Disqus - Latest Comments for Gideon

Re: Julie Amero transcripts

Gideon — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:07:50 -0000

What's your take on the trial?

Re: Julie Amero: Thoughts on the transcripts

Gideon — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:18:40 -0000

On your comments:

1. I agree with #1, I don't think the state proved that there was harm (although I think this is generally assumed)

2. The general intent is that she acted in a manner that evinced a reckless disregard for the outcome. While I think it's tough to prove that based on these facts, it doesn't require an affirmative action from her.

I think the appeal and the subsequent Habeas will be very interesting.

Re: Julie Amero: Thoughts on the transcripts

Gideon — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:26:54 -0000

In light of the jury instructions and the way the statute was constructed, I'm not sure if that's relevant.

Re: On Point

Gideon — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:05:50 -0000

Ah, the lost arts :)

Re: Julie Amero: Sentencing delayed

Gideon — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:33:14 -0000

If I had nothing better to do on the 29th, I'd go to the sentencing. Alas, I have to work.

The kids probably did know how to turn off the monitor/computer, but do you think that would have made a difference?

Re: Julie Amero: Sentencing delayed

Gideon — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:25:01 -0000

Hmmm. I'm not sure I understand that train of thought..

Re: Careful — Big Brother IS Watching You

Gideon — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:17:19 -0000

I don't know, I don't see the harm in this. You'd only be worried if you had something to hide. If you have nothing to hide, then why not allow....

Oh heck, I can't keep up that charade :D

Re: Careful — Big Brother IS Watching You

Gideon — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:46:40 -0000

Haha. I figured it would get someone all riled up!

Seriously, I feel dirty for even having said something like that. I need to shower.

Re: Julie Amero Update: March 16

Gideon — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:17:41 -0000

Usually a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal notwithstanding the verdict is made right after the jury announces its verdict. It's possible that the attorney file some sort of other motion to ask the court to enter a judgment of acquittal, but I doubt it. It would have to be taken up on appeal.

Re: Is the Norwich Bulletin Removing Content on Julie Amero?

Gideon — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:57:45 -0000

Yeah, the Hurley case is rather interesting. I wonder what made someone like him go down that path. Just goes to show (as I recently posted), that it could happen to the best of us.

Re: Is the Norwich Bulletin Removing Content on Julie Amero?

Gideon — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:59:44 -0000

Sorry for the second post, but I should have pointed out that although Hurley's internal investigation is no more, the official police investigation is ongoing. It may well result in charges being filed.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your blog :)

Re: New Look: Cooool Blue

Gideon — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:28:33 -0000

I really like the color scheme, but I preferred the layout where the columns stretched from one side of the page to the other. There's too much wasted white space on the left and right, I think.

Re: Julie Amero’s Sentencing Delayed to April 26th

Gideon — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:02:22 -0000

The Norwich Bulletin reports that the continuance was asked for by prosecutors.

Re: Did MeanKids.org Have a Right to Exist?

Gideon — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:30:35 -0000

Removing these websites won't stop people from thinking this way or meeting to discuss their thoughts and feelings. Websites just bring them out into the "open" and make it more blatant.

I think the key is responsibility.

Re: Shameless Promo

Gideon — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:53:19 -0000

Well, shameless promos lead to votes ;) So fear not. Denise got a vote :D

Re: Trends

Gideon — Wed, 16 May 2007 07:16:25 -0000

Wow. That's quite a bit! I don't know where to look to find mine.

Re: Trends

Gideon — Thu, 17 May 2007 15:03:14 -0000

The trends. I looked on the main page, but couldn't find the link. I'll look harder.

Re: Trends

Gideon — Thu, 17 May 2007 15:06:05 -0000

Ah, found it!

46 subscriptions, 1690 items read, 102 shared. Interesting.

Re: Julie Amero Sentencing

Gideon — Thu, 17 May 2007 20:39:06 -0000

Oh boy.

New London is the Judicial District court, Norwich is a "Geographical Area" court. Normally, this would mean that the charges were serious and were going to be tried in the "big" court.

In this case, I have no idea what it means.

Re: Julie Amero Sentencing

Gideon — Thu, 17 May 2007 20:40:05 -0000

Actually, this makes sense:

A possible reason for the shift in venue is an upcoming change in assignments for judges, based on introduction of a new judge. Judge Hillary Strackbein, who will be sentencing Amero, will be assigned to duties in New London.

