tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-120217812024-03-23T11:09:17.703-07:00Injustice Anywhere . . .. . . is a threat to justice everywhere. I used to be a public defender in Texas. Now, I'm a public defender in Washington. Despite what you may have heard about Texas justice, there's just as much injustice here as there was there. And so I fight. And I rant. About justice, injustice, and life in general. (*Despite the photographic evidence below, I am not Veronica Mars. She is, in fact, smarter than me.)123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.comBlogger410125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-69274833180217858412008-11-07T22:45:00.000-08:002008-11-07T22:51:01.169-08:00OUTRAGE!!!<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/07/child.charged.ap/index.html">Arizona authorities have charged an 8-year-old boy with two counts of pre-meditated murder</a>. This is so outrageous on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. They interrogated an 8-year-old child (whose father had just been murdered) without an attorney or parent present. He is EIGHT YEARS OLD! Even assuming he did shoot and kill these two people, an 8-year-old child does not have the capacity to commit premeditated murder. Somebody, somewhere, please stop this insanity!123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com40tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-74291864091383619702008-10-21T22:32:00.000-07:002008-10-21T22:38:10.062-07:00FrustrationYou know what is frustrating? When you spend forever arguing, begging, pleading, and using all your other tools of persuasion to get a prosecutor to give you a particular deal, but the prosecutor will only offer you X years. So, you go talk to your client and explain what the offer is, and your client yells at you, "Why you trying to give me X years?"123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-9766744493516376242008-10-21T22:22:00.000-07:002008-10-21T22:32:05.421-07:00The Problems with Eyewitness IDsThe <em>Dallas Morning News</em> did a very interesting <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2008/dna/">investigative series</a> on the problems with eyewitness identification and how they were major factors in the wrongful convictions of 18 of the 19 DNA exonerees in Dallas County. It is a MUST read for anyone involved in the criminal justice system. I wish it were a MUST read for everyone about to sit on a jury, but, sadly, that is not to be.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-4921610049190014752008-10-21T22:21:00.000-07:002008-10-21T22:22:14.427-07:00One Xanax Pill<strong><em>Update:</em></strong> Morning of trial and super-longshot motion to suppress . . . prosecutor agreed to recommend year and a day with the statement that the defendant's violation was de minimis and make no further argument on sentencing and we could argue for an exceptional downward sentence (one below the minimum under the sentencing guidelines) . . . I recommended the client take the deal . . . we asked for 90 days (minimum under the guidelines was year and a day) . . . judge gave him . . . 90 DAYS! Woohoo!<br /><br />***********<br /><br />Possessing one Xanax pill without a prescription should not get you a year and a day in state prison no matter how many prior felony convictions you have. Also, it does not make me feel better when a prosecutor tells me that he wishes he could do something better for me, and that he feels bad that he can't do better. If you wish you could do something better and you feel bad that you can't do better, then DO SOMETHING BETTER!123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-88938106206592395792008-09-17T10:10:00.000-07:002008-09-17T10:35:05.835-07:00Why Just Having the Right to a Jury Trial MattersRecently, I had a jury trial that reminded me why having the right to a jury trial matters, and why it is blatantly unfair that juveniles do not have that right, and yet their convictions from juvenile court can count significantly in sentencing decisions for crimes they may commit as adults.<br /><br />My client was charged with stalking. I don't want to get into all the details, but I will say that, based on my interpretation of the stalking statute, I did not believe my client was guilty. Even assuming all the facts as laid out in the police report were true, I did not believe that my client committed the crime of stalking under any reasonable interpretation of the stalking statute. In Washington, this allows us to file a motion before trial, arguing that the charge should be dismissed. For the purpose of the hearing, you concede that everything in the police reports are true, but say that all of that information is insufficient to prove the crime charged. So, I filed that motion. The judge and the prosecutor each had their own different but equally unreasonable--in my opinion--interpretation of the statute, and so my motion was denied. My client was disheartened, but I told him I still thought we should win in a jury trial.