Injustice Anywhere . . .

OUTRAGE!!!

2008-11-07T22:45:00.000-08:00

Arizona authorities have charged an 8-year-old boy with two counts of pre-meditated murder. 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!

Frustration

2008-10-21T22:32:00.000-07:00

You 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?"

The Problems with Eyewitness IDs

2008-10-21T22:22:00.000-07:00

The Dallas Morning News did a very interesting investigative series 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.

One Xanax Pill

2008-10-21T22:21:00.000-07:00

Update: 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!

***********

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!

Why Just Having the Right to a Jury Trial Matters

2008-09-17T10:10:00.000-07:00

Recently, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Long time, no blog . . .

2008-09-11T15:37:00.001-07:00

Yeah, I know you've heard that before. I apologize. Circumstances have conspired against me. So, here's an update:

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.

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.

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 Grits for Breakfast. As per usual, he is all over the issue.)

Hopefully, it won't be another year before my next post!

Kiddie prison post coming soon . . . and that Duke thing

2007-06-19T11:45:00.000-07:00

I 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 David Feige's (of Indefensible) spot-on analysis in Slate of why disgraced Duke prosecutor Mike Nifong's disbarment is a "freakish anomaly" rather than a precedent for the criminal justice system.

18 Years Later, Tiananman Square Remembered

2007-06-04T18:32:00.000-07:00

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!

Trial Frenzy

2007-05-31T07:48:00.001-07:00

It 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.

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.

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.

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.

Why YouTube is the Best Website Ever

2007-05-29T10:16:00.000-07:00

Do 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:

A Long, Rambling Return to Blogging

2007-05-24T07:56:00.000-07:00

Has 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, Veronica Mars got cancelled, so that was just the icing on the cake. And that, in a nutshell, is what's been happening the past month.

How's everyone else doing?

Thought for the Day

2007-04-19T07:43:00.000-07:00

Sexual abuse cases are bad.

Sexual abuse cases with a child victim are worse.

Sexual abuse cases with a child victim and a child defendant are the worst of all.

Daily Show Rips Nancy Grace Over Duke Case

2007-04-16T12:58:00.000-07:00

My 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!

Six-Year-Old's Temper Tantrum Lands Her in Jail

2007-04-11T17:06:00.000-07:00

Slate has a 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. Seriously. I have no words. Well, I have one sort-of-word: Arrrgggghhhhh!!!

Life's a Marathon

2007-04-09T14:52:00.000-07:00

Saturday, 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.

These Clients We Defend

2007-04-09T10:42:00.000-07:00

Woman of the Law is the subject of this week's Monday Musings at Public Defender Stuff. 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."

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.

My Hypothetical Criminal Record

2007-04-06T10:14:00.000-07:00

Have 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.

I may be leaving some stuff out, but here it is. My hypothetical juvenile criminal record:

Theft
Assault - domestic violence
Harassment - domestic violence
Driving without a license
Reckless driving
Criminal trespass

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.

Don't be shy now--feel free to leave a comment with your hypothetical criminal record.

On the Run

2007-04-05T18:15:00.000-07:00

So, 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.

Some News From My Old Office

2007-04-03T08:40:00.000-07:00

Here's a pretty comprehensive article on the costs and benefits of the public defender system in Dallas County from the Dallas Morning News. 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.

Why are Child Prostitutes Treated Like Criminals Instead of Sexual Abuse Victims?

2007-04-03T07:21:00.000-07:00

I can't read the actual article because either the magazine's website is down right now or my internet connection sucks, but a Salon blogger on women's issues notes a New York Magazine article about how child prostitutes are treated in the U.S.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.

FBI Doesn't Want Jurors To See How They Get Confessions

2007-04-02T08:06:00.000-07:00

In the midst of the U.S. Attorney firings scandal, the 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. 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:

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.

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.

Texas Youth Commission Scandal Grows and Grows

2007-03-26T13:12:00.000-07:00

I'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 New York Times has been covering the story extensively. 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.

Has There Been a Full Moon All Month?

2007-03-16T15:45:00.000-07:00

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.

Muse With Me

2007-02-20T09:39:00.000-08:00

I 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:

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.

You can check out the full interview here.

Twists and Turns and Finally . . . A Win!

2007-02-06T14:02:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

It was fantastic! So, what did I learn, or re-learn, here?

1) Always file a motion to suppress, even when it looks like everything was legal.
2) Don't ever let your fear of admitting a screw-up prevent you from raising every necessary legal issue for your client.
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.
4) Judges sometimes do the right thing when you least expect it.
5) You never know what is going to happen in a trial that might turn a hopeless case into a winner.

AND

6) It feels really good to win.

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.

R.I.P. Molly Ivins

2007-01-31T17:30:00.000-08:00

I was very sad to read today that Molly Ivins passed away. Growing up liberal in Texas, she was definitely a hero of mine. I got the chance to meet her during my first year of law school at a public interest law group fundraiser. She signed my copy of one of her books I owned, "Give 'em hell! --Molly" I do my best every damn day, Molly. I really do.

Argghhhh!!!!

2007-01-31T17:29:00.000-08:00

I know it's been a long time since I last posted, but I'm literally buried right now. I haven't been reading what anyone else has been posting either. I promise to get something up soon because I have some stories to tell.

Quick Hits

2007-01-18T17:56:00.000-08:00

I got slammed this afternoon, and don't have time for a long post, but there is a lot of interesting stuff in the news, law wise, so here is a list of stuff to check out:

*One of those terrorist-loving lawyers for the Gitmo detainees publishes an open letter to Cully Stimson in Salon and it is awesome.

*The dedicated lawyers at the Cook County Public Defender's Office are fighting back against budget cuts that would mean a bunch of lawyers there losing their jobs, and their already high caseloads getting even higher.

*Bill O'Reilly, adamant defender of children against sex offenders, thinks Shawn Hornbeck didn't escape his abductor for over four years because it liked it since he didn't have to go to school.

*The judge and the DA apologized to James Waller yesterday in court when his DNA exoneration was made official, but I think it would be nice if someone tracked down the jurors who didn't do their job and got some apologies from them. They convicted the guy in 46 minutes based on an obviously bad voice identification and in the face of an alibi. Step up and take some responsibility for violating your oath and sending an innocent man to the pen for 30 years, jurors! Maybe future jurors will learn a lesson.

*I told the prosecutor yesterday that my case set for trial on Tuesday should be dismissed because he didn't have the evidence to prove it, and this morning, he dismissed it. Wow. That's pretty cool.

Will New Dallas DA Get to the Bottom of Wrongful Convictions?

2007-01-17T17:02:00.000-08:00

Wretched of the Earth announces yet another DNA exoneration in Dallas County, bringing the total since 2001 to 12. James Waller was convicted based on the identification of the victim, which, if the article about the case is correct, sounds incredibly shaky, and the type of identification that should have been dismissed by a jury as completely unreliable. Newly sworn-in Dallas DA Craig Watkins has promised not to block requests for DNA testing in future cases (he already agreed to DNA testing in another case, which helped lead to a speedy exoneration) like the previous DA had, and to look into the root causes of the wrongful convictions. I hope he follows through on that promise. It would be great if they did some training with police agencies on proper identification procedures, and backed up that training by not using IDs in court that were the result of improper procedures. That second part may be asking too much, but I'm interested in seeing where he goes with this. In the meantime, his willingness to agree to DNA testing in appropriate cases is a nice change in policy, and one that any DA truly interested in doing justice, and not just in protecting their convictions, would embrace.

A Juvenile Case with a Little of Everything

2007-01-17T09:54:00.000-08:00

The Los Angeles Times has an interesting article today about a juvenile case in Long Beach with a little of everything--race, violence, questionable eyewitness identifications, and, just like in juvenile cases in most states, no jury.

Pentagon Official Calls for Boycott of Law Firms Representing Gitmo Detainees

2007-01-17T09:16:00.000-08:00

Update: So, the guy apologized, saying, in part, "Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not." Okay, I'm happy he apologized, and that he reaffirmed the bedrock principle that even the most unpopular need and deserve representation. But, I really hate it when someone only sort of apologizes for what he said by saying that he regrets that what he said left some sort of unintended impression. Why doesn't he just apologize for saying it, period? The comments "left the impression that [you] question the integrity" of the detainee lawyers because you questioned the integrity of the detainee lawyers. Why don't you just apologize for questioning their integrity instead of apologizing for leaving the impression that you question their integrity? That would be nice.
**************
Original post:

Charles Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, thinks all the law firms doing pro bono work to represent the detainees at Guantanamo should be blackballed. He wants all their names published and their clients to ditch them. Apparently, it's not enough for Mr. Stimson that they be held indefinitely without charge, tortured, denied the writ of habeas corpus, and tried on charges they're not allowed to be told about, with evidence they're not permitted to see or hear, and without being permitted to call witnesses in their own defense. Nope, he needs to slander their attorneys, who are spending hundreds of hours for no compensation (despite Mr. Stimson's veiled assertion that they were being compensated by shadowy terrorist financial supporters), becaue as attorneys, we are ethically obligated to ensure that everyone, no matter how shameful and despicable they are accused of being, are given the due process guaranteed by our constitution. I'm not sure what more I would expect from the person who is apparently in charge of detainee affairs. Common sense and decency and respect for the rule of law don't seem to be running high in those parts these days.

In Honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.

2007-01-16T08:25:00.000-08:00

I wasn't in the office yesterday, so I'm one day late to this. But, yesterday was MLK Day, and I didn't want to let it pass without a mention here. The title of this blog, of course, is taken from Dr. King's Letter from Birmingham Jail, where he asserted so powerfully that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Dr. King was responsible for powerful change for millions of people on a dramatic scale, and certainly most of us will never come close to having such an impact. But, one thing the civil rights movement was a great example of was the power of ordinary people in their own individual way to rectify injustice. I know I am not alone among public defenders in being inspired to do the work I do because of a desire to do just that.