Re: Julie Amero News

Gideon — Fri, 18 May 2007 22:27:12 -0000

I don't think it is that easy. If the prosecutors were to stand up in court and say: "We recommend that the charges be dropped", I'd be inclined to say that it was a mockery of the system.

The easier way out would be for the defense to make a "Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdict" to which the prosecutors don't object.

Bottom line is the jury found her guilty and to suddenly abandon their position without so much as an explanation from the prosecutors would really piss me off.

Re: Julie Amero News

Gideon — Sat, 19 May 2007 07:33:40 -0000

Lol! South Park :D

Isn't this "new evidence" the same that he objected to during trial?

It's clear that they look very bad in all of this and do need to get out from under it as soon as possible. I guess the question they're debating is how to do without looking worse.

Re: Julie Amero: Defense Files Motion for a New Trial

Gideon — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:50:27 -0000

I'm excited! I'll be glued to my computer screen tomorrow morning (not that it would be out of the ordinary).

Re: Julie Amero: Sentencing or Not?

Gideon — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 08:05:18 -0000

Now that's quite the collection of legal minds. Julie is in extremely capable hands.

Re: Julie Amero: Defense Files Motion for a New Trial

Gideon — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:38:52 -0000

It should have already begun. (10:00am Eastern Time: -4 UTC)

Re: Julie Amero: Sentencing or Not?

Gideon — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:40:37 -0000

Heh, check out this Nor.Bull. story:

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...

In case they change it, the headline reads:

"Amero trial set to begin"

Re: Julie Amero: Sentencing or Not?

Gideon — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:47:09 -0000

My apologies for the barrage of comments, but she has been granted a new trial. I've got something up on it and the NB has a (thus far) brief story.

Re: Cool Discoveries

Gideon — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:57:24 -0000

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but just wanted to let you know that your link to me is to my old URL.

This 2000 bloggers thing looks very interesting, but I wish there were a better way of sorting the blogs.

Re: Breaking News: The Internet has Crashed

Gideon — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:52:20 -0000

Absolutely hilarious! :D

Re: Feeling Obsolete

Gideon — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:18:29 -0000

I'm neither young nor old and I have zero passion.

How's that other "new" social networking site? Pounce or something?

Re: Time for a theme change…

Gideon — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:05:45 -0000

Ooh. This is interesting. It's different.

Re: To Mystery Dad, Mommy Danielle, USRNGRX, and Thomas A Forcella

Gideon — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:29:13 -0000

K, thanks for keeping us updated on this. As more and more comes out, it seems sorrier and sorrier.

Re: Internet Fakery Taken Up a Notch or Two

Gideon — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 21:55:59 -0000

Holy moly! We used to pull little pranks like that on friends back in the IRC glory days, but this...this is something else.

I do agree with you, though, that perhaps what is missed in all of this is the loneliness of this girl - given the author's description of her loveless relationship with "Simon".

Re: Internet Fakery Taken Up a Notch or Two

Gideon — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:33:25 -0000

Or perhaps we can hope that she's learned her lesson and won't do this anymore.

Re: Nate Fisher: Resigned to his fate

Gideon — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:43:18 -0000

Awful, just awful. Will this impact his prospects in securing employment? Given the media coverage, will it serve to mitigate the created scandal?

Re: Help a fashion disaster recover…

Gideon — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:28:01 -0000

I have no idea and I've scoured the interweb for years! Hmm....

Re: Time’s Year in Images - Great Shots but the User Experience Sucks

Gideon — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:08:21 -0000

Oh I hate this too. It's so basic and yet so many websites make this error. I usually leave after the first two images.

Btw, how did you get nested comments in 2.3.1? Tell me!!! I want! Quoter doesn't work at all.

Also, sorry to hijack, but I d/led Flock. Some good, some bad. Do you still use it?

Re: My Challenge to Andrew Baron

Gideon — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:01:14 -0000

Amen. So much is wasted on excess.

Re: Of quandries and conundrums | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:03:25 -0000

Hehe.. thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm not sure if I can get over the state actor vs. private actor hurdle though. For the same reason, I'm for euthanasia but against the death penalty. I'm just a little squeamish about the state having the authority to end an individual's life.

Re: Porn store makes controversial donation to school | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:58:15 -0000

The donation was requested by a couple of parents, I think and the school refused to accept it. I can understand the school not wanting to display "Penthouse Boutique" on their gymnasium walls. It is, after all, an elementary school. Were this a middle school or high school, I would have said "stop kidding yourselves". But elementary, I don't know.