<br /><br />So, we went to a jury trial. This time, I made essentially the same argument in a motion to dismiss after the state rested its case. My legal argument was the same, but the judge this time was deciding whether the evidence actually presented at trial--as opposed to what the police reports said--was sufficient for any reasonable jury to convict my client of the crime. Again, I made my argument, and once again, the prosecutor had his unreasonable interpretation, and the judge came up with a strange interpretation of the evidence to go along with his strange interpretation of the law, and denied me again.<br /><br />And so, I was left to argue the law to the jury. I had not disputed any real fact presented by the state. I gave a 5-7 minute closing argument. I just wrote the key words from the definitions in the statute and explained why, no matter what they thought of what my client did, they could not find that what he did was the crime of stalking. I was, essentially, making the exact same arguments on the law that I had made to the judge to the jury. The prosecutor made his arguments about why what my client did fit the statute and he argued his interpretation of the statute.<br /><br />The jury deliberated for about 45 minutes, and found my client not guilty. This, despite the fact that the victim of the alleged stalking was a police officer.<br /><br />When asked by the prosecutor afterwards why they acquitted, they said that the definitions made it pretty clear that what my client did wasn't stalking. A few days later, a friend of mine told me that a woman she knew had been on my jury, and that she had said that it took them a while to vote on who the foreperson would be, but that the "not guilty" verdict was easy.<br /><br />And yet, if my client, like a juvenile, had no right to a jury trial, he probably would have been found guilty. He may have won an acquittal on appeal, but that likely would have been after he had done at least a significant amount of his probation and probably all of his detention time. Sometimes, even when your whole case is about a correct interpretation of the law, you need to have 12 citizens who can read two or three definitions, put them together, apply them to the virtually undisputed facts, and say, "not guilty." Sometimes, you need the jury to tell the judge that his interpretation of the law is wrong.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-505163009434351592008-09-11T15:37:00.001-07:002008-09-11T15:49:53.541-07:00Long time, no blog . . .Yeah, I know you've heard that before. I apologize. Circumstances have conspired against me. So, here's an update:<br /><br />I have moved from juvenile court to adult felonies. I was really torn when I was asked to make the move. It was considered an advancement in the office, but I had really grown to love juvenile work. I missed being able to do jury trials (and having my clients have the RIGHT to a jury trial), but I knew I would miss the kids. So far, though, I am happy where I am. I have been back in front of a few juries with pretty good results so far. <br /><br />I am still busier than ever--the life of a public defender. And things at my office are far from perfect. But, what has inspired me to get back into blogging is what is going on at my old office in Dallas. They are really suffering. They are being messed with in the extreme by the political forces in the county, and good, experienced public defenders are quitting because they don't believe they can meet their ethical obligations to their clients under the quota system that has been imposed there.<br /><br />My thoughts go out to all my former colleagues there in Dallas, whether they have chosen to leave or are trying to stick it out. I don't know what I would do if I were still there. On one hand, I respect those who have quit because they do not believe that they can fulfill their ethical obligations to provide zealous representation under the overly burdensome caseload standards that have been imposed. On the other hand, I respect those who are staying because they know that good, ethical attorneys need to be there to represent the indigent accused. I wish them all the best and hope that changes will be coming. (For more information about the situation in Dallas, check out <a href="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/search/label/Dallas%20County">Grits for Breakfast</a>. As per usual, he is all over the issue.)<br /><br />Hopefully, it won't be another year before my next post!123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-3668083797610311402007-06-19T11:45:00.000-07:002007-06-19T11:51:22.032-07:00Kiddie prison post coming soon . . . and that Duke thingI took a fascinating tour of three of the state's juvenile institutions last week, and I am working on a nice, long post about it all. The short story is that they weren't as bad as I thought they would be, but still not someplace we should be sending kids except in extreme circumstances. In the meantime, check out <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2168680/">David Feige's (of Indefensible) spot-on analysis in <em>Slate</em> of why disgraced Duke prosecutor Mike Nifong's disbarment is a "freakish anomaly" rather than a precedent for the criminal justice system</a>.