation to avoid catching the stupid. See you never.
Remember that stupid post I wrote about some article on some site that suggested that defendants were better off with private lawyers (a particular private lawyer, actually) than public defenders because pd’s are overworked-underpaid-useless-etc?
Turns out one of my two readers also writes a blog for the Seattle Weekly and the post was picked up there and the enterprising author sent the law firm in question an e-mail.
It took two days, but we now have some idea of what happened: Lovik & Juhl (the law firm) say they didn’t write the piece, nor did they pay anyone to write it. From the statement they sent to the Seattle Weekly:
I really haven’t a clue who may have written this (we have no staff, just two attorneys, neither of whom publish on any site like the one you have linked to here.) My guess would be that one of the services we use to try and drive traffic to our website has done this to try and make themselves appear more valuable to us. We have recently cut ties with at least one agency that we found were using fake names to give us “client reviews.” I didn’t feel right about that, either.
Lovik says the most likely culprit is a guy they hired to redesign their website. But the lawyer says he’s “just a kid.” And doesn’t want to reveal his name nor hurt his reputation based on what he sees as a misguided attempt to help the firm.
I have received e-mails from this young “kid” and I, too, am not going to name him. There’s no point. There was a lesson to be learned here and it seems that everyone has learned it. For Lovik & Juhl: outsourcing marketing = outsourcing ethics and reputation. I, for one, have learned that I really shouldn’t give a crap.
So, here’s what I’ve done: I deleted the content of the previous post and replaced it with a link to this one. If someone with better SEO knowledge tells me that it would be preferential to delete the original post in its entirety, I’m willing to consider it.
In the meantime, I would recommend that Messrs. Lovik and Juhl read Mr. Bennett’s post above and join us in the blawgosphere the right way.
It’s time, once again, to play that game where I take search terms that led visitors to this blog and make pithy comments about them. I’ve done this before (and again and again) and yes, it is a diversionary tactic which keeps me distracted enough to not write that substantive post that none of you ungrateful readers will ever read or comment on.
Don’t look at me like that.
Let’s get started:
From August till now, the #1 search on this blog is the term: “facepalm“, which might adequately convey one’s reaction upon reaching this blog.
Phil Russell also got a lot of hits: by the way, he wants you all to know that he appreciates the support.
Law: yes, that’s the general idea. Also equally productive searches: science, the and and.
Raising the Bar Season 3: you have reached the end of the internet.
Public defender crap: much like regular crap, except free and overworked. Also, not as smart.
How to beat the law: It’s a futile exercise. There’s only one person in the history of the world to have ever beaten the law and then too only when he was the law. Figure out that flux capacitor.
How to be a public defender: Depends on who you ask. My clients would say if you have a pulse, you’re in! Because that whole law school thing is totally useless.
Fail: epic
Crazy public sex: There’s no such thing.
Mental health public defender: It’s touch and go, thanks for asking.
How to hire a public defender: You really need to think about what you type before you type it. All kinds of stupid up in this joint.
Several people want to know what Alex Kelly is doing now. I. Don’t. Know.
ooo sex: what happens after an aaa meeting
ipostnaked dot com: glad to hear it.
need money: if you find some, let me know. I have a good friend in Nigeria who’d be willing to invest it for you.
if someone has naked pictures of you: you should probably try and get them back before they end up on Facebook – ah, what the heck, are you hot?
tomorrow, you will vote the abolition of the death penalty: tomorrow, I will vote the abolition – wha, wait a minute! I see what you did there.
why the government of usa make such dumb laws: I don’t know, it didn’t say.
castrate myself: I wouldn’t recommend it, but hey, if that’s what you really want.
why do we need the 6th amendment?: so you can read posts like these, duh!
It seems to me that someone thought they were being artistic. The pictures, to be honest, aren’t half bad. It’s the subject matter of the pictures that is extremely questionable. Here are the worst offenders:
So, after looking at these I bet you’re curious what they have for the rest. The rest are as unimaginative and boring as these are offensive and stupid. Here’s Murder and here’s [I have to warn you: that image is really, really gross. No nudity or anything, but..just...be careful and do not blame me for clicking on it] what it should have been. Here’s violent crimes, but I think this would fit better with their theme. The only one that I think really works in money laundering (hey! someone’s got a sense of humor!).
Update: An intrepid reader provides a picture of what real money laundered money would look like. I want to swim in it.
Update-Update: The Texas Tornado points out that it’s a findlaw website, but someone still had to approve the damn thing.
