Prosecutor threatens defense attorney with warrant for failing to help incriminate client

We’ve always known that the prosecutorial function requires somewhat of a solipsistic world-view, but failing to do one’s own job and then demanding that the defense do it for you is another realm entirely.

Charlie Rubenstein, Cincinnati prosecutor, may have an inadequate understanding of the adversarial process of the criminal justice system and seems to have never heard of the burden of proof resting on him. Rubenstein was prosecuting a man named Terrance Jones for the high crime of stealing candy from a store. This being 2014, there was a store surveillance camera which recorded the incident. Rubenstein, laboring under the mis-impression that convictions come walking in through the door without having to work for them, neglected to obtain the security footage.

Ray Faller, public defender and human with at least half a brain apparently, got his investigator to go to the store and obtain a copy of the surveillance video. The stores, as stores do, then erased the video so it could record the next robbery.

Rubenstein, ever so demanding, demanded that the defense turn over the video that purportedly incriminated Jones. Faller, as any good lawyer would do, told Rubenstein to go fuck himself.

So, like every misdemeanor prosecutor who’s been told to go fuck himself, Rubenstein flexed his muscle and got his pal and former co-worker Judge Lisa Allen to sign a search warrant for Faller’s office. In it, he claims that the video is evidence and the defense was hiding evidence and thus were guilty of “tampering with the evidence”.

The case settled and the warrant was never executed, but the idea that the warrant was sought and issued is a tremendously frightening one.

The surveillance video has evidentiary value, certainly, but it is not the job of the defense to provide that to the prosecution, when the prosecution had the opportunity to obtain it itself.

With the prevalence of 24-hour security cameras everywhere, retention of footage has become a big issue. The prosecution routinely secures footage when it believes it will be helpful, but not when it believes it to not be so or when it may be exculpatory. When asked to obtain video that might show the defendant was innocent, the prosecution routinely shrugs its shoulders and points out that it has no control over store owners and can’t legally be required to obtain the footage.

And yet Rubenstein thinks that a defense attorney is obligated to help incriminate his own client by turning over video of an incident that he himself failed to get.

The chilling effect of this line of thinking is obvious: defense attorneys would be extremely hesitant to conduct an investigation of their own because they would automatically have to turn over whatever they uncover that would incriminate their clients. This would cause a conflict of interest in all criminal cases: either fail to investigate and run afoul of the rules of professional conduct or investigate, refuse to turn over evidence and be subject to arrest or turn over incriminating evidence uncovered and violate the duty of confidentiality and zealous advocacy to the client.

In other words, Rubenstein’s thuggery serves to remove the defense attorney entirely from the adversarial process, leaving him free to steamroll pro-se defendants.

H/T: ABAJ

 

Should I Wurie about my cell phone or is there no need to get Riled up?

I don’t want to hear anything about the “puns” in the title. Just shut it.

As you’re no doubt aware, the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument yesterday in two cases, Riley v. California [PDF] and United States v. Wurie [PDF].

As I wrote about extensively in this March 28th column in the Connecticut Law Tribune, the issue in these two cases is under what circumstances can police search the contents of your cell phone after they arrest you and what is the extent of those searches.

We’d all feared what a disaster the oral argument might turn out to be, given that the Court is made up of all really old people. Well, we need to put that aside because the Court came prepared. Aside from one really bizarre exchange about phone encryption, they were mostly spot on about the phone, the amount of content the phones have and the potential for danger if they permitted a blanket rule allowing searches.

Cruel and unusual: the new lows we hit in our thirst for blood (updated)

The death penalty is a disgusting, cruel and barbaric business. It is nothing more than a manifestation of our basest instinct for revenge, wrapped in primal anger and fear. It is the worst of us.

In this pursuit of revenge under the guise of justice, the depths we have fallen to are stunning: state governments are sanctioning secret protocols to poison people to death, just so their nefarious concoctions cannot be questioned by those who are subject to die by them.

Our blood-thirst has driven us so mad that we are willing to make threats about impeaching state supreme court justices for staying executions and those justices are willing to back down rather than ensure that no person suffers torture.