Greg at Public Defender Stuff had the honor of hosting the MLK edition of Blawg Review this week, and it is an excellent place to check out posts around the blogosphere in honor of MLK.

Massive Link Update

2007-01-13T16:49:00.000-08:00

I added a bunch of new PD blog links, thanks to the handy PD Blog Guide at Public Defender Stuff. Check 'em out!

Why Don't Parents Hire Lawyers for Their Kids?

2007-01-13T15:23:00.000-08:00

There has been a lot of talk around the public defender blogosphere regarding a recent study on the effectiveness of public defenders versus private defense attorneys, as outlined in this Op/Ed piece in the New York Times. Much of the discussion has focused on the methodology of the study and whether it is an accurate depiction of the private attorney/public defender issue. But I am much more interested in the conclusion of the opinion piece--that marginally indigent defendants (those who qualify as indigent, but who could manage, with sacrifice and assistance from family and friends, to hire a good, private attorney) who are guilty tend to rely on public defenders, while the marginally indigent innocent tend to hire private counsel.

As I was thinking about this conclusion, it struck me that, in the county where I practice, virtually none of the juveniles accused of crimes are represented by hired counsel. As juveniles, they are all presumed indigent, and entitled to be represented by my office. But, just like an adult defendant, they have the right to hire private counsel if they choose. As children, it's highly unlikely they'd be capable of retaining an attorney on their own, so if private counsel is employed, it is because their parents have chosen to pay the money to do so.

Many of my clients come from poor families, those whom I would classify as truly indigent, and not marginally indigent. But, there are quite a few that come from middle class families as well. Certainly, many of these parents could marshal the resources to hire a private attorney. And yet, except on very rare occasions, they choose not to. Why? Is it because these parents don't care about their children's cases as much as they would care about their own? That they don't think whatever consequences their child might receive from the juvenile system are severe enough to merit laying out the money for an attorney? That they don't believe in their children's innocence? Or are they simply more willing to trust a public defender to do the best job that can be done than they would be if it were themselves standing accused?

I am not a parent. But I often hear parents say that they would sacrifice their lives for their children--that they would do anything to protect their children, no matter the personal consequence. But when it comes to their children being threatened with sanctions in the criminal justice system, that doesn't seem to be the case. At least not in the county where I practice. Or, maybe it says something about the children that end up in the juvenile justice system. Is it possible that a good percentage of the kids who end up in the juvenile system have parents who aren't so self-sacrificing? That they aren't the parents who would do anything to protect their children, no matter the personal consequence?

I think I do a very good job for my clients. And I like to believe that I get them just as good results as they would get if they hired a private attorney. But, if the prevailing viewpoint in society is that public defenders don't do as good a job as hired attorneys, why do so many parents entrust their children to me, instead of doing whatever it takes to pay a private lawyer to stand up for the rights of their children?

Fox News Analysts Have a Thirst for Justice . . . For Rich, White Defendants

2007-01-12T16:12:00.000-08:00

I don't know if I've had one single post about the Duke rape case. That doesn't mean I haven't been following the case--it's pretty hard to ignore. In fact, I have been paying pretty close attention to the news coverage. I'm a criminal law junkie, and it is one of those stories that is hard to resist. But one thing about this case, or rather, about the news coverage of this case has really fascinated me. I can't recall ever seeing a rape case covered by the media with such vehement support for the defendants, and such skepticism and hostility towards the prosecutor and the accuser. It certainly didn't start out that way. As many criminal cases often do, when the police and the prosecutor control the information, all the initial reports looked really bad. If you believe the ethics police in the North Carolina bar, that was because the DA was violating all sorts of ethical rules about pre-trial statements to the media. At any rate, as more of the actual evidence--physical evidence, witness statements, medical evidence, lineup procedure, etc.--started coming out through court filings, the case began to take a different turn. At this point, it seems that 90% of the legal experts commenting on the case think it is a dog, that it should be dismissed, and many would also add that the DA has screwed it up so royally that he should quit.

But, since virtually the beginning, most of the folks at Fox News--normally big on law and order--have been almost uniformly skeptical of the accuser and the prosecution, and supportive of the defendants. Sean Hannity, in particular, has been an outspoken advocate for the accused and equally outspoken in his outrage at the prosecutor and the accuser. She is a slut, a drunk, a liar. The prosecutor is a disgrace, a violator of civil rights, and needs to be thrown out of office, disbarred, if not prosecuted himself.

Honestly, I think this case is a disgrace. I think it would be a travesty to take the case to trial. The identification procedures used were atrocious, the accuser's account of events has changed as often as she has spoken about it, and the physical evidence is either virtually nonexistent or exculpatory. Heck, one of the accused has about as airtight an alibi as you can have without actually being locked up in jail at the time of the "crime." So, yeah, I think the case should be thrown out. If the DA doesn't have the good sense to dismiss it, the judge needs to have the balls to toss it based on the prosecutorial misconduct, and impermissibly suggestive identification procedures.

As someone who rants and raves when people are wrongly accused, I should be thrilled that someone like Sean Hannity at Fox News is so outspoken in his indignation. But, here's my problem with Sean Hannity. When has he ever given a damn about a poor defendant, wrongfully accused or convicted? When has he called on the federal government to investigate a prosecutor for civil rights violations committed against someone who didn't go to a prestigious university or have a wealthy family? When he rails against the prosecutor for abusing his authority in this case just to get elected, does he ever consider what responsibility he and his Fox co-hort Bill O'Reilly have when they threaten the political futures of elected officials who refuse to pass draconian sex offender laws that, they must admit in light of the Duke case, sometimes end up being imposed on innocent people? I haven't seen any evidence of that. The title of my blog comes from the Martin Luther King, Jr. quote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I might suggest to Sean Hannity that, over this long holiday weekend, he reflect on that quote. And perhaps he might acknowledge that all across this country, the poor are subjected to injustices perpetrated by police officers and prosecutors not doing their job. And they don't have millions of dollars to fight back like the Duke players do. And that, perhaps, if he spent some time urging the people and politicos in this country to do something to prevent and to rectify those injustices, then the chances that rich, white boys from Duke will fall prey to those same injustices would be significantly less.

Inconvenient News

2007-01-11T17:42:00.000-08:00

So, there's an article on the front page of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website today, entitled "Federal Way schools restrict Gore film," about how, in response to the complaint from a wingnut ignoramus parent who thinks, among other wacky ideas, that the earth is 14,000 years old, the schools will require special permission and a presentation of the "opposing viewpoint" if a teacher wants to show An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary featuring Al Gore's discussion of global warming. Apparently, all "controversial" issues are to be taught that way in Federal Way schools. I could spend time ranting about the idiocy of this whole issue, and how when 99.9% of the scientific community agrees on something, it's no longer "controversial" just because a bunch of greedy corporate honchos and their ignorant mouthpieces won't acknowledge it, but I'd rather point out how funny it was to me that, right below that article on the website, was this one:

Global warming to cost us
Global warming will cost Washington state and its residents millions of dollars in higher prices and remedial measures, a new study says.

I think someone over there at the Post-Intelligencer was being funny. And I heartily approve.

Mommy and Daddy Issues

2007-01-11T17:14:00.000-08:00

Some parents really suck. First, let me just say that my clients come from all sorts of families--nuclear, step, single-parent, grandparent, foster, adopted, and group homes. Some of the parents I meet are truly wonderful. And, in some cases, no matter what the parents do, the children can't seem to get it together. But, then there are the ones where the kids are good kids, but their parents just plain suck. They're drunks or drug addicts. They're always moving because they can't hold a job long enough to pay the rent anywhere. They beat them or molest them or let their live-in boyfriend do it. They don't ever have any food in the house or they let their junkie friends steal their kids' stuff. I've had cases where the police report describes my client as being his parents' "designated driver;" where the parents kicked the kid out of the home with no place to live, then had him charged with burglary when he broke into the house when they were away so we could have a place to sleep; where the mother told the police officer that her son was at fault for his father beating him because the kid intentionally got his dad drunk; where the mom left the state for a week-long trip to see an old boyfriend, and ended up having such a fun time that she didn't come back for two months, leaving her teenage kid home alone the whole time. And the worst part is that there is almost nothing I can do about it. I can talk to the kid about how to stay safe. I can call CPS, and report it myself. I can tell his probation officer to do something about it. But, in the end, I have virtually no power. I can't get the kids better parents. And so many of these kids, I'm telling you, I truly believe would never set foot in juvenile court if they had even one halfway decent parent. Just someone who loves them unconditionally, and teaches them about responsibility and empathy and consequences, and what it means to be a decent human being. What they don't need is a prosecutor talking about how they're "on the wrong track," and a judge telling them it's time to "get with it," and a lawyer telling them that she's doing everything she can when she knows it's not nearly enough.

Tip for the Prosecutor

2007-01-11T11:44:00.000-08:00

Offering my client a deal that involves pleading as charged (to a felony, no less), and a sentence recommendation that is pretty much exactly what the judge would sentence him to if he went to trial and were convicted is not really a plea bargain offer.

There's Not Enough Crime in This Town

2007-01-11T08:06:00.000-08:00

You know you're a juvenile public defender when the local news story that makes you choke on your coffee is about the police busting up a party full of drinking teenagers. According to the paper, twenty kids were cited for minor in possession! Twenty! Apparently, the police were called by neighbors who believed that the kids were up to no good. The cops knocked on the door, and were told they weren't being let in without a warrant (good on you, kids!). So, unbelievably, the police went and got a warrant in the middle of the night, and came back and busted up the party, writing out citations right and left! Now, you understand the title of this post. There is not enough crime in this town if the police have the time to get a search warrant to bust up a teenage party! Don't get me wrong. I'm not wishing for more crime here. I just, well, I just wish the cops had more important things to do. Of course, there aren't many cases here in juvenile where I have the opportunity for a full-fledged Franks hearing, so maybe I shouldn't be complaining.