On the other hand it isn't like these elementary school kids are going to start watching porn or go the to store because of this donation.

I see your point and I think the whole confrontation can be avoided by either the store using the nondescript parent company or making the donation anonymously.

Similarly, a donation by a religious bookstore or even the NRA might be just as troublesome, but I don't think there would be quite the same outrage.

Re: Housekeeping | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:43:30 -0000

Thank you :) I hope you come back.

Re: Did you have a public defender or a lawyer? | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:46:38 -0000

That's the sad thing. In a state like mine, almost every public defender I know is an extremely hard-working and intelligent attorney. Some of the best attorneys I know are public defenders. In fact, I'd say most of our clients are rather lucky.

Not that private attorneys aren't hardworking and intelligent, but when you have to run a business as well, it could get distracting. That's why I could never start my own practice.

Re: Did you have a public defender or a lawyer? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 05:19:47 -0000

Thank you! I like the new site too :) Blogspot is a little rough around the edges.

Sen. Newton is a Democrat, I believe and also the Deputy President Pro Tempore of the Senate. He's also chair of the Public Safet Committee.

The PD's in that jurisdiction must have quite the reputation! Here, the word is good and bad. Everyone has clients who are just shit out of luck and yet expect to get off free. When they don't, they naturally lash out at the nearest target - their lawyer. More often than not, their lawyer is a PD, so the only insult they can think of is "real lawyer".

One gets used to it.

Re: Did you have a public defender or a lawyer? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 02 Apr 2005 06:14:19 -0000

That did occur to me the first time I read the transcript. But if you read the whole paragraph, he keeps saying "attorney" or public defender. But him saying this

in some cases, it's been proven that those who can afford attorneys have a better chance. I'm not saying anything bad about public defenders, but in some incidents, you know, cases have been proven.

leads me to believe that he truly believed the common misconception that public defenders aren't lawyers. I guess I'm not saying that he doesn't know the difference, but I think he gave in to the common mistake. Either way, it's pretty egregious, given that here we have one of the best PD systems in the country.

I've heard and read that jurisdictions with assigned counsel instead of a PD system have greater problems because of the low caps on per hour rates, leading to fewer attorneys wanting to be assigned cases and spending far too little time. Is that how it is where you are?

Re: Porn store makes controversial donation to school | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 02 Apr 2005 06:15:20 -0000

I don't think you can refuse Tony Soprano or you might end up sleeping with the fishes.

As for the news story, I can't find any followups on the web, so maybe they just let it go.

Re: pro bono awards | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:15:47 -0000

Yeah... after I posted it, I figured it might have been not-so-subtle and perhaps a little harsh. But I though, eh, I wrote it, I should stick by it.

It's just the principle of the thing, you know?

Re: Michael Ross hearings - Day Two

Gideon — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:37:56 -0000

Sent you a rather longish explanatory e-mail. Let me know if you didn't get it and I will post my response here.

Keep up the good work!

Re: Meet force with force: FL’s new self-defense statute | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 07:50:38 -0000

You're absolutely right - I'm surprised it got by the FL DA lobby. It does create a lot of trouble for them. I seem to be reading the bill to say that there is a bar to prosecution. That is the one thing I have been unable to wrap my head around. Why would they create such a bar? If they wanted to allow people to "meet force with force", the better route would have been to say that self-defense is no longer an affirmative defense or perhaps if it is an affirmative defense, lower the standard to preponderance.

This just doesn't make sense. Add to it the fact that they've also created a bar to civil suits.

Re: and I was complaining about not getting a raise | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:05:47 -0000

Tom, going by what you said, I'd have thought you worked in my state! We're in pretty much the same position. Prosecutors haven't had a contract for three years and don't have one right now. So, we're left without a raise, without a cost of living increase and no hope for the future.

Unless they get a new contract. We know how the state loves to pay it's prosecutors.

Melissa - I wonder what else they tack fees onto to pay for public defenders. If traffic tickets is the way to go, then all PDs should get their friends and family members to park illegaly.

Re: Meet force with force: FL’s new self-defense statute | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 07:10:12 -0000

Yeah, but the problem I have is with the "immune from prosecution" bit. So if they can't be prosecuted, then they don't have to show a reasonable belief.

I think maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Re: Did you have a public defender or a lawyer? | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:28:44 -0000

Yep, I saw that already. Strange coincidence that we both wrote about the same topic!