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-90231351251551700442007-06-04T18:32:00.000-07:002007-06-04T18:39:04.928-07:0018 Years Later, Tiananman Square Remembered<a href="http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp6-4-07kk.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp6-4-07kk.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>This is a photograph of a candlelight vigil in Hong Kong marking the 18th anniversary of the Tiananman square crackdown. China still remains an oppressive regime that regularly violates the human rights of its citizens. But hey, they make great trading partners! </div>123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-48561987855068249132007-05-31T07:48:00.001-07:002007-05-31T08:06:03.582-07:00Trial FrenzyIt seems like I was here for months before I finally tried my first case. I had a couple go to the brink of trial, only to be pulled back by a last-minute offer too good to turn down. Then, finally, one trial. A couple months later, another. And now I am preparing to go to trial for the fifth time in seven weeks--my second sex case in the same time period.<br /><br />Trial is one of those experiences that is simultaneously exhilerating and exhausting. Nothing gets me revved up like a trial. Nothing gives me butterflies or keeps me up at nights like a trial. Trial keeps me in a state of hypervigilance. You have to pay attention to everything that's happening in the courtroom while processing how what is being said affects your case, and thinking about how you're going to respond to what was said, and all the while remembering when to appropriately object, and when not to object even if you properly could because you want the evidence to come in, and, well, you get the picture. Exhilerating and exhausting.<br /><br />And it really doesn't matter if it's a case you think you can win or one you have no hope of winning. At least not to me. For me to really be prepared for trial, I have to get myself in a place where I believe that I can win. I have to believe that if I do everything I possibly can, as effectively as I can, that I can win the case. It's the only way I feel I can be sure that I give everything I have even in a case that, viewing it from a dispassionate distance, I would realize I have no hope of winning. So, when the case is over, it is just as crushing to lose a case that was a loser all along as it is to lose one that I thought I could win, because I got myself to a place where I thought I could win it, no matter what. Of course, winning a case tends to create a bit of delirium of its own. But win or lose, the overwhelming feeling at the end of a trial is exhaustion. <br /><br />Unfortunately, there's no time to rest. Because while I was in trial, more new cases have landed on my desk, and, oh yeah, the trial date on that other case is now a few days closer with nothing having been done, and there are 15 messages on my voice mail, and the beat goes on.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-78454525036265569832007-05-29T10:16:00.000-07:002007-05-29T10:22:16.213-07:00Why YouTube is the Best Website EverDo you remember when you used to go to work or school and someone would tell you about something funny that happened on live TV the day before or you would curse yourself for having missed it? Something, like, say, Miss USA falling on her ass at the Miss Universe pageant? Now, with YouTube, you never have to curse yourself, because you can count on several alert viewers to have posted it for your free repeat-viewing pleasure. Now, please enjoy this present that will hopefully help you make it through your hard Tuesday-after-a-holiday workday:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gZZd9UGV0uI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gZZd9UGV0uI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-45973320862376479702007-05-24T07:56:00.000-07:002007-05-24T08:26:00.880-07:00A Long, Rambling Return to BloggingHas it really been over a month since I last posted? I guess it has. In that time, I tried an interminable child sex abuse case that resulted in a split verdict of guilty of one count and not guilty of the other, which, objectively, was a huge victory, but didn't feel that way as I watched the mother of my client dissolve into tears throughout the judge's announcement of his verdict. In the middle of the trial, I went on a little vacation, which was really lovely, but now feels like forever ago, in that I am just as overwhelmed with work and exhausted as I was the day I left. Then, I tried a little misdemeanor minor in possession of alcohol case that I had no hope of winning but almost