So it was, in a sense almost inevitable that the debacle in Oklahoma would occur, an event that was so eerily foreshadowed by a statement of the attorney for one of the condemned.

I can’t reproduce anything more poignantly than those who were covering it live, so there it is:

lockett

and

lockett-2

What have we done? What are we doing? Is this who we want to be? As CT’s Supreme Court considers the continued viability of capital punishment for the 10 remaining on death row, it would do well to keep in mind the kind of inhuman torture that we are endorsing – explicitly or implicitly – by keeping this punishment alive.

Of course, this puts the latest findings that a full 4% of death row inmates may be actually innocent in a disturbing and urgent light.

Shame on us all. Today is a day future generations will turn away from in history books and shed a quiet tear. For today was the death of humanity.

Update: See this post by Gamso and this by Philip Bump at The Atlantic Wire. Both must reads.

When everyone is a criminal, you don’t need the Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. By now, it should be painfully obvious that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to anyone, because there are no more “people” left in the United States, only criminals and potential criminals. Our government spies on us willy-nilly, our legislators erode our rights on a daily basis under the banner of protecting the children and our courts continually perpetuate the notion that there are two groups in the US: “us” and “them”. It is also becoming increasingly clear that “us” refers only to law enforcement and “them” is anyone else.

Yesterday, in Navarette v. California [PDF], Justice Thomas wrote a 5-4 decision in which he upheld a police officer pulling over a car and then finding marijuana.

Now, as Popehat explains, the law before Navarette was as follows:

The story so far

It seems that not everyone was aware that since the beginning of March, I’ve been writing a semi-regular column in the Connecticut Law Tribune, a weekly legal newspaper. I’ve collected links to the extant articles in this post and all future posts will be tagged with the category “ct law tribune”. Thanks for reading.

 

The Unexamined Trial

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

So wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1774, foreshadowing his more famous quote about the “inherent and inalienable rights” of men, in the Declaration of Independence.

To me, what Jefferson meant by that is that we, as humans and citizens of a great free democracy have certain inherent rights that are ours by the very nature of our existence and these rights are not dependent upon the charity of ministers, politicians and judges.

Yet, for the most part, the realm of criminal law has continually drifted away from this Jeffersonian concept of “self-executing” rights and toward a more passive, dormant view of individual liberties and freedoms that need to be invoked to be awakened into performing their duties as our guardians. The right to remain silent now only applies if you break that silence and state out loud that you wish to remain quiet. The right to an attorney has to be unequivocally and explicitly invoked. The police cannot enter your home without a warrant except when they can and may do so even over your objection.

There is, then, a new generation of jurisprudence that has turned our jurists into something akin to DMV clerks whose primary function is to determine whether the forms have been filled out correctly.

But for those that don’t practice criminal law, let President Jefferson remind you why you should care:

What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.

It is thus critical that each and every one of us is aware of the ministerial treatment given to our rights. And the primary way in which courts have done that is to make the defense attorney the steward of those rights and placed her in the driver’s seat.

Of course that makes sense, you will no doubt say. The attorney is in the best position to safeguard those rights and to make sure that they are exercised as needed. True, but when you change the very nature of the rights to make them not self-executing, but rather dormant, awaiting the utterance of an incantation by a defense attorney, is when you strip the judge of her traditional role of overseer of due process and justice and hand that responsibility to the defense attorney.  By shifting the responsibility of ensuring a fair trial to the defense attorney instead of the judge, you’re making jurists nothing more than glorified legal clerks.

Yet another prosecutor “accidentally” suppresses exculpatory evidence

No, of course violations of Brady v. Maryland aren’t a problem; no, of course, no prosecutor ever would intentionally hide evidence that tended to show that the person accused may not be guilty; no, of course, the system that we have is great.

And yet. Yet again.

Say hello to Dejuan Hammond, who was 5 days into a trial accused of murder. Hammond had just finished sitting through the testimony of his ex-girlfriend, Princess Bolin, who gave two interviews to police implicating him.

Or did she?