New York Governor Chooses Not to Gouge Prisoners' Families on Phone Calls

2007-01-10T12:48:00.000-08:00

Skelly catches a news report out of New York announcing that the newly sworn-in Governor has reversed a policy of imposing a high surcharge (with a hefty kickback to the state) on collect calls inmates make to their families. I'm so used to newly elected politicians making things worse for prison inmates, I hardly know what to make of this news. Nicely done, Governor. Nicely done.

Public Defending in New Orleans Still Rough Going

2007-01-10T07:50:00.000-08:00

Being a public defender in New Orleans since Katrina has been, to put it mildly, hell. There are nowhere close to enough attorneys to represent all their clients. And I don't mean not enough to meet ABA guidelines. No public defender office I know of has that. They are really struggling. And that is just the beginning. There are a people locked up who are completely lost in the system, people are waiting months and months in jail for a trial on misdemeanor charges, without ever seeing a lawyer. It is a disaster. Some judges have threatened to throw out large numbers of cases of people sitting in jail because there is no one to represent them. And yet, there are many diligent public defenders doing what they can to bring some sense of fair representation to the indigent. So, it doesn't help matters when a judge gets so pissed off that no public defender is in his courtroom when he's ready to go that he marches over to the PD's office, drags the trial chief to his courtroom, finds him in contempt, and sentences him to 36 days in jail. Not surprisingly, an appeals court stepped in after a few hours and stayed the order. But, seriously, I can completely understand that the judge's frustration might be boiling over, but throwing one of the people who is actually trying to do something about it in jail doesn't help matters. I doubt that makes more people want to come work there. "Come be a public defender in New Orleans, where your caseload is so overwhelming that you get thrown in jail for not being in four places at once!"

Behind the Scenes of the Supreme Court

2007-01-09T15:29:00.000-08:00

If you have any interest at all in the behind the scenes workings of the Supreme Court, then this 3-part series (first part published today) in Slate based on the late Justice William Brennan's papers, is a must read. Once I've read all three parts, I hope to formulate some thoughts and commentary for posting.

Time for Some Lawmakin'

2007-01-08T16:17:00.000-08:00

So, the legislature is back in session, and it's time for some new laws. Back when I started this blog, the Texas legislature was in session, considering all sorts of weird and wacky bills, (and some good ones, too, I'll admit), and it gave me a lot to blog about. So, I figured it's time to start looking into what is being proposed here in my new state, and also to talk about changes I'd like to see.

I'll start with this: They need to change the values that are required for thefts and malicious mischiefs (vandalism) to qualify as felonies. Right now, theft or property damage of over $250 constitutes a felony. I'm not sure the last time the legislature addressed these values, but I'm told it's been a loooooong time--in other words, the legislature made a $250 theft a felony back when $250 was worth way more than it is now. Back in Texas, it took $1500 for theft or mischief to be a felony, and I think that is much more appropriate. Felonies are supposed to be the more serious crimes, and throwing a bunch of relatively minor thefts and mischiefs into the felony pot is a waste of the resources that should be devoted to more serious offenses. It also concerns me how many clients I have who have cases worth trying, but who are so concerned about a felony conviction, that they are willing to take a plea bargain to a misdemeanor charge, even while saying that they are innocent.

So, how about joining the 21st century on this one, legislature? I think a value of $1500 is about right, but I'd settle for $1000.

You Like Me! You Really Like Me!

2007-01-07T10:54:00.000-08:00

The winners of the 2006 Public Defender Blogger Awards--the "Rodneys"--have been announced, and I'm honored to be among them. I won Best Title of a Blog That Reflects Something About the Job, and was a runner-up in the categories Public Defender Blogger You'd Like to Be When You Grow Up, Best Blog by a Female Public Defender, and Best Blog That Deals with Actual Law Stuff. Congratulations to all the winners and runners-up, and thank you to everyone who voted for me. I am particularly honored to be a runner-up to Skelly in the Public Defender Blogger You'd Like to Be When You Grow Up category. I still feel very much like a kid in this public defender business, and it is heartwarming to know that at least a few people out there draw some inspiration from my rants here at Injustice Anywhere. And, finally, a big thanks to Public Defender Stuff for creating and hosting these awards to recognize the many public defenders out here in the blogosphere.

Cheers!

I'm Having a Constitutional Crisis About My Low Salary, Too

2007-01-04T18:07:00.000-08:00

Pardon my French, but Chief Justice Roberts (pictured at left) really pissed me off with his recent annual report on the federal judiciary. As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick explains here, Roberts spent pretty much the whole report on judicial pay, concluding that the lack of a pay raise in a number of years threatened a constitutional crisis. According to Roberts, a lot of these federal judges could make a lot more than the $165,000-175,000 per year they make as judges if they were law school deans or partners at big civil firms. Well, tough cookies. It's called public service, Mr. Chief Justice. Many of us do it for much, much less than federal judges do. And we don't have the job security of life tenure. Or people calling us "Your Honor" all the time. Suck it up.

I Need Some Help

2007-01-04T17:26:00.000-08:00

Anybody have any advice on how to tell a kid that her mom doesn't want her anymore? Ever again? Because I need some help here.

New PD Blogs

2007-01-04T16:33:00.000-08:00

Reading through the nominees for the PD Blogger Awards, I realized that there are a lot of new PD blogs I need to add links for. I'll be getting on that soon. In the meantime, I'd like to welcome a new blogger from the juvenile world, A Blues Like Down Home, whose blog description is as follows:

The life and times of a Non-Profit Juvenile Criminal Defense Attorney. "At the end of the day, after it's all finished and over, and in spite of it all... they're still just kids."

Aint that the truth.

A Reminder About Freedom and This Job

2007-01-03T15:42:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, when I'm in the middle of all the muckety muck of this job, I miss important things. It's the arraignment calendar, and I'm entering pleas of not guilty, asking for adjustments to conditions of release, setting trial dates, blah blah blah. Then, not unlike what happens at other arraignment calendars, I convince the judge to release a client on personal recognizance who had previously been ordered held on bail. That feels good, and then on to the next case. But then, I'm back in my office, and I'm sorting through the morning files, and I move the kid's file from my "in custody" file drawer to my "out of custody" file drawer, and it finally hits me. I got that kid out of jail (okay, detention, but it's the same difference). He was locked up. And because of what I said and did, he's now free. It's a normal, everyday part of this job, but that doesn't make it any less important or valuable to that individual person. It's good to stop and remind myself of that every once and a while.

R.I.P. CrimLaw

2007-01-02T17:05:00.000-08:00

Somehow, I missed this news over the holidays. Ken Lammers at CrimLaw has decided to shut down his blog. CrimLaw was one of my blogging role models, and one of the first to welcome me to the blogosphere, and to link to me. It will be greatly missed.

The State . . .

2007-01-02T13:17:00.000-08:00

You know what has really started to annoy me? When the prosecutor repeatedly refers to herself in the third person as "The State." "The State is very concerned about the respondent's behavior since he has been released from detention." "The State believes the respondent needs to be placed on twelve months probation to ensure that he gets the help he needs." Or, my recent personal favorite, "The State will be on vacation that week, and so is unavailable for trial." Really? The whole State is on vacation that week? Does that mean I don't have to work either? Cool.

This is the United States of America

2007-01-02T12:01:00.000-08:00

The New York Times had a long article in the Sunday paper about the legal goings on down at Guantanamo Bay. Short summary: it sucks. To say that the proceedings lack any sense of due process is a huge understatement.

Top 10 Civil Liberties Violations of 2006

2007-01-02T11:55:00.000-08:00

In the spirit of all those year-end top 10 lists (I know it's 2007, already--I was busy!), Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, my favorite legal commentator, published her top 10 list of the worst civil liberties violations of the year. Sadly, I don't have much hope that the list will be any shorter at the end of 2007.

Switching Sides

2007-01-02T10:07:00.000-08:00

Skelly picks up a discussion that grew out of a law student discussion about getting a public defender internship. In the discussion, one poster said the following:

The head of the Colorado PD's office actually told us at an informational meeting that they view working for the DA as a huge black mark. While he didn't say it would be an automatic disqualification, he did state that there was no PD he knew that could even consider being a prosecutor.

That's just nuts. In my old office in Texas, we had a number of former prosecutors in our office. For two years, I interviewed law students from every law school in the state at the UT Public Interest Law Conference for internships in our office. Trust me when I say that having volunteered or worked at a prosecutor's office was NOT a black mark. It was a plus. Anything that illustrated an interest in criminal law was a plus. The fact is that public defender jobs are not easy to get, especially right out of law school. It is much more feasible to get a prosecutor's job coming straight out of law school--at least it was in Texas, where very few counties even have public defender offices. Also, one of the best, if not THE best way to get criminal trial experience right out of the gate is to go work for a prosecutor's office. That kind of experience, even if it's on the side of the prosecution, is incredibly valuable to a public defender. In my experience as a public defender, I have known plenty of PDs who could never imagine being a prosecutor. Personally, I tend to fall on that side of things, although it's not something I would ever completely rule out. But, the idea that working for a prosecutor should disqualify you from being a public defender is simply ludicrous. A good lawyer is a good lawyer. And if that good lawyer can bring the passion and professionalism to representing the indigent accused that she brought to representing the state, then the indigent accused are better off. That's the way I see it.