Re: Too poor to hire an attorney, too rich for a PD | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:27:14 -0000

Well, it depends. When I was very briefly in private practice, the most oft repeated charge seemed to be $1500. Ofcourse, this is taking into account maybe two or three court appearances.

Serious felonies and murders will probably command somewhere between 10-40.

Re: Too poor to hire an attorney, too rich for a PD | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 07:34:37 -0000

Mr. DA - that's a fascinating, yet sad story. It just goes to show the dichotomy between judges sitting on the bench and the work that goes on in the trenches. It is really pitiful that someone who receives $110 a month and has his own car is assumed to be rich enough to hire an attorney charging 5-15,000. This still happens today, although I see more of it in the opposite direction - PD offices (not court-appointed counsel) are willing to take cases where people make slightly more than the guideline maximum because there is just no way for that person to hire counsel.

Perhaps there needs to be a study (I know there are many by the Spangenberg Group and the ABA) focused on your state. Or, as we were discussing earlier, a PD system with a pay scale commensurate to that of prosecutors, so there doesn't need to be "appointed counsel" who are woefully underpaid.

Part of the blame, ofcourse, has to lie on the shoulders of the defense bar. When you don't show up to plead your cause and explain your costs in these cases, you cannot expect those in charge of making these decisions to have an informed idea of what it actually takes to represent indigent defendants.

Re: Danbury immigrant mess getting serious | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:30:55 -0000

Lol...

Wait, you're serious aren't you? I've never really looked at the residents of this state as rednecks. However, I do live in a pretty urban (and poor) city - so maybe I'm insulated. I do know that there are plenty of pockets of rich people in the state - so maybe they are a little more conservative.

After all, someone did shout sand n***er at me from their car today.

Re: QOTD | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:05:12 -0000

Right, that's the thing I didn't mention in my post: the fact that a majority of sexual offenders are people known to the victims.

Sex offender registration, in of itself, is fraught with so many problems - but because of the hot topic, legislators are often willing to (or just blind) overlook the problems. They are too broad, don't afford due process and in my opinion (although SCOTUS disagreed) are punitive.

Re: Meet force with force: FL’s new self-defense statute | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:36:18 -0000

Thank you all very much for your comments - instead of responding here, I've made a new post, here,thereby moving this discussion back up to the front page. Please feel free to comment and respond further.

Re: Meet force with force: FL’s new self-defense statute - II | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:27:04 -0000

Jeff, I was not being sarcastic when I said you provided a list of NON forcible felonies. I was actually quite grateful that you were considerate enough to provide that information.

The link you to provide to Jon Gutmacher's website is really helpful. Thank you very much for it. It seems that he has done an excellent analysis of the law's flaws and benefits and it's future problems.

I hope you continue to read this blog :)

Re: MA seeks to reinstate death penalty | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 02 May 2005 10:48:32 -0000

Greg - thanks for that info! I'm trying to locate similar info here, but haven't been able to so far. It doesn't seem odd that the cost of a DP trial is the same as 21 years of LWOP. Sure highlights the economic argument against the death penalty, though.

TxPD - I think that's a plausible reading of the provision, in fact, I think that can be the only reading (because of the EPF clause), but I think it wasn't well written. Practically, someone who is serving LWOP would be able to commit murder only in prison. So I guess then, that refers to murders of corrections officers, other inmates, etc.

Sure, it's plausible - I don't know though. I still think he might have been referring to people who are already convicted. Maybe I'm being opaque.

Re: CT seeks to decriminalize consensual sex between minors | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 09 May 2005 18:03:33 -0000

Well, yeah - but atleast (one part of) the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that teens are having sex. Now if we could only start getting people to promote birth control.

Re: CT seeks to decriminalize consensual sex between minors | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 10 May 2005 18:18:03 -0000

Yeah - wow. That's pretty ambiguous. Anyone under 14 can have sex with someone within two years of their age. Huh.

Now there needs to be some legislation that allows affirmative defenses where there was active misrepresentation of age.

Re: ACOTSOCT decisions* | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 16 May 2005 03:17:13 -0000

Thank you! I'm glad they're atleast serviceable summaries. Did you graduate from a CT law school? Good luck with the bar!

Re: To blog or not to blog | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 17 May 2005 13:41:01 -0000

You've been bloglined ;) I'm going to turn that into a verb.

Re: Sex defenders? | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 19 May 2005 07:00:38 -0000

Yeah, that's what I found too. I don't know if it is just a typo or people are really searching for "sex defenders". If so, what the hell is a sex defender?