did on a completely random technicality, but none of that ended up mattering, as my client, who has been an alcoholic since he was probably about 10, was ordered shipped off to the juvenile institution for almost a year, without a single parent or family member there because none of them can be bothered to give a damn. And then, this Monday, I tried a burglary case that actually involved four felony counts because of the two cars stolen and the going back to the house a second time to steal one of them after wrecking out the other one, and the only evidence--literally, the ONLY evidence--against my client was the testimony of a co-defendant who was refusing to name the alleged third person involved (which would categorically not be enough to convict in the State of Texas, but is enough here in blue-state Washington), and the stakes couldn't have been higher after my client turned down the misdemeanor offer from the prosecutor who knew he had a weak case (aren't those always the absolute hardest offers to advise your client about???). And somehow, the star witness accomplice guy managed to perjure himself during the prosecutor's direct exam, and I forced him to admit said perjury during my cross-exam, and then he refused to answer my question as to who the third person he told the police officer he would never name and would take the fall for was, and then the judge granted my motion to strike the lying, withholding witness's testimony in its entirety, leaving the prosecuto with no evidence against my client, forcing him to dismiss with prejudice in the middle of trial. And it was an awesome, thrilling moment of victory, that I felt the need to bask in for the rest of the day, because you so rarely get such awesome, thrilling moments in this job, and then, the next day, I get dragged right back down because I have to try a case that is most likely a complete loser. And throughout all of this, I'm putting out this fire here and that fire there, handling probation violations, and motions, and kids who won't go to school, and kids who keep running away, and pleading out a bunch of other kids, including one whose mother is dead and whose dad is in prison, and he was so horribly sexually abused that he has had to have multiple surgeries to repair the physical injuries from the abuse, but whose legal guardians are so "fed up" with his inability to control his anger that the kid heard the "dad" on the phone with a friend saying he just wished the kid was dead, said "dad" also having told me that he doesn't believe the kid is properly being held accountable, and that I shouldn't even bother to tell him about the consequences of convictions becuase he knows about convictions, being a four-time convicted felon himself. Oh, and yeah, <em>Veronica Mars</em> got cancelled, so that was just the icing on the cake. And that, in a nutshell, is what's been happening the past month.<br /><br />How's everyone else doing?123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-79193141415677428052007-04-19T07:43:00.000-07:002007-04-19T07:45:35.892-07:00Thought for the DaySexual abuse cases are bad.<br /><br />Sexual abuse cases with a child victim are worse.<br /><br />Sexual abuse cases with a child victim <em>and</em> a child defendant are the worst of all.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-59586664072407553822007-04-16T12:58:00.000-07:002007-04-16T13:04:17.986-07:00Daily Show Rips Nancy Grace Over Duke CaseMy longstanding disgust for Nancy Grace is well-known to regular readers of this blog. Her coverage of the Duke Lacrosse "Rape" Case provided a nice vehicle for Jon Stewart and the good folks at The Daily Show to rip her a new one. Enjoy!<br /><br /><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A-JgTnR2jkk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A-JgTnR2jkk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-32124694816188015192007-04-11T17:06:00.000-07:002007-04-11T17:12:58.555-07:00Six-Year-Old's Temper Tantrum Lands Her in Jail<em>Slate</em> has a <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2164004/entry/0/">nice little blurb, and the official police report, about a six-year-old girl arrested for two felonies and a misdemeanor for throwing a temper tantrum in class</a>. Seriously. I have no words. Well, I have one sort-of-word: Arrrgggghhhhh!!!123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-29331355788039628002007-04-09T14:52:00.000-07:002007-04-09T14:58:01.093-07:00Life's a MarathonSaturday, I officially started my marathon training. Okay, I'm only training for a half-marathon. And, okay, I'm only training to walk a half-marathon. For me, though, this is a huge deal. I generally hate exercise. I can't count the number of times I start "working out," with all sorts of promises and goals to myself, only to quit because I'm bored or don't have the time, or some other convenient excuse. The end result is that I am extremely out of shape. And I'm sick and tired of it. I want to feel better. I want to look better. And I don't want to condemn myself to a life of heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes, like so many of my family members. So, I decided to participate in a program that trains people to run or walk marathons or half-marathons. Basically, you get together with the whole group every Saturday morning for a group walk/run, and then follow a schedule of walking or running during the week. I walked a mere 1.5 miles Saturday morning, and now, I'm on my way. Hopefully, I'll be able to tell you this fall that I completed my half-marathon. And hopefully, by then, I'll be feeling better all around.