|
Friday, February 29, 2008
Gloom, despair and agony
Fri, February 29, 2008 | link
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Solution in search of a problem
When I heard the Federal Bureau of Prisons' plan to standardize all prison religious libraries with 200 or so government-approved religious (per major religion) texts and prohibiting everything not on that list, my first
thought was that someone had far too much time on his hands. First, you gotta love the name, "Standardized Chapel Library
Project." The name oozes that bland bureaucratese that cloaks profoundly boneheaded government actions. The project
grew from a report that radical books that incite violence could creep into prison chaplain libraries. The report, by the Justice
Department's Inspector General, did not cite a single instance of any radical book actually being in the library, it just
noted that the collections had not been re-screened since September 11, 2001. The report focused on whether Muslim religious
services were a means of introducing radical Islam into the federal prison system. Apparently taking an inventory of all prison chaplain libraries was too burdensome, so the BOP opted to standardize the
material with lists of approved tests for 20 major religions. I wonder if the Bible passed muster, and if so, how.
The Bible has been used to incite violence for ages. The books of the Bible are filled with violent images and vengeance.
The deviant Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" delighted at the violence he found in those pages. Not only is violence depicted, but it is often encouraged.
Abraham is praised for being willing to kill his son. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering after winning a battle. Saul massacred the Amalekites, killing "men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys," but spared the king. When Samuel
learned of this, he took his sword and killed the king. Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt for looking at Sodom. Uzzah killed instantly for touching the Ark of the Covenant to keep it from falling off the wagon. All of these acts are things that
today we would condemn as genocide, murder, child abuse or insanity. So if the Bible is allowed, how can you come up with logical standards of what to exclude fearing it might incite violence?
To me that just shows the silliness of the whole BOP exercise. Maybe there are some books that prisoners should not
be allowed to read, "The Great Escape Manual" for example. But the list of truly dangerous books must be fairly short. The idea that religious books are a
threat that requires government vetting of religious texts is laughable. The BOP needs to find a real problem to solve.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Insanity, legal fiction, dogs, ponies and political suicide
A local court has to decide if a man who killed four people in 1988, but was found not guilty by reason of insanity should be released from the mental hospital, Dix, where he has been confined since 1989.
The hearing is still going on today. I know because the TV trucks were parked behind the courthouse today.
My guess at the result for Michael Hayes: no way, no how will he get out. Ever. I asked a friend of mine (a lawyer) if
there was any set of facts that Hayes could establish that would lead to his release, he just laughed. If you read the law Hayes must be released if he shows by a preponderance of the evidence that he no longer has a mental illness or is
no longer dangerous to others. If you read the local tea leaves ( or a local pundit) you know Hayes won't get out.
According to news accounts, all of the six mental health workers (at least two psychiatrists) who have treated Hayes have testified that he is no longer
mentally ill or a danger to others. Rightly or wrongly, Dix psychiatrists have a reputation among defense attorneys
as a rubber-stamp for the prosecution. The fact that they are all testifying in favor of Hayes is significant.
They are also in a better position to know about his mental condition than anyone else since they have regular contact
with Hayes.
It might be defensible to enact a law that provides: if you kill someone but are determined to be insane at the time
of the killing, you will be confined in an institution for the rest of your life. Maybe in balancing the risks we could
rationally conclude that lifetime confinement is needed to protect the rest of society, even if the killer is not morally
culpable. Maybe that position is unduly harsh on the mentally ill. At least it would be honest.
The law now creates a legal fiction, if you can prove you are no longer dangerous you can go free, but the very fact that you killed means that no set of facts
that you could show will ever satisfy a court. It is probably true that Hayes is no more dangerous than many others
walking the streets. It is probably also true that any judge who releases Hayes had better have alternate employment
lined up. A local columnist candidly called a ruling that would release Hayes " political suicide." If I were the judge who had to hear the evidence and decide, I'd probably be reluctant to release Hayes, too. It
would be hard to discount the chance, however slight, that Hayes could get into trouble or create a tragedy again.
But brutal honesty, just coming out and saying "Sorry Mr. Hayes, we can't risk letting you out," would be better than the
annual dog and pony show we have now.
