a public defender

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

I’m not really big on New Year’s Resolutions (although I do accord them appropriate deference, demonstrated by the Capital Letters), but I’ve seen them being made all around the blogosphere and since I am someone who does not have a single original idea, I have decided to join in on the party and offer my own resolutions and predictions for this blog. SO. Here goes:

1. I will change the blog theme and layout. Or not.
2. I will post more than once a day.
3. I will not post more than 6 times a week.
4. If you figure that one out, I’ll make you honorary co-blogger.
5. I will not keep promise no. 4.
6. This blog will make an initial public offering.
7. This blog will buy Google.
8. There will be 7 appellate decisions in CT that favor defendants.
9. There will be 70 that don’t.
10. This blog will take a sabbatical.
11. 15 new criminal defense blawgs will be to linked to once by me.
12. For 12 of them, it will be the only link.
13. For 10, it will be because they won’t post again.
14. The United States will have a “first” President.
15. Gay marriage will become legal in CT.
16. CT will not execute anyone, but more people will make it onto death row.
17. None of the above will come true.

If any of it does come true, I’ll ask you about it next time on ….

Didn’t chuckle once? I don’t blame you. Still need your laughter fix? Go read Dave Barry.

In light of Carolyn’s tips for the newbie, which she posted last week, I present this educational video:

Because I’m not above it

This holiday season hasn’t been kind to Santa. First, we had the Santa that was pied in the face. Then there was the Santa in Brazil whose helicopter was shot. Not to be outdone by drug traffickers, a young lady in CT decided to up the ante and grope Santa (or so it is alleged).

Sandrama Lamy inappropriately touched a 65-year-old worker dressed as Santa on Saturday while sitting on his lap, police said. She is charged with fourth-degree sexual assault and breach of peace, both misdemeanors.

Lamy is scheduled to appear in Superior Court in Danbury Jan. 3. She was released on a promise to appear.

She denies it. Even fictional Santas don’t have it easy: Last night’s episode [Spoiler Alert!] of Nip/Tuck featured a Santa who was shot through the face by an angry child (or so it seemed).

Dan Schwartz at the CT Employment Law Blog is all over him it this story. Additional thanks to Corr. Sent for the other two Santa stories.

Image license info here

It’s a nice institution. A cute playful gesture where daughters (or sons) get to see what their fathers (or mothers) do for a living and hang out in the “working world”.

I’m not sure that the creators of this Hallmark celebration had this in mind, though.

Capt. Daniel McIntyre supervised police at the [fatal accident] scene for more than an hour after the Aug. 23 accident, then went home and returned with his daughter.

He has said that he wanted the girl to see the scene because she was about to get her driver’s license, and he wanted her to see the dangers of speeding.

An internal report conclud[ed] that McIntyre did nothing wrong.

The parents of the deceased are naturally outraged. On one hand, I can see their point of view. One could perceive it as making the death of their children a spectacle. On the other hand, maybe it is good parenting from the cop. Nothing like a gruesome accident scene to scare the living daylights out of a soon-to-be speeding teen.

I’m quite surprised that with all the blogs covering Baze, not one has used the following as a post title:

All your Baze are belong to us.

I mean, c’mon people. Can’t get any better than that.

When the alleged victim is a hooker, according to a magistrate judge in Philly. Initially charged with sexual assault, the judge dismissed those charges, but left standing “theft of service” charges against the defendant.

“She consented and she didn’t get paid . . . I thought it was a robbery.”

Now this is particularly curious, given that she ended up having sex with four men [one of whom paid] (a fifth noticed her crying and helped her leave), reportedly at gunpoint.

The judge, it seems, exhibited some contempt for prostitution:

“Did she tell you she had another client before she went to report it?” Deni asked [the writer of the news story] yesterday when [they] met at a coffee shop.

“I thought rape was a terrible trauma.”

A case like this, she said - to [the writer's] astonishment - “minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped.”

This is the sort of argument that, when proposed in a “brainstorming” session, results in raised eyebrows and a few uncomfortable laughs and perhaps a “nice try, old chum” or two.

Whatever her stance on prostitution, I think the judge might have picked the wrong case to state it.

More here.

Some strange news from my alma: eccentric but popular law prof Robert Birmingham has been asked to take the rest of the semester off after showing a clip from “Pimps up, Ho’s down”, a training film for prostitutes, during his “Remedies” class. Professor Birmingham is known for his unconventional teaching style and is best know for “consideration is like chicken sexing” from first year contracts and frequently uses mathematical principles to teach the law (Nash equilibrium).

In this particular class, the students were discussing the Eleventh Circuit decision in U.S. v. Charles Floyd Pipkins, a.k.a. Sir Charles, and Andrew Moore Jr., a.k.a. Batman. Pipkins and Moore were appealing their convictions on RICO charges as Atlanta pimps of juvenile girls as young as 12 years old. Pipkins speaks in the “Pimps” film.

The 11th Circuit explained that prostitutes are free to choose a different pimp. The questing being discussed at the time was whether the 11th Circuit’s opinion meant that the prostitutes were not held in involuntary servitude, which happened to be one of the counts in Pipkins’ RICO indictment.

I wonder if there’s more to the story, but Courant article has only so much. From what I’ve heard, reactions are mixed. Personally, when I heard about this, I thought: “Ah, that’s Prof. Birmingham!”

One student, who declined to be identified and was in the “Remedies” class, said the administration’s reaction undercuts the idea of academic freedom and First Amendment rights.