Re: Is the use of the term victim prejudicial? | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 19 May 2005 11:47:56 -0000

What about curative instructions? Do you think that a curative instruction, coupled with a charge on the P o I would negate any prejudice created by the use of the word "victim"? Does it matter how many times the word victim has been used?

I would think that any court would jump at the chance to state that a curative instruction would remove the infirmity (as in Robinson above). I would then have to respectfully disagree.

Once a jury has been tainted, in my opinion, the only recourse is a mistrial. That hardly ever happens, though.

Re: Is the use of the term victim prejudicial? | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 19 May 2005 17:41:18 -0000

Absolutely. The real danger lies when the judge - unintentionally or otherwise - sheds the cloak of impartiality and seems to be taking sides. Referring to the defendant as "criminal" or the others that you mention are, ofcourse, off limits.

I fear, though, that unless there is a hard-line rule established that even the use of the word "victim" is off-limits in cases where it is an issue, we will be left counting the number of times the word is used and then determining the impact of that on the jury. Which is a fruitless exercise, because almost always it will be found harmless. As you correctly state, curative instructions are pretty much useless - because you can't wipe it out of their memory.

Perhaps motions in limine are the way to go...

Re: Sex defenders? | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 19 May 2005 18:32:13 -0000

If that's the case, I'll wear my defender badge proudly!

Re: Are mandatory minimums mandatory? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 20 May 2005 06:13:42 -0000

No, that's very helpful - I'm always interested to know the sentencing structures of other states.

What is a "state jail" classification? As you listed them, they seem to be gradations - CF, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, State Jail. Is that just in lieu of say, a 4th degree or an A misdemeanor?

CT abandoned indeterminate sentences a long time ago. Now we only have determinate sentences.

Also, here, for most people, life means 60 years.

Interesting - good time in TX is based on the actual offense, not the length of the sentence. CT abandoned good time in 1994, so all offenses after that don't accrue good time. However, prior to 1994, you get 10 days for every month for the first five years and 12 days for every month after that (or something close to that), pretty much regardless of the crime itself.

Thanks!

Re: Are mandatory minimums mandatory? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 20 May 2005 10:54:50 -0000

So, if I understand this correctly, specific crimes are referred to as "state jail felonies" and the only real difference is the housing facility? The charging decision still rests with the prosecutor...

Ok...

Re: Are mandatory minimums mandatory? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 21 May 2005 06:38:18 -0000

Alaska - so AK's sentencing is based on the Fed. Guidelines in that the crime itself doesn't necessarily determine whether it is an A, B or C felony, but the priors. Interesting, because here, it is almost always the crime that determines the felony... except in prior gun cases and perhaps some drug cases.

Murder, Arson 1st, Assault on a woman resulting in termination of a pregnancy, Sex Assault against minors 1st, kidnapping 1st and with a firearm are A felonies. More intuitive ones - like Robbery 1st and Assault 1st are NOT 'A', but rather 'B'. Sentences for an A felony other than murder can be between 10 and 25 years (not indeterminate - just a number between those two), for a B felony it is 1-20 (except manslaughter, which is 5-40), for a C felony 1-10 and a D felony is 1-5.

Of all these, only Murder, Felony Murder, Arson Murder and Possession of a Firearm within 1500 feet of a school are ineligible for parole. Then there's a list of 20-30 some offenses where parole eligibility kicks in after 85% and the rest are 50%.

Perhaps our sentences are shorter, but CT likes to make them serve atleast half, if not more.

Also, the DOC now has a policy whereby if you have a pre-1996 (prior to the 85% law) "violent felony" on your record, but are currently serving a post-1996 "non-violent felony" (which would be 50% eligible), they still might reclassify you based on your "violent history" and make you ineligible until 85%.

So, I guess, unlike in TX, if you're serving 60-99 in CT, you won't get parole (unless it's as a result of 4 consecutive 15 year B felony sentences - in which case you'll get parole, eventually... ).

Thanks for all the info guys :)

Re: I’ll take a pay cut, I’m Indian! | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 24 May 2005 08:22:52 -0000

Hmm.... well, accept my apologies. I must have misunderstood.

However, I do have the same debt and the same education cause I'm here... besides, I doubt many law firms hire associates from other countries because of the lack of US legal education. The only circumstances I see this happening in are international law firms and human rights organizations. For the rest, even an LLM is pretty useless.

Just want to clarify though, that I am an Indian living in the US and I make far, far less than the 125K that you mention (the excessiveness of which I agree with you on).