Anyway, somebody better take screencaps quick before they change the images.
In the defense interview the prosecutor and the victim advocate decided to place Stilson on top of the table during the interview. It was such a surprise to the child (and the defense attorney) to see Stilson snoozing on the table that the child came out from under the table and everyone petted him during the interview. Under these circumstances the child did a much better job describing what had occurred and it was a fairly pleasant experience for everyone.
It is also less likely that a defense attorney would engage in aggressive questioning when a dog is seated or lying in between the attorney and the witness.
If the witness and facility dog have not had a previous experience together, be sure to arrange for them to have at least 45 minutes to interact and play with one another before the interview begins.
This here is what one might call a Public Service Announcement. Here’s a handy guide for those of you who want to sound “up” on the lingo and trends in our lexicon, c. 2009. This way I won’t think you’re a wannabe when you talk about blogging or tweeting.
Some simple stuff, said in fun, so don’t get all atwitter (HA! HA! Laugh at my joke; I’m clever!).
This whole website (apublicdefender.com) is a blog. I, Gideon, am the author of this blog. This makes me a blogger. This particular piece that I have written, entitled “blog, blogger, blogging” is a blog post.
You cannot say that I have written a blog when you are referring to this particular post. You can say that I write a blog in reference to apublicdefender.com, however. You also cannot have read my latest blog, unless, of course, I started a new website (or blog) and you have been reading that. You can (and must) say that you read my latest post. It’s like saying that you’ve read my latest book, when actually referring to the last chapter of my book.
Simple enough? Blog is a website, the person writing it is a blogger and the individual entries are blog posts.
Onto Twitter. Twitter is the company or service that is used by millions. You do not twitter. That’s like saying you Apple or Microsoft. You tweet. Thus, you cannot have read my recent twitter. You could have read my latest tweet, however. A person who uses Twitter is not twittering; he or she is tweeting.
Now if you absorb these simple conjugations, you will be ready to engage in an intelligent conversation on the above subjects! You don’t have to thank me, really. I want to inform.
That’s right. I said it. You’re a poseur if you like…
1. You’re over 25 and you’re hooked on Facebook. Seriously, what’s that about? Start a blog or something. Facebook is for your kids.
2. Heavy metal. I thought the point of music was to understand and appreciate the music and lyrics. When was the last time you understood the words coming out of the mouth of a heavy metal-ist? And don’t say 1980, because even back then no one understood; the only difference was that everyone was high on something or the other so it didn’t matter.
3. Will Ferrell. He’s. Just. Not. Funny. At. All. I mean, seriously. The dude is crass, loud and just not funny! But, then again, if #1 applies to you, then #3 probably will too. [Fine, I'll add one exception here: SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy. But that was all Darrell Hammond.]
4. Bonus item: Anything from Starbucks. You’re paying for fancy names people. The “coffee” costs $0.35, the thought process that went into “triple-grande-mocha-frappachino-venti-ridiculato” costs $2.50. The taste is worth my $0.02.
How many times can one say: “It happens only in Texas” and not sound repetitive? I’m pushing the envelope here. Because, this just happened in Texas.
A man plucked and ate both his eyeballs (though not at the same time) and yet he was found competent to stand trial and be convicted of capital murder. Texas sure loves their executions (and eyeball marinara).
A condemned Texas inmate with a history of mental problems who removed his only eye and ate it in a bizarre outburst several months ago on death row lost an appeal Wednesday at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Thomas “is clearly ‘crazy,’ but he is also ‘sane’ under Texas law,” Judge Cathy Cochran wrote in a 14-page statement accompanying the court’s brief order upholding Thomas’ conviction and punishment.
Yes, that does seem to be a contradiction of terms, although I guess one can argue that the legal standard for “sane” is so damn low that even eating one’s eyeballs clears that standard.
I’m going to pause for a second here while we all collectively shudder.
Everything about this case, including the murders themselves, are truly bizarre:
Thomas, from Texoma, walked into the Sherman Police Department and told a dispatcher he had murdered the three, then told officers he put his victims’ hearts in his pocket, left their apartment, took them home, put the organs in a plastic bag and threw them in the trash. He said God had told him to commit the killings.
What’s more disturbing is the bottom line, via Grits:
The trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals accepted the prosecution’s argument that, although Thomas “was psychotic when he committed the offense, … his psychosis was triggered by his substance abuse in the preceding days and weeks.” So he was psychotic, but it was his fault.