A UConn law professor since 1971, Birmingham evokes strong views from many admirers and some detractors on campus for his teaching style.

“He makes a provocative statement and asks, “How do you feel about that?’” the student said. “He teaches us to think about the law and why we might be offended.”

I guess the school has to balance free speech, an eccentric professor and the sensibilities of students, but asking him to leave for the rest of the semester? I’m pretty sure this is not the first time he’s said something controversial or that he’s the only one. So why now?

Maybe someone at PrawfsBlawg has an opinion on this.

It must’ve been an eventful day in Hartford Superior Court today, when alarm bells went off after a man escaped from the courthouse. Escaped from the courthouse, you say! How did this happen? Just another sign that our criminal justice system is failing. (You should’ve seen the mid-day news reports)

He was allowed to leave. Seems like he either got a Promise to Appear (PTA - released to his own recognizance) or posted bond. However, the folks from the psychiatric hospital (where he voluntarily admitted himself) were left out of the loop and set off the alarm, informing police that he had simply “walked out” of court. Which he was perfectly entitled to do.

What followed was a manhunt for this individual, who was eventually arrested.

Officers began intensely searching the busy streets surrounding the courthouse, ultimately finding the man and taking him into custody. Police said it was later determined that the man was within his rights to leave court unattended.

I’m sorry, but how difficult is it to find out if the man was allowed to leave before calling in the State Police?

That damn system…once she’s got her hooks into you, there’s no escape! No wonder our clients are disillusioned with the system.

So, to mercilessly beat the dead horse, here’s a song:

Update 2: For those who don’t want to read the comments (shame on you!), here’s my follow up post.

Is the only thing that can explain the following comment to the press by a lawyer about his client:

Reyes’ attorney, William Gerace, said that the private company’s results were also a match. Gerace said that Reyes’ decision to not accept a plea deal of 15 years is a bad one.

“He’s being very foolish in my view. He was given a plea bargain that’s not a lenient plea bargain, but under the circumstance, if he goes to trial, he will get a lot more,” Gerace said.

Gerace said the evidence against his client is too strong and that if there is a trial, Reyes could go to prison for more than 20 years.

Update: The news story linked to above leads one to believe that these statements were said to the press, but it is not explicit in that regard. However, the video that accompanies the story has a clip of Attorney Gerace speaking to the media and this Courant story also clarifies that these comments were indeed to the press.

Miranda, in the comments below, raises an interesting question: Is it useful, or shall we say not despicable, for an attorney to make a limited statement on the record reflecting that after being advised by counsel, the client has decided to reject the offer?

Looking at this from a future habeas perspective, Attorney Gerace will certainly be safe from claims that he did not adequately convey the state’s offer to him, but what of a general ineffectiveness claim? Do these comments hurt his client? Would they not support a claim that he was pressured into taking a plea agreement or that his attorney failed to adequately represent him and conduct an investigation into his defense, supported by his comments to the press acknowledging his client’s guilt and his desire to have him plead guilty?

Scott weighs in on this topic as well

So here’s a topical installment of What Really Grinds My Gears:

For Scott:

Click on the image for a larger version

Reading an appellate decision today, it hit me that I really, really hate the “harmless error” analysis. So here’s a poll. What, according to you, is the most evil legal principle out there? I’ve added a few options to the poll, but feel free to leave comments as I can’t cover them all.

 Loading ...

Image courtesy: http://www.medicalassistedtreatment.org/57811/370627.html?*session*id*key*=*session*id*val*

It truly is a sad day when an eight year old second grader is charged with possession of crack cocaine. It would be one thing if the kid was indeed, somehow, buying and selling crack, but by all accounts, this young boy found the crack on his way to school and showed it to some classmates.

The police did their thing, too. They asked questions, investigated and reached this conclusion:

“We interviewed enough people that we’re comfortable with [his] answer,” New Haven police Sgt. Rick Rodriguez said.

The boy is charged with a felony, but police decided to arrest him to ensure he receives services from the court, such as counseling, said Police Chief Francisco Ortiz.

Ah yes, the only way the boy was going to get counseling was to arrest him, bring him to juvenile court and then contact the wonderful Department of Families and Children.

There has to be a better way of achieving that goal, than subjecting this child to even an arrest. Time to rethink the system a bit, methinks.

An ex-inmate, trick or treating with his daughter, caused the NY State Westchester County jail to go into lockdown.

Why? Well, the former inmate, Oscar Aponte, chose to wear his DOC issued jumpsuit as his Halloween costume. This prompted an off-duty corrections officer - also trick or treating - to confront him and then call the jail to see if anyone escaped.

Hence the lockdown.

"Bad choice of costume," said Susan Tolchin, chief adviser to County Executive Andrew Spano.

"[The officer] confronted him, and he ran and drove off," Tolchin said. The
officer took down the man’s license plate and called Peekskill police
and the Corrections Department.

So what happens next?

Meanwhile, Peekskill police and the county’s Special Investigation
Unit found Aponte, confiscated the genuine jumpsuit and let him go.

Aponte was arrested and charged Wednesday with petty larceny and
possession of stolen property, Tolchin said. She said prisoners are not
permitted to take their jumpsuits home when they are released.

"They get their possessions in a clear plastic bag, so it’s hard to see how he got a jumpsuit out, if he did," she said.

Isn’t that the real question here? How did he get his real jumpsuit out of the prison? To top it off, they’re going to prosecute him for this? It seems that NY doesn’t have any serious crimes to prosecute anymore.