|
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Put something on that
"I have no idea how you detect the naked. You'd have to
have a big operation to try to bring it under control."
And we think we have illegal immigration problems now. Wait till this takes effect.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Blakely brief
Just filed a brief trying to get a DWI sentence reversed under Blakely. Three aggravating factors found by the judge (not alleged in citation or found by the jury) were used to make
client a level 3 offender. The aggravating factors took maximum sentence from 120 days to 6 months. This should be a winner. In DWI trials since right after Blakely DA's are spelling out aggravating factors in a
statement of charges.
I'll try to post a link to the brief when the N.C. Court of Appeals posts it.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
I just had my law license a minute ago
I need to show a picture ID just to enter a federal building. The IRS once required me to produce the front and
back of a cancelled check to prove to it that I paid my taxes (I had). When I work on court-appointed cases I have to
provide documentation for even the most trivial expenses.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
The top 10 again
What is it with Alabama judges and the 10 commandments? Think how happy the Almighty must be that His word is displayed and obeyed as this jurist presides over drunk driving,
broken tail-light, loud radio, and driving while license revoked cases.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
A little racial-sensitivity Cliff Note
A judge should never wear blackface. And if your brother-in-law is dressed as Buckwheat, leave the party early.
Thursday, December 9, 2004
Son, find another line of work 'cause you stink at burglary
"I was finally able to get my hands
on one of the guns and hit him in the back with the gun stock," Gamage said. "That's when he looked at me and said 'I'm going
to get you."...
"I lost a lot of
blood the day before and I was weak," Gamage added. "When he said he was still going to get me, I realized this was serious.
I shot him in the left foot. It hit him in the arch and he screamed and started jumping around like a chicken with his head
cut off."
That's what I call homeland security.
Thu, December 9, 2004 | link
Wednesday, December 8, 2004
Decision day
Two appellate decisions arrived in the mail today. One was good news, a conviction reversed based on an illegal search. The client was present in a pool hall that the police had a warrant
to search, but no independent probable cause to search him.
The other is bad news. I have a personal gripe about a very small part of the opinion. Here is an excerpt:
On this evidence it is questionable whether the police conducted a rigorous enough
search to support a conclusion that the defendant was avoiding apprehension. There is no evidence of defendant's reasons for
going to Virginia, or when he went, but only that he was found there over three years after the crime. However, even if an
instruction on flight was not warranted, the error would be harmless because of the other evidence against the defendant.
Defendant did not contest his identification or the evidence against him, and he presented no alibi at trial. Defendant did
not demonstrate any prejudice against him as a result of the instruction. Therefore, this assignment of error is without
merit.
To me "without merit" means something akin to "bogus." I don't think my argument was bogus. Maybe it wasn't
enough to push the ball over the goal line, but it was a viable argument.
And here I thought Ashcroft had the terrorists licked ...
"For
the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do,"
Actually it has already happened. Ever tried the McRib?
I'm selling my Hummer shares
They just don't makes Humvees like they used to.
Wed, December 8, 2004 | link
Has that always been here?
Wed, December 8, 2004 | link
Monday, December 6, 2004
With friends like this, who needs a prosecutor?
Mon, December 6, 2004 | link
Friday, December 3, 2004
Stepping up to the mike
More stories on recording interrogations:
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
Is this thing on?
Sgt. Robert Carden of the (Chapel Hill Police)department's criminal-investigations
division said he has taped some interviews but usually does not. He and other officers worry, he said, that the tapes might
hurt the state's case, and that juries may not like some police tactics used during interrogations.
Personally I'd like to see more recording and taping. If we were interested in presenting the whole
truth and letting the jury decide that is what would happen. In a case a few years ago, I saw in the police report that
my client had been Mirandized, interviewed and admitted the crime. I saw that the interrogation had been recorded.
I asked for the transcript the police had prepared and a copy of the tape.
The transcript showed that the client had been Mirandized and asked for a lawyer. Then the interview stopped.
However a few minutes later the client was questioned again and waived his right to have counsel present, a potential constitutional
violation, although we lost the motion to suppress.
Also the client's statements were not an unambiguous admission. There was an admission to being present but
not necessarily to the elements of the offense. Since there was a transcript the jury could see exactly what was said.
If there had been no transcript the jury would have heard two detectives say my client "confessed."
The jury still convicted my client in a case where I saw clear reasonable doubt, but at least the jury had the facts.
Wed, December 1, 2004 | link
|