Kids are Different

2006-12-29T07:28:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, I was walking from the courthouse to my office with a client. He's about 14 and, like a number of my clients, he has ADHD. So, here we are, walking along, having an intelligent discussion about how he can prepare for his disposition hearing when, all of a sudden, he leaps into the air and jumps right into a huge puddle, splashing the dirty water all over me. Luckily, I was wearing black tights and houndstooth-type suit so it didn't really show up. He immediately stopped, looked at me with his big eyes, his hand over his mouth, and said, "Oops. I meant to jump over it." I just burst out laughing, called him a liar, and on we went, to the office. Can you imagine an adult client ever doing something like that? Can you imagine ever thinking that having someone jump in a puddle and splash dirty water all over your suit being one of the sweetest, most endearing moments of your job? I couldn't either, but it absolutely was. It was just one of those moments that reminded me how having kids for clients is different. Sometimes, that difference makes things worse. But more times than not, it makes things better. They have a way of crawling right into your heart and making you love them, no matter how many times they screw things up.

Leonardo DiCaprio Can Suck It!

2006-12-28T09:04:00.000-08:00

So, I'm sure Leo thinks he's big stuff for being nominated twice in the same category at this year's Golden Globes. Clint Eastwood is almost certainly letting the same honor go to his head. Perhaps Helen Mirren is enjoying all the attention of having three individual nominations. But, none of them are nominated in multiple categories for the Public Defender Blog Awards, are they? No! But, you know who is? Me! "But, um, isn't every public defender blog that fits the category technically 'nominated' in that category?," you may ask. Why you hatin' on me? Why can't you just be happy for me for once? Is that so much to ask? Ahem. Anyway, Public Defender Stuff is running a little awards thing to recognize PD blogs, and I am up for consideration in multiple categories. If you want to vote for me in any of them, especially the "Best PD Blog by a Woman" category where that bitch Blonde Justice is kicking my ass (kidding! love her!), please do so. If you want to vote for somebody else, I guess you should feel free to do that, too.

(Why do I now feel like Kathie Lee Gifford running a campaign to be voted "TV Guide's Most Beautiful Woman on Television," and why do I feel like I am revealing something shameful about myself just by the fact that I remember that whole thing?)

VOTE!

Which Case is the Most Depressing?

2006-12-28T08:11:00.000-08:00

So, I've had a recent spate of quite depressing cases lately. They are each depressing in their own way, and it's starting to overwhelm me a bit. Some of them are almost a Greek tragedy level of depressing, and some of them are just run-of-the-mill sad, but they are having a cumulative effect. And I do feel that, in this job, where I am only representing them on a particular criminal charge, I am extremely limited in what I can do to help each of them.

*The 13-year-old who allegedly raped his mother. I don't believe her story for a second, and I'm quite sure that CPS doesn't either, but that hasn't stopped the prosecutor from filing the case based on the flimsiest and most incompetent investigation I've seen of a sex crime in my life.

*The 17-year-old who allegedly assaulted her mother. By the way, the mother was convicted a year or so ago of "rendering criminal assistance," specifically of having arranged for a man to have all the sex with the girl (who was about 14 at the time) as he wanted.

*The 17-year-old who allegedly keeps selling drugs because it is the only way he feels he can provide for his family. And by family, I mean his mother, his baby, and his baby's mother.

*The 16-year-old who has been in and out of detention (mostly in) for various probation violations for my entire, albeit short, tenure here who just found out she is pregnant, and is determined to keep the baby.

*The 13-year-old charged with assaulting a staff member at his group home, where he lives because he had a "failed adoption," likely the result of his having virtually every behavioral disorder in the world from ADHD to reactive attachment disorder, and who has been previously charged with assault seven or eight times, always dismissed based on his incompetency.

Yeah, depressing. So, anyone got any feel-good, inspiring public defender stories to make me feel better?

Pinochet Deserves No Thanks

2006-12-14T16:54:00.000-08:00

Tom McKenna has a post entitled "Gracias," where he thanks the recently deceased Augusto Pinochet for all he did to save Chile. He conveniently forgets to mention the tens of thousands of people he tortured, the thousands he murdered or disappeared, or the heinous act of terrorism he committed right here in the United States--the brutal car bombing murder of a Chilean exile and his American colleague. Tom's is not the only article or blog post I've seen since Pinochet's death praising him for all the good he did. Frankly, it makes me want to vomit. Augusto Pinochet may have introduced economic reforms that put Chile on a more prosperous path, but he is no hero, and deserves no thanks. He was a dictator who had no qualms about torturing and murdering his political enemies, even if that meant bombing a car in broad daylight on the streets of America. No gracias from me, Augusto. More like good riddance.

4-Year-Old Suspended from School for "Sexually Harassing" Teacher's Aide

2006-12-13T18:35:00.000-08:00

A Texas school suspended a 4-year-old boy for inappropriate physical contact it described as "sexual contact" or "sexual harassment" because he hugged his teacher's aide, and then apparently rubbed his face on her chest. I don't even know where to begin. How about with lamenting the fact that these morons are responsible for educating our children? Good grief.

Big Surprise: Feds Conclude Medical and Mental Health Care at Dallas County Jail is Grossly Inadequate

2006-12-12T17:02:00.000-08:00

The feds have finally submitted their report to Dallas County on their investigation of the sanitary conditions, and treatment of the physically and mentally ill at the Dallas County Jail. Unsurprisingly, the report finds the care at the jail to be grossly inadequate and in violation of the constitutional rights of the inmates. I hope some sort of meaningful change results. I'm not sure if the feds are going to pursue any kind of enforcement action, but something needs to be done. And soon. The report cites numerous deaths that were directly caused by the inadequate health care at the jail. It is about time that someone was held accountable.

Heck of Job, Brownie!

2006-12-12T10:43:00.000-08:00

You know what helps make your client and his parents appreciate all you've done for him? When you are doing the plea and the judge repeatedly says, "This is a heck of a deal," and "You are getting a huge break here," and "I'm going to reluctantly follow it because it was the result of trial preparation and negotiation." Thanks for the shout-out, your honor!

Sports Anti-Doping Regime Has No Sense of Justice

2006-12-11T11:58:00.000-08:00

Update: Part 2 of the LA Times story on WADA's Kafkaesque drug-testing regime is online.
**************
Original post:

This first part of an investigative series by the Los Angeles Times on anti-doping regime in the sports world confirms what I have thought for a long time. Dick Pound (pictured at left), the head of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and his pack of WADA sycophants are not interested in fairness or justice. They are zealots who have established a regime where they serve as cops, prosecutors, judge, jury, and executioner. In addition to these titles, Dick Pound is just an all-around jerk, who thinks he is smarter and more righteous than anyone else, and seems to suffer from a god complex wherein he believes that only he can save the integrity of sport. I hope this series by the Times helps spur a movement to reform this horribly unjust system that punishes the innocent and the guilty side by side, with little to no regard for which is which.

What's on my DVR?

2006-12-10T13:52:00.000-08:00

I keep things pretty much law-related here, but I was running through my Tifaux (that's what I call my cable company issued DVR because it's not a real Tivo) recording list this morning, and I wondered what you might be able to learn about someone by knowing what they DVR. It's probably really stupid, but just for the heck of it, here goes:

Veronica Mars (all of this season's episodes are still saved)
Battlestar Galactica (all of this season's episodes are still saved)
60 Minutes
Cold Case
The Amazing Race
Without a Trace
How I Met Your Mother
Heroes
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
Friday Night Lights
Gilmore Girls
House
America's Next Top Model
Jericho
Lost
Top Chef
Ugly Betty
Grey's Anatomy
The O.C.
The Office
Scrubs
The Soup
Best Week Ever
48 Hours Mystery
Saturday Night Live
The Sports Reporters
Ebert & Roeper
Inside the Actors Studio
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report
Everwood (syndicated episodes from ABC Family)
The Oprah Winfrey Show
The Late Show with David Letterman
Jimmy Kimmell Live
Charlie Rose
$100,000 Pyramid
American Justice
48 Hours: Hard Evidence

So, you're probably saying to yourself, "The $100,000 Pyramid? Really?" Well, you're probably actually thinking that's a lot of TV, and you're right. So, take a shot at psychoanalyzing me based on that! At some point, I may take a shot myself.

Dallas DA Does a Good Thing

2006-12-09T13:31:00.000-08:00

I haven't had many opportunities to give kudos to outgoing Dallas DA Bill Hill, but I feel the need to give credit where credit is due. Hill has initiated a request with the Governor for a commutation of the life sentence given to Tyrone Brown when he violated his aggravated robbery probation by testing positive for marijuana one time. The victim of Brown's case is also in support of this request. Hopefully, the request that Brown's sentence be commuted to the 16 1/2 years he has already served will be heeded by Governor Rick Perry. Although Hill deserves credit for taking action, special credit goes to the Dallas Morning News and 20/20 for bringing this story of unequal justice to the public's attention, creating a local and national outcry on Brown's behalf.

Thousands May Have Been Wrongfully Convicted Based on Faulty Arson Science

2006-12-09T10:31:00.000-08:00

The AP shines a light on one of the biggest scandals in the criminal justice system over the past few decades--bad science in the field of fire/arson investigation. (The Chicago Tribune did a story on this over two years ago as part of their excellent series on problems with forensic science.) Unfortunately, almost no one knows anything about it, and wrongfully convicted people remain in prison to this day, and at least one almost certainly innocent man was executed in Texas because of it. For years and years, so-called fire investigation experts believed that fires inside of buildings worked a certain way. This led them to believe that certain signs at a fire scene were clear cut signs of an intentionally set fire. Now that these assumptions and conclusions have been rigorously subjected to scientific scrutiny, it is clear that they were just plain wrong. Many of these believed clear cut signs of arson are actually signs of an accidental fire. A couple years ago, Ernest Willis, on death row in Texas for capital murder by arson, was set free when a new district attorney was presented with the new scientific evidence that convinced him of Willis's innocence. Cameron Willingham (pictured above), however, wasn't so lucky. He was executed for using arson to murder his three children. The only evidence supporting a conclusion of arson was the now thoroughly discredited fire investigation science. This is a scandal that deserves much greater attention and a concerted effort should be undertaken to bring justice to the many wrongfully convicted, many of whom no doubt still linger in prison for crimes that never happened.