Re: I’ll take a pay cut, I’m Indian! | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 24 May 2005 09:16:51 -0000

You're absolutely right that there is a delusion among law students that they would be able to survive working at BIGLAW for a few years and make enough money to pay off their debt.

I know of atleast three people who graduated with me who took that root. It's a fair bet that within 2 years of graduation, all three have left their jobs.

Maybe the rising cost of tuition has something to do with the rising entry-level salaries. Perhaps is salaries were lower, prestigious law schools would be forced to slash tuition costs, so as to attract students.

Re: The most pointless prosecution of the next ten years | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 26 May 2005 10:41:54 -0000

You do raise an interesting point - I read a few news reports on this very issue, but the most they expressed was doubt. I haven't read anything (haven't really tried, actually) that explores this problem of jurisdiction.

Perhaps they say that they have jurisdiction because the offense started in GA? I don't know...

Re: Runaway Bride jurisdiction | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 26 May 2005 19:22:27 -0000

I guess that would be good enough to satisfy "filing a false report" and "making a false statement".

But really, is it worth the state's time?

Re: Runaway Bride jurisdiction | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 26 May 2005 19:31:36 -0000

Yeah, I didn't know about that statement either. Also, damn AJC requires registration. I can't remember if I did or not - so I'm not going to bother doing it again.

Oh well. She's cooked. Maybe jury nullification here?

Re: Was Judge Chatigny unethical? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 27 May 2005 09:54:29 -0000

I'm with you on this - others, unfortunately, are not. Not only is this politically motivated, it's rather unfounded. Yes, I believe there is the whole appearance of impropriety issue - but had he not had that telephone conversation in which he firmly reminded T.R. Paulding of his ethical obligation, would we even be having this conversation? I think not.

Re: Was Judge Chatigny unethical? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 27 May 2005 12:36:33 -0000

I'm not attempting to sugarcoat anything. While Judge Chatigny might have a preconceived notion of this case (which, given the latest news looks to be true - atleast as regards the evidence presented in the initial trial), I don't think he "intimidated a bar member". If you read the transcript of the telephone conference, you will notice that beyond the harsh language used by Judge Chatigny, was the genuine concern of a Federal Judge who, in his opinion, saw conflicting evidence relating to the competency of Michael Ross.

Could he have said it better? Yes. Do I think he is a moron? Far from it. Should he be "exposed"? I don't know what you want to expose, so I can't answer that.

I don't think what he did was judicially unethical. But that's just my opinion.

Re: 6th, 14th and right to appointed counsel | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:27:03 -0000

I understand. I guess I'm just having a hard time believing (or accepting) that something that is stated unequivocally as a fundamental right would not be meant to apply across the board.

That states and the federal government did not provide counsel till recently is one thing: to argue that the founders could have called it a fundamental right and not meant it to apply to everyone regardles off income is another.

They could easily have envisioned a scenario where someone would be charged with a crime and not be able to afford an attorney. What did they expect to happen to this "right" then? I submit (based on nothing but my opinion) that they must have meant to encompass all, and that courts did not enforce it till recently.

Re: Should we shorten criminal trials? The UK seems to think so. | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:40:58 -0000

Jim, I think you're absolutely correct in your observations. Isn't the percentage of pleas somewhere around 84? Obviously the plea agreement plays a critical role in the criminal justice system - but I am still queasy at the thought of having to stipulate to "certain facts" before going to trial.

Having to do that will only increase the burden placed on the plea bargaining system. We might just end up seeing a rise to where 95% of all cases are plead.

I think there is some balance presently, with prosecutors knowing that if they make extremely unfavorable deals, they will be forced to go to trial. I know that private attorneys are under severe financial constraints already and do charge flat fees, which usually covers basic representation.

The reason why our system works - and why I don't like Britian's proposal - is that there is always the option of going to trial and "fighting it out". While an attorney may suffer some financial loss, atleast there are no restrictions on how the trial itself is to be conducted.

You are probably correct about the use of both barristers and solicitors in a trial; I'm not quite up on my British legal system.

Re: Miller-El granted habeas relief! | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:37:03 -0000

You bet! I'm just about done reading the opinions and I'll update my post soon.

Re: Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:21:26 -0000

Right, that's what occurred to me - so why does it not occur to legislators? Isn't this the first thing that should jump out at them? I presume they have counsel assisting them in the drafting of these amendments.