Court opinions from earlier hearings:
2001 hearing (release denied by same judge presiding in current case)
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
"Use to be's" don't count anymore
I miss the old U.S.A. We used to be able to honestly say "in America, we just
don't (insert some human rights violation)." The list of things that could plausibly
go in the parentheses gets shorter every day. Ten years ago I would have ruled
out each of the following, now, not so much:
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Forget a real lawyer, I want a psychic
I saw this ad shortly after reading a blog post about a public defender whose client wanted to hire a "real lawyer." I'm not a public defender, but the majority of
my criminal caseload, state and federal, is court appointed work so I have been in S.C. Ruffey's shoes. Sometimes the defendant says something like "Don't be offended, but I am hiring a real lawyer." That reminds
me of the way mafiosos say things like, "With all due respect, you are a lying sack of shit," because if the sentence contains
"with all due respect" no one will be offended.
Getting dumped for a paid lawyer does not bother me much anymore. Partly because I would not hesitate to take a
court-appointed client away from another lawyer. I think there are several things that make the average criminal defendant
think that a paid lawyer is better than an appointed one. One is that you tend to value things more if you have to pay
for them. Getting something for free sends the message that it is not worth much. Another is that in the world
that most criminal defendants live in there are few examples of people who get satisfaction from doing something because
you believe in what you are doing. Even if that job is not financially rewarding. That view is not limited the
ranks of the lower economic classes. Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby could have plucked a typical PD (or me) and paid
the equivalent of several years of our annual income to have our experience by their side at trial, but they chose traditional
highly compensated lawyers.
At least those are the things I tell myself when I hear I am being replaced by a paid lawyer. However, when I get passed
over for a psychic, I will be pissed.
Thu, September 6, 2007 | link
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Singing the middle aged white non-gay senator blues
My life is askew 'cause I tapped with my shoe, but I'm busted
Polling is down near to the ground and I'm busted
I've got an excuse that won't fly, and folks think I am gay
The negative press gets bigger each day
The Senate may take my office away I'm busted!
I told the cop that I was alone, I was busted
I hated to beg like a dog for a bone, I was busted
The cop told me there ain't a thing I can do
There've
been complaints of gay sex in the loo,
I was in that bathroom with you, you're busted!
Lord I'm not
gay but a man can go wrong when he's busted
The party I conned three times is gone and I'm busted
The
outlook is bleak and I promised to flee,
But now I am trying to withdraw my plea,
Oh what in the world
has happened to me, but I'm busted!
Wed, September 5, 2007 | link
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Stairway moment
I can think of plenty of times I have flubbed answers to a question in court. I sympathize with Lauren Upton (Miss Teen USA) for being caught short. Those moments of ineptitude are usually followed by coming up with dozens of great answers
later. I've heard there is French expression that roughly translates to "stairway moment" - coming up with the
perfect response afterward while climbing up the stairs. Here are some of my suggestions for her:
- "That’s a good question. There may have been a discussion of the lack of
geographical knowledge at the department but I do not recall if I was involved. I may have been involved, but I do not
recall. I’ll have to get back to you on that."
- "Well Aimee, you can bet the Al Qaeda terrorists can find the USA on a map."
- "Let me be clear. I am not gay. I
never have been gay. Even if you were tapping your foot and reaching into and
adjoining stall in a bathroom in a Minnesota airport, you still can find America on a map."
- "There are many ways you can learn about the location of America. My sons
are learning about the location of America by helping elect me president of America."
- "There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know
there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
- "So, welcome. Let's give a welcome to Macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."
- "It doesn’t matter if they can’t find America on a map by my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
Monday, August 27, 2007
We've got a law against that in North Carolina
Topping the list of scrotum-related stories today is this.
Here come da judge, here come da judge
Lawyer asks The Ethicist if he should blab about how a judicial candidate may have exposed him to herpes.
I don't know how I would have answered, but I would have tried to work the word "dictum" into my answer.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
People who like laws or sausages should never watch Michael Decker take a sponge bath under the legislative building
There is always a nadir. I have watched North Carolina political scandals for most of my adult life, from
Jimmy Green, to Rufus Edmisten, to Meg Scott Phipps, the lottery. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
has never gone more than a month or two without some type of graft (it has gotten to the point where citizens should be grateful
that DOT employees are simply being rude to them rather than taking payoffs).
In listening to Jim Black testify at his sentencing in Raleigh today, I believe I heard the nadir. Black testified
that he gave representative Michael Decker $10,000 in the hope that Decker would stop living in his van and taking spongebaths under the Legislative building during sessions.
Maybe Decker just bought a nicer sponge.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Days late and dollars short
It should come as no shock that the contempt hearing was continued (again) to August 30.
Fri, July 27, 2007 | link
Thursday, July 26, 2007
A gross waste of public resources
Taxpayers paid a prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, bailiffs and 12 jurors to sit through this. Just because you can prosecute someone does not mean you should.