Read This Book!

2006-12-07T18:30:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading Tulia: Race, Cocaine, and Corruption in a Small Texas Town, Nate Blakeslee's fantastic account of the railroading of a large segment of the black community in Tulia, Texas on trumped-up drug charges. It is a must-read for anyone interested in the criminal justice system, the war on drugs, police misconduct, prosecutorial negligence, race relations, and crusading journalists and criminal defense and civil rights lawyers. Even those who have followed the Tulia case closely, as I did, will find it fascinating. It is utterly engrossing, and a shocking lesson about how much damage one corrupt police officer can do, when abetted by negligent prosecutors and jurors. But, it is also a great story about how injustice can be fought by private citizens, lawyers, and journalists who won't give up.

An injustice anywhere truly is a threat to justice everywhere.

So This is What it Feels Like to be a Prosecutor

2006-12-07T09:43:00.000-08:00

So, yesterday, I had an interesting experience. All juvenile court matters are heard by a court commissioner, and not an elected judge. So, either side has the right to seek what is called a revision of any ruling made by the commissioner, except for a not guilty finding after a trial. It is basically like an appellate proceeding where you get to file a brief arguing your side and the elected judge reads the transcript from the earlier proceeding and rules. Yesterday, I was arguing my first revision and I'll admit that I was pretty nervous. The issue I was arguing was about an interpretation of a revised state court rule, so it was an issue of first impression here in the county. It is an issue that applies to a lot of cases and we were hoping to get a favorable ruling here, so that we would win all these cases down the road on the same issue. Anyway, there I was, barely into my argument, when the judge cuts me off and starts stating was his opinion of the matter is, and . . . wait for it . . . he was on my side! And he just kept making my argument for me, and then asking the state for a response or whether they had any argument or authority to support a contrary position. And there was the prosecutor trying to come up with something, and there I was, just sitting there, in the strange position of having the judge essentially arguing my side of the case. I thought to myself, "Is this what it feels like to be a prosecutor?" Ha! I can't even remember all the times I've been in a jury trial and felt like the judge was doing the prosecutor's job like making objections and coming up with responses to my objections on the prosecutor's behalf. Man, that would piss me off! This case was different, of course, because the judge had obviously formed some opinions on the basis of our briefing and his review of the record, but still. It was a totally new and totally awesome experience! Oh, and we won!

In another prosecutor-like move, I had a phone conversation with another prosecutor on another case yesterday where I was trying to make sure that an individual was charged with a crime. This individual was involved with a client of mine in a vandalism incident. My client, obviously, was a juvenile, but the other individual was just over 18. So, my client was charged in juvenile court, and the other person has not been charged at all. I don't know if it's because his piddly little vandalism case isn't a priority for the felony prosecutors (which I can understand) or if something else is going on. What I don't like is the idea that my client will be on the hook for the entire amount of restitution which is over $1500 while the adult who was at least as responsible for the damage as my kid walks away with no obligation whatsoever. So, there I was, demanding (well, not demanding, just doing my best persuasion) that charges be filed. My client was sitting in my office at the time I made the call, and when I got off the phone, he said, "Wow, you're good." Hee!

Not a bad day.

Detention Blues

2006-12-04T14:00:00.000-08:00

David Feige at Indefensible urges an end to the overincarceration of juveniles, pre-adjudication. I join him in this. Don't even get me started on putting kids in detention for truancy! Yeah, that's the ticket. Take the kids on the margins and put them in with the kids committing crimes. Great idea!

Sometimes, I Suck

2006-12-01T09:22:00.000-08:00

I have really sucked at keeping up here recently. Things have been unbelievably busy, then I went on a vacation for the whole week of Thanksgiving, then I came back to work, and have been trying to dig myself out from under the pile of stuff I left for myself to do when I came back from vacation. I've also been struggling recently with what I can blog about. I've actually had several cases that I have wanted to rant and rave about, but I just don't feel that I can protect the confidentiality and other interests of my clients if I do so. At least, not until the cases have been resolved. I have had a little bit of a run of good news, though, including:

*A client's domestic violence assault charge was dismissed. I think the prosecutor finally bought my argument that she was the actual victim in the case when she listened to the 911 tape I subpoenaed where the caller describes the state's "victim" as "choking her, banging her head against her car, and throwing her on the ground like a rag doll . . . he only stopped when I banged on my window at him . . . I thought he was going to kill her." It should be noted that the fine police officers who arrested my client interviewed this caller at the scene, who told them the same thing she said on the tape, but failed to include any of this information in their police report. They did, however, refer to her as "anonymous," even though she clearly gives her name and phone number on the 911 tape, and actually characterized her as corroborating the "victim's" account, which was that my client hit and scratched at his face, and he pushed her down to stop her assault. The police report literally said, "The anonymous neighbor corroborated the part where he pushed her down." So, they ommitted the exculpatory information from their report, falsely called the exculpatory witness "anonymous" forcing my investigator to track down who she was, and completely mischaracterized her account as "corroborating" the alleged victim's account, at least in part. Nice work, Dano.

*Remember when I was complaining about the prosecutor opposing my request for a competency evaluation of my client? She said that there was nothing to indicate that he couldn't assist in his defense, apparently concluding that my sworn affidavit stating that I did not believe he could assist me in his defense was equivalent to "nothing." Well, the report came back on him, and he was . . . incompetent! Incompetent and unlikely to be aided by restoration services. So, the prosecutor dismissed his cases.

*We got fourteen inches of snow last weekend! Fourteen inches! I've never lived anywhere that got snow like that before. It was very cold, and slippery and slidey, and it made getting to work a helluva mess, but it was awesome!

Catching up . . .

2006-11-09T10:33:00.000-08:00

Sorry about being dormant for a week. I feel like a broken record, but things at work really have been super busy. I've got a few things I want to write a lot more about, but for now, these little tidbits:

*The election results from Tuesday make me so, so happy. More than anything, I think I am just relieved. Relieved to know that the American people can still speak with a powerful voice through the ballot box when they see the government behaving in ways that are shameful and irresponsible. Here's hoping the Dems take what they have been given by the voters and use it to get the country back on track.

*The election results in my old stomping grounds were a bit shocking to me, as the Democrats swept every single one of the 42 contested judgeships in the county, and took the DA's race as well. Dallas, Texas has apparently gone blue, which is quite an interesting turn of events. This means that some good sitting judges are out, including one who I practiced in front of every day for 18 months, and for whom I have an immeasurable amount of respect (and she's both a Republican and someone who came straight from the prosecutor's office to the bench, no less!). But, it also means that a lot of good new people who have a lot to bring to the bench will be serving, including two of my former colleagues. Yes, that's right. Two assistant public defenders who have spent years defending murderers, robbers, rapists, and child molesters were elected as felony judges! And how happy I am to see that the electorate saw through the ridiculous negative advertising that tried to paint them as unsuitable for the bench because they served the vital constitutional role of defending the indigent accused!

*Speaking of my old stomping grounds, The Wretched of the Earth has been on fire lately with some really thoughtful posts about the criminal justice system in Texas and summaries of recent Court of Criminal Appeals decisions. His blog has really come alive and if you're a fan of PD/criminal law blogs, and haven't added him to your list of daily reads yet, get on it!

*And, I just saw posted on CNN that Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes died last night of leukemia. I didn't even know he was sick. I'm too shocked right now to say much, but I do feel that we have lost a truly great journalist.

Another DNA Exoneration in Dallas

2006-11-01T13:50:00.000-08:00

Update: A video of the event. I'm sorry I missed it.

****************
Original post:

Twenty-five years after being convicted of a rape he didn't commit, a Dallas man will be released today based on DNA evidence that excludes him as the perpetrator. The article about this case in the Dallas Morning News talks about trying to figure out what led to all these wrongful convictions. When you read the article, it seems pretty obvious to me. A mistaken eyewitness, aided by fault police ID procedures, who was believed by a jury that wasn't doing its job. This case is a classic. When initially asked to describe her attacker, the victim was only able to give a vague description. When shown a photo lineup, she pointed to the defendant and said that he might have been the guy. She was then shown a second lineup and tentatively identified the defendant. He, of course, was the only person who was in both photo lineups. But, when she testified at trial, she said that she was absolutely positive that he was her attacker. Instead of being suspicious of this evolution of certainty by the victim, the jury was convinced of it. They spent 35 minutes debating this man's guilt. Thirty-five measly minutes before convicting a man of a first-degree felony for which he could have been sentenced to prison for life. People say that these types of wrongful convictions won't happen anymore because of DNA evidence, but that is a fallacy. Most cases don't have DNA evidence. In my experience, juries in Dallas County still regularly convict people of serious felonies like aggravated robbery and aggravated assault based solely on the testimony of one eyewitness. Prosecutors spend lots of time in their voir dire telling jurors that the testimony of one witness is enough to convict. Until jurors demand more evidence before taking away a person's freedom, innocent people will continue to be convicted. And there won't be any DNA evidence to fix these mistakes.

Irresponsible Taser Use Puts Kids at Risk

2006-10-31T09:43:00.000-08:00

Update: Sanchovilla at Tales of a Public Defender Investigator posted about this case, including a chilling account of the incident posted on the MySpace page of one of his friends. She was not an eyewitness, so I'm not sure where her version of events comes from, but she claims that he was tases four or five times, and that he only became combative after the police officer tased him. Up until that point, he was just shouting on the corner for Jesus. He apparently is bipolar with a history of hospitalizations. This brings up another issue on law enforcement training which is that many police officers get little to no specialized training in how to deal with a mentally ill person in distress. They often end up treating them the same way they would any old resistant suspected criminal, and sometimes that leads to tragic results. Very, very sad. I hope there is a full investigation, and that it looks not just at the particular officers involved, but their training and use of force policies.