Re: Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:36:59 -0000

S.cotus: thanks for the pointer. I realize that my question may have seemed a little naive, but really it was more surprise than anything.

You're right, though. The political ramifications can only be good. It serves to strengthen the legislators base and placing the blame on "activist, liberal lawyers and judges".

In a way I am naive, I guess, in that I don't want to believe that such announcements by the governor of a state are nothing but political ploys. Makes me lose respect for a position of authority and integrity such as that.

Re: Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments? | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 07:39:24 -0000

I think you're absolutely correct: There are two issues here - the State Constitution and the Federal Constitution. Taking the state constitution only, the voters can obviously amend the constitution.

In the instance of a new amendment that would conflict with an already existing amendment, there would necessarily have to be either an explicit provision in the new amendment that would override the older one, or an amendment of the older one itself.

So, if there is an amendment that raises equal protection problems, the new amendment would have to state something to the effect of "notwithstanding any other Constitutional provision" - thereby diluting the EP clause... or an amendment to the EP itself.

This is what i'm not sure would be Constitutional - only because you're not superceding an amendment (as in prohibition), but restricting one (and this would be in violation of itself).

So I'm not so sure it's that cut and dry. Then we have the problem of the Federal Constitution providing the base-line for the rights afforded individuals by the state's and would such an amendment to a state constitution be in violation of the Federal Constitution's EP clause and what would be the constitutionality of any amendmed to the Fed. Constitution or the EP clause thereof, tailored to one specific issue.

Re: No more “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 08:06:32 -0000

Done! Thanks for the tip.

Re: No more “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 05:17:54 -0000

You're both right. The way I view it, the pd's office was taking the right step in actually unclogging the court's docket, by making sure they avoid grounds for habeas claims later on.

Given the description of how they interacted with defendants prior to arraignment (and plea), it seems to me that there were fertile grounds for IAC claims.

Apparently the 6th Amendment isn't that important.

Re: Weblog design | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:08:18 -0000

Yeah, that's my feeling too... The other one was a little garish, though and I'm not ready to go to brown and green.

Re: Anti-immigrant meeting in Waterbury today | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:30:28 -0000

You're absolutely right. My position doesn't indicate otherwise, either. If you read the previous posts on the immigration issue in CT, you will see that I have repeatedly stated that I have no problem with cracking down on illegal immigrants. That's the law and that's the way it is.

Some people view this as an attack on all immigrants and in some way, I can understand that too. Especially the part about Danbury banning volleyball outdoors, because it is an important part of the immigrant community.

However, I do not endorse - and quite frankly am repulsed by - the rhetoric that the CT Citizens for Immigration Control engages in.

Re: Proposed Legislation Would Limit Habeas Review | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:24:44 -0000

Absolutely. Very well put. It is a shame that the government is doing all it can to limit Habeas review. Add to that the fact that indigent criminal defense is one of the most neglected areas of development and practice in the country.

This is especially frightening given the emergence of DNA exonerations.

Re: Just like crack | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:44:42 -0000

You're telling me! I'm surrounded by two people, both of whom are taking the bar. I'm sick of it! It's as if I'm taking it again myself!

As for HP, I want to leave work right now and go home and read the rest of it.

Re: False illusions | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:43:33 -0000

You're right S.cotus, this is hardly BIGLAW, more like small-mediumlaw. The issue, however, still remains. The article seems to be saying that working in the government sector will not prepare you - and might even be a disadvantage - for a job in the "real" corporate/civil/business law world.

To be fair, the article also does criticize BIGLAW.

I think this is the profile of the author of the article. He likes to fly his Cessna and ride horses. He is also a member of the "Million Dollar Advocates Forum".

Re: Just like crack | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:46:29 -0000

*sigh* unfortunately, I don't own a laptop. Is it easy to tap into a WiFi provider on the train, anyhow?

I'm relegated to the "old school" way of passing time - sleeping or reading.

Anyhow, I finished "the Half-Blood Prince" and I swear, it is just like crack. I want more. NOW.

Anon - I've heard that Bob Dylan's book is fantastic, it is on my list, albeit a little further down. I'll get to it soon enough.

Re: 10,000 hits | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:05:30 -0000

Thanks Tom!

Re: 10,000 hits | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:47:27 -0000

Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys. Appreciate all the links and the visits.

Re: Roundup of latest proposed sex offender legislation | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 06:23:19 -0000

I do understand your point, but I think you're mischaracterizing mine.