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-45791693868555473732007-04-09T10:42:00.000-07:002007-04-09T10:56:24.436-07:00These Clients We Defend<a href="http://womanofthelaw.blogspot.com/">Woman of the Law</a> is the subject of <a href="http://pdstuff.blogspot.com/2007/04/monday-musings-woman-of-law.html">this week's Monday Musings at Public Defender Stuff</a>. It's a great read, all-around, but one part of her comments really got me. She was having a discussion with a law professor who did capital defense work, and the issue of why she thought she might want to be a prosecutor came up. She told the professor about the abused kids she had worked with as a social worker, and how frustrated she would get with how the system dealt with them, and the professor responded, "These clients that we defend - they were your kids once. And this is where they ended up. This is what the system did for them." <br /><br />Wow. So very true. So many of the kids I work with are being abused, and the system fails to protect them at every turn. And I often find myself hoping and praying that they don't end up where this professor's clients have.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-26069008833002212702007-04-06T10:14:00.000-07:002007-04-06T17:21:35.702-07:00My Hypothetical Criminal RecordHave you ever sat down and thought out what your hypothetical criminal record would be if all the crimes you committed in your life would have been reported to the police and prosecuted? I think about a lot more with my juvenile clients who are racking up a criminal record even before they're adults. I wonder how much harder it will be for them to get into college, to get student loans, to get a job, to get an apartment. And I wonder why the hell the state is prosecuting so many of these kids instead of just giving some of them a good, stern lecture, grounding them, or allowing for some other form of parental punishment that worked just fine on so many of us, and allowed us to put our juvenile mistakes behind us without a criminal record, and move on to be responsible, productive adults.<br /><br />I may be leaving some stuff out, but here it is. My hypothetical juvenile criminal record:<br /><br />Theft<br />Assault - domestic violence<br />Harassment - domestic violence<br />Driving without a license<br />Reckless driving<br />Criminal trespass<br /><br />Now, I was pretty much a square, goody-goody as a kid, and never drank or smoked pot, so I managed to avoid those convictions. But between fights with my older brother, shoplifting, and driving like a goddamned maniac, I could have racked up plenty of charges. And you know, it's not just having a criminal record that hurts kids; it's any contact with the juvenile system. There are some kids, sure, who may need to be on probation, with the threat of detention time to get them the help they need. But many kids don't. And bringing them into the criminal justice system does them harm. I want to post more on this--the harm done just by being in the system--in future posts. But for now, I'm just thankful that it never happened to me.<br /><br />Don't be shy now--feel free to leave a comment with your hypothetical criminal record.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-65561115853875676212007-04-05T18:15:00.000-07:002007-04-05T18:21:02.358-07:00On the RunSo, today, I had a client plead guilty to an assault charge involving a former classmate. The case was pretty old because she seemed to have had a habit of running away from home. Dad took a 5-hour bus ride to get here for her hearing today, which was great, except for the fact that he absolutely reaked of alcohol. After the plea, my client needed to talk to another prosecutor before heading back home because she is the complainant in a felony assault case where the defendant is her mother. Gee, I can't imagine why this girl keeps running away from home.