*********
Original post:

A teenager was killed when he was tasered not once, but twice, by police officers after he allegedly became combative with them. There's really not enough information in this article to know whether the use of the taser in this case was appropriate, but it does represent yet another use of a taser on a child when there is little to no evidence about the risks associated with using tasers on children. In the first few weeks of my job here in Washington, I must have read at least three police reports where the officer used a taser on a child who was not attempting to harm the officer or any other person. In two of the cases, the child was running away from the officer. In the third case, the child was refusing to get out of the car he had been driving. I was appalled. My experience in Dallas County was that officers used tasers when they would have been otherwise authorized to use lethal force. If a suspect was refusing to put down a knife, or actually assaulting the officer. Here, they seem to use them so they don't have to run fast. It doesn't sound like they have any kind of department policy on when it is appropriate to use the taser. And, if they do have one, it doesn't seem to take into account the fact that there is little to no evidence suggesting that tasers are safe to use on children. As I've said when I blogged about taser use in the past, I fully support departments trying to find less violent and lethal methods of controlling uncooperative suspects. But, the overuse of tasers, especially on children who are not posing any direct threat to anyone, is not responsible. Not by a long shot.

Prosecutors are People, Too

2006-10-26T16:18:00.000-07:00

People who sometimes like to have sex in public restrooms, that is. Skelly, isn't this your neck of the woods?

Tomorrow, I'll Be a Real Lawyer!

2006-10-26T16:03:00.000-07:00

I've been practicing under a provisional license since I started at my new job, but tomorrow, I will finally be official. I passed the ethics portion of the Washington bar exam, which, thankfully, was the only part of the bar that I had to take to get my license here. Tomorrow, I take their "new lawyer" class, and will be sworn in at the end of it. I'll finally be a real lawyer--no matter what my clients might say!

Exculpatory Evidence? What Exculpatory Evidence?

2006-10-24T08:00:00.000-07:00

Update: So, Tom responded to this post thusly:

I imagine most courts would take a dim view of it, and as I've often said, what does it matter to win one case if costs you your credibility with the court? (or your law license).

I would have to think no court that she practices in will ever find her a trustworthy advocate.

As a general rule, I think he is right. Any prosecutor thinking about the consequences to her career if she were to be found out violating Brady would not risk those consequences just to win one case. But in this particular example, I have no such consolation or hope. First, she was found out, and the judge presiding over the trial not only did nothing to sanction her for her misconduct, but she let the evidence be admitted, and denied the defense a continuance to deal with the unfair surprise. Second, she still maintains that she did absolutely nothing wrong. She doesn't see this information as Brady material because the new alleged witness still implicated the defendant. And not only does she maintain that she did nothing wrong, so does her supervisor! How can the ADAs in this jurisdiction be properly worried about the consequences of violating Brady if neither they nor their supervisors appear to understand what Brady material is?

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. I once had an argument with another ADA who, like Hallman, was a chief prosecutor in a felony court. He told me that if he were to submit certain evidence related to a crime to an expert for evaluation, and if that expert were to conclude that nothing related to the evidence inculpated the defendant, he did not believe that was Brady material that he was required to turn over. I was dumbfounded. I asked him what basis he had for that belief, and he had nothing other than his own common sense. I threw caselaw back in his face that deals with this particular issue--when an expert hired by the state makes conclusions that fail to inculpate the defendant--and he still said that he didn't believe it was Brady. He said that an expert just has an opinion, and just because one particular expert he asks to evaluate the evidence has the opinion that it doesn't inculpate the defendant, that doesn't make it a fact that he must turn over to the defense. We argued about this for a while, and the sad part for me was that, at the end of the argument, I hadn't changed his mind at all. He still believed that he was right.

****************************
Original post:

Here's a story from my old stomping grounds. This case is from the court I used to be assigned to and involves one of the prosecutors I worked with regularly. I always got along with her, and never knew her to do anything dirty or underhanded. But, in this case, I am just stunned by her crossing the line. The gist of the case is as follows. A guy is on trial for murder. An eyewitness has told the police and prosecutors repeatedly that she saw the shooting and the defendant was the shooter. Two weeks before the trial, the witness now claims that she didn't really see the shooting, but that some friend of hers who she knows only by the name Miguel, who she can't really describe, and who she thinks has moved out of state was the one who saw it, and told her who the shooter was. The prosecutor sends her investigator out to try to find this mysterious eyewitness, but never tells the defense. At least not until the morning of the trial when they have a hearing on introducing this mysterious witness's hearsay statements. Not only did the judge allow the testimony, but she denied the defense's request for a continuance so they could investigate who this new, mysterious person was and what he did or did not see. The scariest part for me was this quote from the article:

Both [the prosecutor] and her supervisor maintain that Brewer's story about Miguel was not exculpatory. After all, the witness doesn't change her story to say that Freeman was innocent.

I remember attending a CLE once where someone from the prosecutor's office gave a presentation on Brady material. One of the defense attorneys asked if the DA's office had a written policy on the handling of exculpatory evidence, and the ADA said that they didn't. I have had so many arguments with prosecutors in this DA's office about what is exculpatory material that must be handed over and what isn't. Most of them have a completely distorted view of what it is. This case is a classic example. Your only eyewitness suddenly changes her story two weeks before the trial and that's not exculpatory? That doesn't cast doubt on her credibility? Give me a break!

Heads should roll here. And I'm guessing that they would at a lot of other DA's offices. But as long as this particular prosecutor's husband gets elected DA in November (he's the Republican candidate), I'm guessing that won't happen.

It's Moments Like This

2006-10-22T13:42:00.000-07:00

Are you a public defender who's been feeling a little beaten down by the job lately? Need a reminder of what this job can be? Live vicariously through this post from Miriam at Accident Prone.

Lotsa New Links

2006-10-21T12:44:00.000-07:00

I've updated my links, thanks, in large part, to the updated PD blog guide from PD Stuff. Check 'em out.

The Universal PD Experience

2006-10-21T12:12:00.000-07:00

If you haven't checked out Ruth's fairly new PD blog, Of a Public Defender's Life, you really should. Reading many of her posts, I feel like I'm reading about some of my own experiences. Every public defender office is different, but there are some experiences that do seem universal, and she has captured a number of them. Recently, she lamented the problems of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system, and the general lack of resources from support staff to office supplies in a public defender office. Good reads.

Law Enforcement Burdened by Public Defenders Enforcing the Constitution

2006-10-21T11:29:00.000-07:00

Skelly has a nice post following up on the scandal of indigent defense that occurred in Grant County, Washington. This happened before I got to this great state, but apparently, those charged with defending the poor in Grant were not living up to their ethical obligations. As a result, the ACLU filed a lawsuit, and a new crop of public defenders are in town. And according to Skelly, who is like Woodward and Bernstein rolled into one with his well-placed sources, prosecutors aren't happy with the results. It seems that these new public defenders are insisting on interviewing the witnesses in their cases! They want to interview the cops! They want to interview everyone! And this is just too much for those sworn to uphold justice, one of whom apparently complained to a judge in open court that having to be interviewed by defense attorneys was overburdening law enforcement! This is priceless.

A bit of background on Washington criminal procedure. Unlike in Texas, where criminal law is largely trial by ambush, in Washington, the defense has a right to interview any witness the state plans on calling in their case in chief. If the listed witness won't talk to you, you can make the prosecutor set up the interview for you! You actually have the right to ask the witness questions before you have to cross-examine him in court! Civil attorneys might be familiar with this procedure which they call discovery. Criminal defense lawyers, depending on their jurisdiction, may be shocked. Anyway, I would guess from the current complaints that the old lawyers representing the poor in Grant County weren't all that keen on interviewing many of the witnesses in their cases. But now, the new public defenders are, and it's making things hard for the poor police officers and prosecutors. Excuse me while I wipe away the lone tear slowly falling from my eye.

Maybe now, the police and prosecutors will have to exercise some judgment and discretion in the cases they file. This actually is a good example of why it is important that everyone, even the guilty, need zealous representation when accused of a crime. If the prosecutors and police officers know that if they will have to truly have the evidence to convict and not just to enough to charge, that a defense attorney will be there to make sure that they do, in each and every case, even when the accused has very little resources of his own to fight, then those police and prosecutors will be more careful about just filing charges in every case because they can, and the innocent will be less likely to be convicted, and less likely to suffer the burdens of being wrongfully accused--which for a person living paycheck to paycheck can include everything from losing your job and your housing amont other things--in the first place.

Tag--You're It!

2006-10-18T17:23:00.000-07:00

A school in the Boston area has banned kids from playing tag at recess. They say it is because they fear that a child could get hurt and the school could be held liable. Give me a break! Tag? Even worse than the school administrators is the stupid parent quoted at the end about how her son feels safer now that no one can play tag? What are they teaching these kids? That any activity that presents the possibility of being hurt should be avoided? All risk is bad? Feeling "safe" is the most important value of all values? Blech.

Thank You for Your Support

2006-10-18T16:52:00.000-07:00

I'm curious what kind of support staff other public defenders have at their offices. At my old office in Texas, we had one office manager, one receptionist, three secretaries, six investigators, and a Spanish interpreter. These people supported the approximately 60 attorneys in the felony, misdemeanor, juvenile, and family sections. At my new office, we have an office manager, two receptionists, five investigators, one social worker, and an unknown number of legal secretaries and file clerks. These support the approximately 20 attorneys that work in our felony, misdemeanor, juvenile, and family sections. It is a huge disparity, and one of the best things about this office as compared to my previous office. Right now, I share a legal secretary with two other attorneys! Two! That's what I had when I was at my fancy schmancy civil firm. I don't know if other offices in Washington or like this or if I just lucked out big-time, but it really makes a huge difference to not have so much of my time taken up by routine paperwork and scheduling appointments.