How can such a standard survive? A standard so low that defendants with IQs in the mid-50s are routinely found competent to stand trial. It should come as no surprise that a good percentage of inmates have mental health issues.
Read more on the Texas eyeball case here. I won’t make any eyeball jokes. The image is enough. I’m also far too classy to link to this photo (be warned: it is disturbing) (Okay, fine, if you want more Googly eyes, here’s a website dedicated to them.)
I haven’t done this in a few months, so on this Friday the 13th let’s take a look at what brought you psychotic internet readers to my blog. As always, act your age.
Of all the searches, the top non law related search was for “naked pictures”. Unfortunately, all they got was this lousy post.
“me naked” was also popular. Presumably, these people have no mirrors.
“is law school for me” is also a surprisingly common phrase used in search engines, just behind “what is my name”.
“shame on you”. yes, shame on me indeed.
“stachatory rape laws”
quite a few visitors admonished me to “learn law” or, in the case of the more articulate ones “learn the law”.
I like the simplicity of this one: “beer”. Yes, please.
“Eye of the beholder porn”. That’s a new fetish.
my personal favorite: “gravity defender”. Now if only they meant gravitas defender.
“let me see you naked”, to which I say “buy me a drink first”.
“humorous porn”. Porn is serious business.
“Is it ethical for a public defender to refuse to represent a person believed to be guilty?” I get this one a lot, so let me say this once and for all: No.
“halp”. bai, thx.
“purple heart trees”. And they say you have to earn one.
Lawyers hate proving the negative, unless of course they’re asking other lawyers to do so. In which case, game on!
For reasons that are not very exciting, I was helping someone research the mandatory CLE (continuing legal education) requirements for lawyers in New York. CT doesn’t have any CLE requirements, so I wasn’t aware of how harrowing it can be for someone who lives in a state that does. Here’s what NY requires if you are a new lawyer:
32 credit hours are required of newly admitted attorneys during the first two years after admission (16 credit hours per year)
of the 16 credit hours each year, 3 are to be in the areas of ethics and professionalism; 6 in the area of skills; and 7 in the area of law practice management and various areas of professional practice
Now 32 credit hours may not sound like a lot, but I imagine it is, as with all else when it comes to lawyers and hours, deceptive.
Then I got thinking: what if I were admitted to practice in NY. Being a CT lawyer, would I have to earn these CLE credits? The answer is no, but that’s where it gets a little weird. NY provides an exemption for lawyers not practicing in the state (whether that means lawyers practicing in others states or simply lawyers who, regardless of whether they live in NY or not, do not engage in the practice of law there, is another question).
So, if you’re an attorney admitted to the bar in NY, but don’t practice, you should be okay. Just don’t ask the Bar Association [pdf]:
The issue of whether an attorney is practicing law in New York is a question of law that must be determined by the individual attorney. All members of the New York Bar are presumed to be practicing law in New York unless otherwise shown; the burden of proof is on the individual attorney. In determining whether an attorney is practicing law in New York, the attorney should be guided by case law and the Restatement of Law, Third, the Law Governing Lawyers, Chapter 1, §3. Attorneys who determine that they are not practicing law in New York must retain supporting documentation for audit purposes and comply with the requirements of §§1500.12(f) and 1500.22(n) of New York’s CLE Program Rules.
Neither the CLE Board nor its staff shall advise attorneys on the issue of whether their specific activities constitute the practice of law in New York.
So I would be presumed to be practicing in New York, despite my full-time job as a public defender in the State of Connecticut. And if the NY Bar Association comes knocking, the burden is on me to prove that I do not and have not practiced in the Empire State. Assume that I can get some statement from the public defender’s office here stating that I am, and have been, a full-time employee since Eve bit into that legendary apple. What does it prove? It proves that for the most part, I am a practicing lawyer in NY. How can I prove that I did not practice in NY on my days off or in my spare time or provide legal advice to a client in NY on weekends? (Not saying I did…)
And I have the backing of a state agency. What of the solo practitioner or the private law firm? What documentation proves that one did not do something? Documentation is generally generated when someone does something. Who creates a paper trail for something one didn’t do?
Does anyone have a clue how or why this was promulgated and how one deals with it? I’m sure there are non-practicing NY lawyers out there. What do you do? Anyone have any experience with this (and my condolences in advance, if you do)?
Welcome to the new look of 'a public defender', voted Connecticut's number one legal blog devoted solely to criminal law and authored by a public defender . Gideon is Connecticut's first SuperPublicDefenderTM. Look around, leave a comment and don't forget to subscribe to the feed!