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-54810883426463598692007-04-03T08:40:00.000-07:002007-04-03T08:45:58.017-07:00Some News From My Old OfficeHere's a pretty comprehensive <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/040307dnmetlawyerfees.3bfa979.html">article on the costs and benefits of the public defender system in Dallas County</a> from the <em>Dallas Morning News</em>. The one thing about the article that bothers me is that it continues to point out the problems of campaign contributions and how that affects judges' decisions in appointing private-practice attorneys, which is a perhaps more scandalous on its face, but doesn't talk about the major problem I witnessed with some private-practice attorneys--the financial incentive for the attorney to get the case over with as soon as possible. Strangely, this is cited by the judge as a positive for using private-practice attorneys as opposed to public defenders, and no real mention is made of the divergent interests this can create between the attorney and his client.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-37848035167610760792007-04-03T07:21:00.000-07:002007-04-03T07:30:33.661-07:00Why are Child Prostitutes Treated Like Criminals Instead of Sexual Abuse Victims?I can't read the actual article because either the magazine's website is down right now or my internet connection sucks, but a <a href="http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/04/03/child_sex_workers/index.html"><em>Salon</em> blogger on women's issues notes</a> a <a href="http://nymag.com/news/features/30018/"><em>New York Magazine</em> article about how child prostitutes are treated in the U.S.A</a>. The bottom line is that, despite the fact that these girls are legally incapable of consenting to sex, and that many of them are essentially "sex slaves," they are frequently treated like nothing more than criminals when they are arrested for prostitution. There has to be a better way.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-89355103312131799872007-04-02T08:06:00.000-07:002007-04-02T08:21:19.034-07:00FBI Doesn't Want Jurors To See How They Get ConfessionsIn the midst of the U.S. Attorney firings scandal, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/washington/02taping.html">New York Times has uncovered a fascinating little tidbit. Apparently, one of the fired prosecutors got the FBI all up-in-arms because he challenged a policy that forbids FBI agents from recording interrogations with suspects without supervisor approval</a>. That's right--they're forbidden from preserving an accurate record of the interrogation. Why? Well, that's where it gets even better. Apparently, one of the major "legitimate" policy reasons put forward by the FBI is that jurors might not like what they see:<br /><br /><em>Psychological tricks like misleading or lying to a suspect in questioning or pretending to show the suspect sympathy might also offend a jury, the agency said. “Perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants,” said one of the once-secret internal Justice Department communications made public as part of the investigation into the dismissals of the United States attorneys.</em><br /><br />Interesting. So, they don't want jurors to see precisely what they do to obtain confessions because they think the jurors might find what they do "improper," even though it's not. Or, maybe, because the jurors, upon seeing the actual interrogation process, might be more inclined to believe defense assertions that the confession was false. It is very true that lying to suspects and applying extreme psychological pressure are "perfectly lawful," but it's also true that use of these techniques can result in false confessions, and that the average juror doesn't have an understanding of how these techniques play out. And the FBI doesn't ever want them to.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-8163445237923576972007-03-26T13:12:00.000-07:002007-03-26T13:17:47.178-07:00Texas Youth Commission Scandal Grows and GrowsI'm still incredibly busy, but I couldn't go any longer without at least blogging about the growing scandal surrounding the Texas Youth Commission. The Texas Youth Commission runs all the state facilities for juvenile offenders. It's like the Board of Prisons or Department of Corrections for kids. Apparently, the conditions at the facilities are terrible, with numerous investigations underway, and the most serious charges being that adult guards were routinely coercing teenage inmates to have sex, and that those children who refused were given extended sentences. Last week, the entire board of TYC was forced to resign. In addition to coverage in Texas, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/us/26youth.html?ref=us"><em>New York Times</em> has been covering the story extensively</a>. I haven't seen a single thing about this on the cable or network news, though. I guess they're too busy looking for lost boy scouts and speculating about what caused the death of a known drug addict to care about the systematic sexual abuse of troubled children.