The other bonus for me is that my secretary also loves Veronica Mars. I already knew how awesome she was, but finding out this new information just makes me love her more!

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Still Defying US Supreme Court on Death Penalty

2006-10-17T17:42:00.000-07:00

Scotusblog reports on the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear three more death penalty cases from Texas on an issue that they have decided multiple times already. Two of these cases are from the 5th Circuit and one is from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the court of last resort for criminal cases in the state). In all three cases, these courts have continued to defy the Supreme Court opinions on the issue of the error of the jury instructions in the sentencing phase of capital cases. In one of the cases, the Supreme Court summarily reversed (without argument) the lower court, telling them that they really, really meant it, and the court took the case back on remand and still upheld the death sentence. Despite these various judge's active defiance of binding case law, I haven't heard any conservatives screaming about how these judicial activists need to be impeached.

a Public Defender is Finally Back!

2006-10-17T17:39:00.000-07:00

Gideon at a Public Defender is finally back and blogging! Can you believe his office blocked out the site he uses to blog? For shame! At any rate, he's back blogging from home now, and I am very happy because I definitely missed his contribution to the discussion.

The Mega Guide to PD Blogs

2006-10-16T18:43:00.000-07:00

PD Stuff has a nice, comprehensive list of public defender blogs which made me realize I need to update my links. Check it out.

Me, Too

2006-10-16T18:12:00.000-07:00

A law student loves public defense and is blogging about it.

(Thanks to Skelly for the tip.)

Why Do the Prosecutors Here Want to Try Incompetent Kids?

2006-10-16T17:36:00.000-07:00

The other day I was arguing a motion to have my client evaluated for competency to stand trial. Now, this is something new for me. Back in Texas, I never had to argue these motions. If I thought a client might be incompetent, I would fill out a pre-printed form with the court requesting an evaluation and the judge would sign it. The prosecutor wasn't even involved. We didn't have to swear to anything or argue over anything. The judge took your word that you had a serious question as to your client's competency and ordered the evaluation. If the shrink found the client incompetent, it was exceedingly rare for the prosecutor to challenge that. They know the case isn't going anywhere. The person just needs to be further treated and evaluated in the future before the criminal case can proceed. So, back to my case here. I filed my motion for a competency evaluation citing my client's various cognitive disabilities, his diagnosis of mental retardation, etc. I also state in my supporting affidavit that based on my attorney-client interactions with my client, I had serious doubts as to his ability to understand the nature of the proceedings and to assist in his own defense. I swore to this in writing. So, here we are arguing my motion. Not only does the prosecutor object to my motion to have my client evaluated, but she says that there is nothing in my affidavit to indicate that he cannot assist in his own defense. Okay, first of all, I'm not asking for a declaration of incompetency. I'm just asking for an evaluation to determine if he's incompetent. So, why is she fighting me on this? If he's competent, the doctor will say so. If he's not, the doctor will say so, and she will look stupid for fighting me in the first place. And what is with her saying there is nothing to indicate my client cannot assist in his own defense? How about my sworn statement that I had doubts that he could based on my interactions with him. Is my sworn testimony "nothing?" It reminded me of clients who don't understand how they can be convicted when "they aint got no evidence against me." I have to remind them that the testimony of the alleged victim is, in fact, evidence. You know, I could almost understand the prosecutor arguing that my assertion alone that I had doubts as to my client's competency was not enough. I say "almost understand" because the case law is pretty clear that great deference is to be given to the defense attorney on these issues. But seriously, saying that my sworn statement saying that I didn't think my client understood the process or could assist in his defense was "nothing" is just ludicrous. And also really annoying.

He's Not Just a Cop; He's a Human Lie Detector

2006-10-16T17:27:00.000-07:00

So, I was reading some police reports on one of my cases last week, and was fascinated with some of the detail the detective provided regarding his observations of various suspects as he interviewed them. As he was questioning one suspect, he observed that he appeared nervous and was breathing rapidly. On top of that, he saw that his carotid artery was beating strongly and rapidly and estimated his pulse at over 100 beats per minute. With another suspect, he observed several signs of deception such as prefacing answers to questions with "honestly" and "to tell you the truth." Another suspect had a noticeable tremor in his right hand as he answered questions. Has anyone ever seen comments like this in a police report before? It was a first for me. I was especially interested in his close observation of one man's carotid artery and his estimate of his pulse. It's a wonder he could keep track of what the man was saying in between focusing on his artery and taking his pulse visually. Is it just me or does it seem like this detective has been to some class recently on human lie detection?

Stupid Answer of the Week

2006-10-06T17:16:00.000-07:00

This has been kind of a rough week. I can't really go into the details, but, on top of the particular stresses of the individual cases involved, I am just generally swamped. Most of the time, I feel like I have just enough time to handle the case in front of me, with almost no time to actually prepare for the cases down the road. Then yesterday, I was trying to convince the prosecutor to dismiss my client's MIP (minor in possession of alcohol) case. This is not a case of innocence. I can't really discuss what the issues were for why I thought it should be dismissed, but I'll just say that they were not made-up defense attorney reasons--they actually had some real substance to them. The prosecutor wouldn't even consider dismissing. When I asked her "Why?," her response was, "Because it's a crime and I'm a prosecutor." Like she's some sort of robot or something. Roboprosecutor must prosecute every crime! Dismissal is not an option. Must prosecute. Argggghhh!

TV Alert: Watch "Veronica Mars" Tonight or I'll Kick Your Ass!

2006-10-03T17:25:00.000-07:00

Okay, not really. But, you should watch it! The third season of one of the best shows on TV premieres tonight at 9 p.m. (8 p.m. Central/Mountain) on the new CW network. Do you like smart TV? Do you like witty dialogue? Do you like well-acted, intriguing drama? Watch the show! You won't regret it.

Have a Good Weekend

2006-09-29T17:49:00.000-07:00

I wanted to thank everyone who has commented on my post about the detainee bill. The only thing that prevents me from literally moving to Canada (I'm just a hop, skip, and a jump away) is that I know there are so many passionate, devoted, patriotic Americans like you guys out there. Somehow, we have to find a way out of the descent into despotism.

On a completely unrelated note, I couldn't leave for the weekend without posting this unbelievable story about a US Congressman who resigned today because he was soliciting teenage Congressional pages over the internet for sex. The best part is that he is apparently the biggest mouthpiece in the Congress about child sex abuse legislation and how we need to protect these kids from all the perverts on the internet. I've always had a weird feeling about some of these folks who seem obsessed with child sex offenders. Some of them just seem unhealthily obsessed with it, and this story just confirms that feeling. I'd love to hear Sarena's thoughts on this.

With Liberty and Justice for All*

2006-09-28T17:44:00.000-07:00

*Not valid when the President says so.

So, it's over. The detainee bill passed the Senate today. Here is the roll count on the vote. I'm happy to see that both my Senators (Cantwell and Murray) voted against the bill. (I called Maria Cantwell's office this morning and told her that if she didn't vote against this bill, she could forget about getting my vote in November.) But, I am horribly disappointed in the Democrats for not even attempting a fillibuster. I don't care that they say they had counted the votes and there weren't enough to stop it. Put it to a vote, and get people on the record, standing up for what they believe in, goddammit! And what happened to the supposedly principled John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham? They completely caved in to all the President's demands. They are pretending like they forged some sort of compromise, but that's a crock of you know what. They got nothing. The president is free to secretly arrest, torture, and detain without charges anyone he wants to--indefinitely. And anyone so arrested, tortured, or detained has no access to the courts to challenge anything that is happening to him. I don't know how anyone who voted for this bill can even look at themselves in the mirror. They make me sick. Every last one of them.

I have never personally been so disappointed in my country. When I was in law school, I remember reading the Korematsu case wherein the Supreme Court rubber-stamped the authority of the feds to send all Japanese-Americans to internment camps during World War II. We all talked about how wrong-headed the decision was, and how we have since learned from the travesty of that decision, and that something like that could never happen again. I remember wondering to myself what I would have thought about the decision at the time. We were at war, after all. We had been viciously attacked by the Japanese. There were believed to be Japanese supporters among us, working within our own borders. We needed to trust and support the President during wartime. Any of that sound familiar? The United States Congress has now basically given the President the authority to do essentially the same thing. And a huge majority of this country just sat around and didn't give a damn. I can only hope that some day, many years from now, when students study this period in our history, they rightfully talk about how shameful it was that so many U.S. citizens actively supported this travesty of justice, and that many more just sat around and did nothing as it happened.

I cannot adequately express in words my profound sadness, outrage, disgust, despair, and shame at what my country is doing. I hope that George W. Bush is right--that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. Because if they're watching this unfold, maybe they'll realize our freedom is meaningless, and they'll finally stop hating us. I"m not holding my breath.

Totally Random Article About Lottery Winners Pisses Me Off

2006-09-28T07:45:00.001-07:00

Maybe I'm just in a foul mood today because we are about to legalize war crimes and horriffic human rights violations in this country, but this mostly benign article about a Powerball-winning office pool really pissed me off this morning. In answer to their questions, I would say that, "No, neither God nor Buddha intervened to make you guys win the lottery." And reading a story about how the long-suffering office pool had just about given up on playing the lottery before they hit the big one just makes me think of all the poor people out there who gamble away the money they should be using to feed, clothe, and house their families in the hopes that, if they just play one more time, all their problems will be over.

Okay, rant over.

On Torture and Terrorists and Secret Prisons and Lifelong Detention

2006-09-27T19:30:00.000-07:00

I have been wanting to post something about the legislation on the verge of passing the Congress regarding the indefinite detention and torture of so-called "enemy combatants" for a long time. The problem has been that I am so mad and appalled and disgusted and frustrated--almost to the point of literally weeping for what my country has become--that I haven't been able to form coherent thoughts. This piece by Dahlia Lithwick posted on Slate is a good start.