What is newsworthy about the guy's mugshot?
Monday, July 23, 2007
An troublesome hand-me-down
For the past several weeks I have been dealing with a particularly difficult client. He arrived under the typical red flag,
his previous court-appointed lawyer had been allowed to withdraw and I was appointed in his place. I’m not going to get into
the details of the case, but the biggest weakness in the State’s case is the fact that the identification of my client as
the perp occurred from 125 feet away. This is a better “reasonable doubt” defense than I have had in any of the cases I have
tried this year.
What makes him difficult is that he obsesses over irrelevant facts and is dumb as a box of rocks. He sends me page after
page of letters filled with legal research he has copied from the law books at the jail. None of it remotely applies to his
case. He gets angry with me for refusing to file motions based on his research. I am angry with him for being such an annoying
ass. I’ve found myself thinking, maybe this guy is so dumb that I can’t be of any help to him. His personality is so obnoxious
that I am not enthusiastic about helping him The contrarian part of me responds that he can’t help the fact that he is ignorant
and his obnoxiousness probably stems in part from some kind of mental illness. Given his age I am unlikely to be able to
persuade him to change his behavior. Finding the point between not wanting to tolerate bad behavior and understanding that
he does not (and probably cannot) see the world as I do is tough.
If he would sit still and be quiet during his trial, we’d have a shot at acquittal. But he won’t do that. He’ll shake his
head during the testimony, shift in his seat, and constantly badger me with questions and comments during the trial, all things
that will distract me from doing my job.
If I was in another line of work, I’d quit working for him. But criminal defense attorneys cannot stop working for a client
without permission from the court. Since this guy has already switched attorneys once no judge is going to permit him to
do it again, I’m stuck with him, just like he is stuck with me.
Mon, July 23, 2007 | link
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Dissecting the Black & Decker Deal
Anyone who regularly represents defendants in criminal cases can see that Jim Black and Michael Decker
are not typical cases. Both pleaded guilty on the same day they were charged. That suggests that they were each able to negotiate exactly what they were going to plead
guilty to. While most criminal defendants are not caught completely by surprise when
they are charged, they are not consulted about what the prosecutor will charge them with.
The timing of the pleas in both cases, with the news of the charge and the plea getting simultaneous public release,
hints at a public show that was scripted weeks in advance and out of the public eye.
In federal court Black faces a maximum of ten years imprisonment. The
charge was brought under a federal statute (18 U.S.C. 666), which prohibits bribery in connection with programs that receive
federal funds. Black’s actual sentence will be determined by the federal sentencing
guidelines. The Guidelines attempt to relate the seriousness of a crime with an “offense
level.” Offense levels run from one to 43. Higher offense levels lead to longer sentences. According to the Guidelines, a public official convicted of taking a gratuity starts off
at “offense level” 11. If the gratuity occurred on more than one occasion the offense
level increases by 2 to 13. If the gratuity is more than $5000, the Guidelines increase
the sentence depending on the size of the gratuity. The government alleges that Black
received at least $25,000 from chiropractors and the plea agreement specifies that the total amount was less than $30,000. That total amount increases the offense level by 4 levels for a total of 17. If the public official was in a high-level decision making position the offense level goes up another 4 levels
for a total of 21. The plea bargain provides that Black is entitled to a 3-level reduction
in the offense level for acceptance of responsibility, reducing the offense level to 18. A
level 18 offender in a federal case has a guideline range of 27-33 months imprisonment.
According to the factual basis the federal prosecutors filed in the Black case, Black learned that the
chiropractors had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. On the day before
the chiropractors were supposed to testify, Black visited one of them and suggested that the three tell the grand jury that
the payments were “a little bit of money” to help Black with expenses while running around the country. That activity could be considered and obstruction of justice leading to a two-level increase in the offense level. If the sentencing judge finds obstruction the offense level would be 20 and the guideline
range would be 33-41 months imprisonment.
The plea agreement provides that Black will cooperate by submitting to interviews, testify against others
and submit to a polygraph examination if required to by the federal investigators. This
indicates that if the government is happy with the information that Black provides, the government could move for a reduction
in his Guideline range for providing “substantial assistance.” Usually the government
recommends a specific reduction in the sentence as a reward for providing substantial assistance. The amount of the reduction is ultimately up to the sentencing judge, but it usually is near what the prosecution
asks for.