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-25763652263697888072007-03-16T15:45:00.000-07:002007-03-16T15:52:01.812-07:00Has There Been a Full Moon All Month?It sure the hell feels like it. All month, we've been overloaded with kids who have no parents or family willing or able to care for them, who have no place to live, or who have been seriously abused at home and just can't go home. I can't remember a time since I started this job when we had so many of these cases all at once. I certainly can't remember a time we were all so busy. I apologize for not blogging in so long, but I simply haven't had any time. I barely feel like I have time to deal with what needs to be done by the next hour. Thankfully, our juvenile section is really working together well, or I don't know how we'd have been able to handle it all. One thing these past few weeks have done for me, though, is reinforce how important this job is. There truly are kids falling through the cracks of the system all the time, and sometimes, sadly, getting charged with a crime, is the only way they come to the attention of the state agencies that are supposed to be looking out for their welfare.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-66529363651075879282007-02-20T09:39:00.000-08:002007-02-20T09:48:56.609-08:00Muse With MeI am honored to be the subject of Public Defender Stuff's second installment of Monday Musings, a profile/interview feature with bloggers in the public defender world:<br /><em></em><br /><em>It was with great pleasure that PD Stuff sat down with (figuratively speaking) the woman behind Injustice Anywhere… and was rewarded with a wealth of information and insight as she reflected on her job, indigent defense, and blogging.</em><br /><br />You can check out the full interview <a href="http://pdstuff.blogspot.com/2007/02/monday-musings-injustice-anywhere.html">here</a>.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12021781.post-78582550586750859652007-02-06T14:02:00.000-08:002007-02-06T14:53:29.561-08:00Twists and Turns and Finally . . . A Win!It feels like it's been a long time since I won something big in court. Getting dismissals is always great, but it doesn't have the same feeling of winning an adversarial proceeding in the courtroom. That's why what happened to me today was so exhilerating.<br /><br />Yesterday, I started a trial for felony possession of cocaine. My client didn't really have much of a defense (ie., I was wearing someone else's clothes or the officer planted it on me), but the prosecutor had refused to offer him a misdemeanor, so he didn't really have much to lose by going to trial. We decided to tee it up. Maybe she won't get all the witnesses she needs for chain of custody or something. Who knows? When you've got almost nothing to lose, you might as well take a shot.<br /><br />So, we began yesterday morning with a hearing on whether my client's statements to law enforcement were admissible. Honestly, I wasn't clear why the prosecutor wanted them in. All my client had said, in two separate statements, was, "It's not mine. The other officer planted it on me," and "It's not mine; those aren't my shorts." If I were the prosecutor, I wouldn't be offering those statements myself, but whatever. It's her case to prove. So, through the testimony elicited in the hearing, something unexpected happened. The officer described the circumstances of the search in a way slightly different than in his report. He testified that he had responded to a vandalism complaint, and detained a few young men, including my client. When he ran my client's name through dispatch, he discovered that he was a runaway from Seattle. After talking to my client's parents on the phone, it was arranged to transport him to the police station where his parents would pick him up. As part of police procedure, he conducted a pat-down search for weapons before transporting him in the patrol car. During the patdown search, he felt a small rock in one of his pockets. Not knowing what it was, he pulled it out of the pocket, and, wouldn't you know it, it looked like crack. So now, my client is under arrest. When he is strip-searched at detention, they find more crack.<br /><br />Now, the wheels in my head start turning. First, I thought about what a stupid, boneheaded move it was not to file a motion to suppress. I think I have fallen into a bit of a bad pattern of not filing them when it seems clear from the report that the search was legal. But now I'm thinking, "That doesn't sound like a legal search. What the hell do I do? Have I waived it by not filing the motion pre-trial? Should I pretend I don't realize it's illegal so I don't look bad? No, I obviously can't do that. What the hell do I do?"<br /><br />When the court took its morning break, I called my office and frantically asked one of my colleagues for some advice on making a motion to suppress once trial had already started. He told me I could and should do it. Of course, I knew this was right. But, it felt good to have backup. He offered to start finding the cases for me. When we came back to court, I advised the court of my oral motion. Over the state's objection, she agreed to let me argue it, and recessed for a couple hours to give us time to find caselaw.