Tom McKenna has a good post at his blog about a lawsuit related to that horrible "church" that protests fallen soldiers' funerals with picket signs declaring how the soldier died as God's revenge for the way the country has embraced "fags." Tom takes the law firm representing the church to task for what he believes is their insincere claim that they would die for the right of the protesters to say what they are saying, even while they may despise it. He points out that the one person in the whole story who did die for those rights is the poor kid whose funeral was being protested. And that makes me think about all the men and women who are putting their lives in danger for us. For our "freedom," as George W. Bush likes to say. And it breaks my heart that the same president that has sent those men and women into battle on our behalf is in his own country making sure that individuals can be secretly detained for the rest of their lives, tortured at will, and never charged with violating a single law, all at the whim of the executive. And Congress, including John McCain (who for a second, looked like he might actually take a principled stand on this issue, but has since completely caved) and way too many Democrats, are going right along with it. It makes me want to vomit. Literally. I don't even recognize my country anymore. Why are these brave soldiers killing and dying to protect the right of our president to behave like every other tyrant and despot in the world? Why aren't more Americans standing up and shouting out in opposition? We're fond of slogans in this country--slogans about our freedom. Live free or die. Give me liberty or give me death. Those are just a couple that spring to mind. A couple that seem to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the state of our country today.

Common Sense on Sex Offender Laws

2006-09-27T17:50:00.000-07:00

Have I mentioned lately how much I love Sarena Straus, she of the fantastic blog Prosecutor Post-Script? Well, I do. And not just because she recently called me "ever wonderful." She is a former child abuse/domestic violence prosecutor (and not former as in she's now a defense attorney--she still writes from the prosecutor perspective) who is reasonable and I believe truly cares about justice. She doesn't just pay lip service to it, or define justice as "whatever the alleged victim wants to happen." Her latest post on the wrongheadedness of the recent proposed laws banning sex offenders from living anywhere near a school, park, church, bus stop, campground, swimming pool, mall, convenience store, zoo, pet shop, arcade, miniature golf course, grocery store, restaurant, flea market, newspaper stand, or telephone booth is right on point. Every so often, Sarena even gets invited to be on Nancy Grace's show. What I wouldn't give to see her comment on these laws on Nancy's program!

Winning Isn't Everything, But . . .

2006-09-27T16:48:00.000-07:00

I had a case where my 16-year-old client was charged with residential burglary. The alleged victim was his mother. My client had been kicked out of his mom's house. He had been kicked out of his dad's house. So, my client went from place to place on the goodwill of others. Then, when his mother and stepfather were on a vacation, he "broke" in to their home, and lived there for two days. He didn't steal anything. He didn't damage any property. He just lived there. In his mother's house. For two days. And for this, he was charged with residential burglary, a Class B felony. At his initial detention hearing, his parents went on and on about how concerned they were for his safety, and how he had to be held in detention for his own safety. They were so concerned for his safety, apparently, that they kicked him out on the street and left him to go from house to house for his food and shelter! At the time, the judge bought it, and kept him locked up in detention even though he had no prior criminal history, and his sole crime was having broken into his own house! A few days later, I brought the case back before the same judge for a review of that decision. Even though I informed his parents about the hearing, neither one bothered to show up. This time, the judge saw things my way, and released him to his father's home.

So, it's now a few weeks later. The kid is doing great at his dad's home. He has taken and passed all his GED tests. He is working full-time with his older brother. Today, we had a hearing on my motion to dismiss his case. Washington has a provision that allows the defendant/respondent to make a motion to dismiss a case if the evidence as stated in the police reports and supplements filed in the case, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, does not make out a prima facie case. As it turns out, there is good case law in Washington on the issue of juveniles being charged with burglarizing the family home. The case law recognizes that parents have a statutory duty to provide for the basic needs of their children, and therefore allows a conviction for burglary only if the child has been unequivocally made aware that he is not permitted in the home and the parent or parents have provided for the child's needs (e.g., by arranging for them to stay with someone else or by taking them to social services for placement). In this case, all the police report said was that my client had been kicked out of both parents' homes and had, since then, "been going from friend's house to friend's house." So, I filed my motion, and my brief, and argued the motion today. I knew things were going well when, after I finished my argument, the judge asked the prosecutor if there was any other case law superseding the Supreme Court opinion I had cited. (Of course there was not.) And then, the judge said he had never granted one of these motions before (which is amazing to me considering he's been sitting as a commissioner for about 20 years!), but he was granting this one.

You know how great it feels when you win? You know how much greater it feels when you believe so strongly that your winning was the absolutely right thing? You know how much greater it feels when, on top of that, your client beams at you, and hugs you, and thanks you for being the only person who was willing to fight for him? Well, I definitely know what that feels like today.

The General Awesomeness of My Job

2006-09-26T17:04:00.000-07:00

So, I've had a few posts recently about how I feel about this new thing I'm doing called juvenile PD work. And I feel like I'm just repeating myself here, but it has really been consuming my thoughts lately, so I wanted to share. I really, really like what I'm doing. I can't even express all the reasons why. I just feel great about it. I truly like my clients. And by "like," I mean that I have a genuine affection for a lot of them. I love the opportunity I have to help them. I love the variety of issues that I get to deal with. I like the fact that, most of the time, they are very appreciative of what I am doing for them, and that they actually express that. Now, to be sure, there are downsides, too. When I lose something big like I did last week (I had a kid sent to adult court), it hurts even more. The parents of some of these kids can be absolutely horrendous in many different ways. Some of the kids are in such dire circumstances because of abuse, mental illness, and other issues that I don't think they'll have any kind of decent life at all, which tends to depress the hell out of me. These are the really hard parts of the job. But, the really good things about the job really do outweigh the bad parts, and lead to a general awesomeness about it all.

Today was a good example of what I get a chance to do. I started off this morning at the trial calendar, getting continuances on all my cases. I spent the rest of the morning reviewing my cases set in the coming weeks to see what investigation needs to be done, what witnesses need to be interviewed, etc. Then, in the afternoon, I successfully argued that the judge should not put my client in detention for some non-existent violation of his conditions of release. I counseled a client about what he can do to deal with his alcoholic and sometimes physically abusive parents, and he actually listened to me, and thanked me, and told me how good it was to know someone was on his side. I spoke with a client's mother about getting her counseling to help deal with the abusive dating relationship she is in. I had two office appointments with clients--one of whom we strategized on his trial and the other we talked about everything we could do to position him for a favorable sentencing decision. Nothing earth-shattering happened today, but it was just one of those really good days where I feel like I really helped a lot of people, and it was just all in a day's work. How awesome is that?

When I started here, I anticipated that I'd do my time in juvenile until a spot opened up in adult felonies. But now, I don't know. I don't think I'd want to move unless they made me. I may not feel the same way in a year or two, but for now, I would actually be really disappointed if they wanted to take me out of juvie. And that is something that I never would have predicted before I started this gig.

People Still Getting Lost in the Black Hole of the Dallas County Jail

2006-09-21T12:54:00.000-07:00

So, remember my old friend Walter Mann? He was the guy who was arrested for failing to pay for his son's incarceration when his son was arrested for assaulting him, and whom the courts just left sitting in jail for fifteen long months. Well, it looks like another man was lost by the county again. This time it was only for a few months, though, not fifteen.

(Thanks to Grits for Breakfast for the tip).

Another New PD Blog

2006-09-19T16:48:00.000-07:00

Via Skelly, here's a new public defender blog, Of a Public Defender's Life. On why she is a public defender, she says, in part:

Maybe that's part of why I do it, though. I am needed: To defend people who need defending, and no one else feels they "deserve" it. To ensure that people's rights are not violated, when even they don't appreciate what I do. To not allow our Constitution or the principles of freedom and justice upon which our country was built to be trampled upon for the sake of efficiency or security.

Sounds good to me!

Dahlia on Nancy

2006-09-18T17:56:00.000-07:00

I am a longtime fan of Dahlia Lithwick, Slate's senior legal editor. And her latest piece on the recent Nancy Grace controversy is a good example of why.

Too Much to Do!!!

2006-09-16T14:59:00.000-07:00

In my life as a public defender, I don't think I've ever had a stretch of weeks where I was as busy as I've been for the past few weeks. "Swamped" would be an understatement. In addition to being under the general pressure of doing the work of three attorneys for a while (I'm down to doing the work of 1 1/2 attorneys now!), I am also in the middle of a decline hearing where the state is seeking to transfer jurisdiction of my client's case to adult court. Needless to say, I have not had much time to blog. I did want to do a few quick hits, though.

*There have been a lot of hits on this blog recently for things like "nancy grace evil" and "nancy grace devil woman." Perhaps it is because of the woman who shot and killed herself after being interviewed on Nancy's show. On one hand, I think people are making unfair accusations against Nancy to say that she directly caused this woman's death. On the other hand, karma is a bitch!

*Skelly, my fellow Washington juvie PD, reports that juvenile crime in our state is down. While we are both happy about this trend, we also worry about the future of our jobs, but only sarcastically, so don't get mad about it!

*Alaskablawg has returned to the world of blogging! But, he's one of them free world lawyers now instead of a PD, so I've moved his link on my site from the PD blogs section to the criminal law blogs section. I never took him off my links, though, because I had faith he would return!

*And last, but certainly not least, if you haven't already seen the Daily Show's take on President Bush's 9/11 anniversary "address to the nation" featuring celebrity translator Little Richard, click below:

Ann Richards, One in a Million

2006-09-14T17:50:00.000-07:00

I am so sad to hear about former Texas Gov. Ann Richard's death yesterday (and of the same cancer that took my father more than 12 years ago). She came to national prominence in 1988 when, at the Democratic convention, she remarked, "Poor George [H. W. Bush] . . . He was born with a silver foot in his mouth." Oh, how I loved that woman! She truly was one in a million.