I was initially confused about why Michael Decker pleaded guilty in federal court to agreeing to accept
$50,000 in exchange for supporting Black, identified in charging documents as “a particular candidate for speaker.,” but Black
was not charged in federal court with that offense. Here is my theory to explain that: the Guidelines consider “relevant conduct” in determining a defendant’s sentence. Relevant conduct consists of any wrongdoing related to the offense of conviction that can be proved by a preponderance
of the evidence. There is no requirement that the relevant conduct be charged formally. However, adding the $50,000 amount to the $25,000-$30,000 in the count that Black plead
guilty to would increase Blacks offense level by four more levels. Black has denied
Decker’s account and pleaded guilty to the Decker connected offense in state court while maintaining his innocence in what
is called an Alford plea. Alford pleas are rarely accepted in federal court. A defendant in federal court can lose the reduction for acceptance of responsibility for denying involvement
in relevant conduct. So if Black denied paying off Decker in federal court (and the
feds have Decker to testify about the deal with Black) Black would lose the 3-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. That is a seven-level increase.
|
|
|
|
|
Initial offense level |
11 |
11 |
|
Increase for more than
one occasion |
+2 |
+2 |
|
Increase based on $ value |
+4 ($25K-30K) |
+8 (at least $70K) |
|
High level decision maker |
+4 |
+4 |
|
Obstruction |
+2 |
+2 |
|
Acceptance of
Responsibility |
-3 |
(no reduction for denying relevant conduct) |
|
Offense level |
20 |
27 |
|
Guideline range |
33-41 months |
70-87 months |
The only reason I can think of for Black to plead guilty to related offenses in both state and federal
courts is to attempt to argue in federal court at sentencing that since he has pleaded guilty to offenses in state court related
to Decker, they should not be considered relevant conduct at his federal sentencing. Black
plead guilty to a Class F felony (offering a bribe to Decker) and a Class H felony (obstruction of justice) in state court. Class F felonies for someone with no criminal record carry a presumptive minimum sentence
of 13 to 16 months. The presumptive minimum sentence for a class H felony is 5-6 months. Black would be eligible for a suspended sentence in state court.
It would be interesting to see how my prediction turns out. All
of the federal sentencing calculations are contained in a pre-sentence report that is sealed and not available to the public. There will be no way to know what, if any, relevant conduct Black is held responsible for. There will be no way to know whether Black gets a reduction for acceptance even though he
denies paying off Decker. There will be no way to know if there was an obstruction
enhancement for encouraging the chiropractors to mislead the grand jury.
Jim Black information (charging document)
Jim Black plea agreement
Jim Black factual basis (filed by government)
Black documents from State Court
Federal sentencing guideline for unlawful gratuity
Federal sentencing table
Obstruction of justice guideline
Relevant conduct
Theft guideline (to determine increase based on dollar amounts)
Federal bribery statute 18 U.S.C. 666
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Was that wrong?
Canadian deputies suspended for off-duty frolic that ended up on the internet. I guess they didn't cover not appearing in sex videos in rookie school.
Friday, December 22, 2006
The "No Pants Dance" is not a part of standard legal practice
Inmate's girlfriend poses as lawyer to get into jail to have sex with boyfriend. The gig is foiled when jail calls
firm to tell them that one of their lawyers was caught having sex in visiting room. The real lawyer was on maternity
leave.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Typical day in court
Every day criminal defense attorneys go to court and face people who would like nothing better than to put their clients
in prison for a long time. Prosecutors are often present as well. Here is an example from the appellate courts.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Oh hear me Winston-Salem
The Lord is my Mayor,
He wants nothing but my vote.
He layeth straight sidewalks for
me to walk upon upon,
His cool waters fill the pipes of my home,
He filleth a pothole.
He leadeth me down the greenways of happiness,
For the Earth’s sake.
Yea though I may have to roll my trash to the curb,
I am not uneasy,
For my taxes are low.
Your bureaucrats and thy staff, they answer me.
You regulateth the Cable TV in the presence of my family.
You anoint my yard with leaf mulch.
My recycle bin runs over.
Surely wise ordinances will apply to me,
Unless I’m rezoned.
And I will dwell within the city limits,
Forever.
Tue, December 19, 2006 | link
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Mea culpa edgieway
“I’ve made mistakes in my life, but none have had the impact that this one has had,” said a high
school principal.
His offense: giving a student a wedgie.
Someone should set the guy straight: Our current mantra is "No Child Left Behind" not "Go Lift Child's
Behind." But hey it could have been an honest mistake.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Appearing for the State in the buff
Tue, October 10, 2006 | link
|