<br /><br />I came back to the office and went to work. Two of my colleagues helped me by pulling together some of the relevant Washington cases. I did my best to pull my argument together. Heading over to court, having read the cases, I was pretty confident of a ruling in our favor.<br /><br />The prosecutor recalled the officer to elicit some additional testimony. I asked him about what he thought the object was when he felt it. He stated that when he felt the rock, had no idea what it was. "It could have been anything," he said. Again, I'm thinking, SLAM DUNK. You can't do anything more than a patdown search unless, by plain feel, you immediately recognize something as a weapon or contraband, or, stretching it a little, if something has the size and density of a weapon, but requires further investigation. Then, you can do a more intrusive search to determine if it is, in fact, a weapon. So, I ask him about the size of it. He won't admit to it being the size of a pebble. All he'll say is that it is smaller than a golf ball. But, he never offers any testimony that he thought it was any type of weapon in particular. Just that, "It could have been anything."<br /><br />So, we argue the motion, and the judge quickly rules against me. She explained that a weapon could be small--a razor blade, a piece of wire, a rock, a firecracker, etc. And since he didn't know what it was, it was legal for him to pull it out of my client's pocket and determine if it were a weapon. She was not swayed by my argument that her ruling essentially created an exception that swallowed the whole rule. It seemed to me that her ruling was that anytime an officer felt anything that he couldn't rule out 100% as being a weapon, he is entitled to do a further search to determine what it is. The way I read the caselaw, an officer can only conduct a further search if he reasonably believes it is a weapon. But, that was that. I told my client I thought we had an excellent argument for appeal, but we'd go on with the trial.<br /><br />And then, something else unexpected happened. When the same officer was testifying at trial, the actual drugs were offered into evidence. I threw up some chain of custody objections, and the court didn't admit them, but allowed the state to get the necessary witness to establish chain of custody. But again, the wheels in my head started turning, and I decided to get some more information in the record about the size of this rock, with the intention of re-urging my motion to suppress, and having a better record for appeal. So, this morning, after crossing the officer about the relevant guilt-innocence questions (with almost no defense, there weren't many), I ended with two final questions. I asked him to look at the exhibit and describe the size of the rock that he had found in my client's pocket. He described it as "pea-sized." I asked him to refer to the lab report, and confirm that the weight of that rock was .17 grams. He did. No further questions.<br /><br />So, we take another break so I can interview the new chain of custody witness. It looks like the prosecutor has what she needs to establish chain of custody, so I'm feeling 99.9% sure of a conviction. I intend to re-urge my motion to suppress, but don't really expect anything to come of it at this stage. I'm just doing it for the record on appeal.<br /><br />But then, something else unexpected happened. When we came back from our break, the judge announced that she had to do something before starting back up. After hearing the additional testimony from the officer about the size of the rock, she decided that she must reverse her prior ruling and grant my motion to suppress. She said there was no way he could have thought an object that size could be a weapon, and even if he did, he didn't testify that he did. The crack found in my client's pocket was suppressed, and the addditional crack found in the detention search was suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Fourth amendment vindicated. Case over. Not guilty.<br /><br />It was fantastic! So, what did I learn, or re-learn, here?<br /><br />1) Always file a motion to suppress, even when it looks like everything was legal.<br />2) Don't ever let your fear of admitting a screw-up prevent you from raising every necessary legal issue for your client.<br />3) One of the best things about working in a public defender's office is having colleagues to back you up in those frantic moments that come up in the middle of a trial.<br />4) Judges sometimes do the right thing when you least expect it.<br />5) You never know what is going to happen in a trial that might turn a hopeless case into a winner.<br /><br />AND<br /><br />6) It feels really good to win.<br /><br />My client is a good kid with no prior convictions. He had run away from home and fallen in with some not so good people. Now, he's back home, and doing well. And he can now move forward with his life without a felony drug conviction making his life that much harder.123txpublicdefender123http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.com12