There always was great inconvenience to sex offenders as there is to all offenders. No one is disputing that and even denouncing it. (Atleast, I'm not)

I also understand the legitimate concerns of the public. My gripe is with this excessive legislation that has gripped the nation based on very few, specific events. That is why it is called knee-jerk. Before the two girls in FL were found murdered and the one or two others over the course of the last year, why were there no such calls to toughen sex-offender laws and require lifetime GPS monitoring?

In fact, why is there no risk evaluation even now? You also say that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. Has anyone tried? When was the last time there was a whole-scale effort at rehabilitation in prisons anywhere? What of the majority of sex offenders that prey on family members? Consequently, what of the few that get stuck registering for life for having sex with their minor girlfriend, while they themselves are minors and the act was consensual?

See my point? I'm not against strict laws for sex offenders, I'm just for well-thought out legislation.

Re: Who needs tougher sex offender laws | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:03:51 -0000

Sure, I've always maintained that longer sentences might be a reasonable, logical solution.

You're obviously not going to condone this killing, though. It wasn't even a family member of the sex offender's victims. He dismembered the man. There is no excuse and no justification (I'm not talking legal defenses here).

Re: Hands Off Habeas | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 07:06:00 -0000

You're absolutely right. However, I think we're at the point where we might have to take the lesser of two evils. It's ridiculous, given the extensive constraints of AEDPA, but there comes a point when you have to pick the least harmful option.

Re: more violence against sex offenders | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:00:17 -0000

Thoughtful points, all. What I cannot agree with is that this "vigilante justice" should be condoned. I can fully understand it and I would not be surprised if I felt similar emotions myself in a similar situation. However, there is a point when responsibility steps in. Is it a justification? We should leave that up to the justice system, for if you want to travel down the path of the rape/assault of one's loved one as an excusable justification for the murder of another, I can very easily lead you down the path of economic depression as the justification for most of the petty crimes that we face on a daily basis.

But I won't. Tom, as you've seen me say often times, I am not opposed to harsher sentences. What I would also like to go hand in hand with harsher sentences is an attempt at rehabilitation. After all, isn't that what prisons were meant to be for?

Re: CA Assembly passes same-sex marriage bill | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:21:31 -0000

To say what?

Re: CA Assembly passes same-sex marriage bill | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 04:01:37 -0000

Unfortunately, he didn't listen to you.

I just don't get what people have against gay marriage. I don't feel threatened by it in any way and I don't think it destroys the "fabric" of marriage.

Sigh...

Re: culpability vs deterrent | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:01:32 -0000

That's not true. HIV/AIDS will kill you. It may prolong your life, but there is no cure. An infected individual will die from it eventually.

That fatality aspect of it is what drives this prosecution, IMO.

I also disagree with your assessment that it's less a crime if one person "just didn't want to tell the other they had an STD."

With an STD comes responsibility; to your own life and those of others that are not infected. To me, there is no difference between intentionally wanting to give someone an STD and not wanting to tell them you have one, yet having unprotected sex with them.

The question I have is: How do we balance our need for protecting society from people who have exhibited an unwillingness to take responsibility and our absolute absolute need for getting more people tested and aware of their status?

Re: culpability vs deterrent | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:39:32 -0000

I understand your point. What I am saying, however, is not that intentional infection is MORE of a crime than failing to disclose, but that failing to disclose is not LESS of a crime than intentional infection, if that makes any sense. I think it is equally bad to know you have an STD and willfully pass it on to someone else, or know that you MIGHT have one, not bother to find out and end up passing it on to someone else. I don't think the culpability is lessened because you chose not to find out. Either one is pretty stupid, IMO.

The difference between negligence here (or recklessness) and in other areas of criminal law is that in a case like this, it is really a matter of words. Individual A can ask individual B about their sexual history and whether they've been tested and so forth, and use a condom for added protection. Individual B, not having been tested, but also wanting to have sex, says "I'm clean".

HPV (using your example) is transferred. I'm not sure you can say that there is an assumption of risk in that case, which is what makes it as bad as knowingly transferring, in my opinion.

Re: pro bono awards | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:34:41 -0000

You're probably right. I think I was just having a bad day :)

Re: Court declines to rule on prejudicial use of “victim” | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:30:23 -0000

I just looked through the briefs and it doesn't seem like there was a motion in limine to preclude the use of the word victim. It's one of those things that doesn't occur to you pre-trial, but once it's use becomes pervasive during trial, it becomes necessary to do something about it.

Re: SCOTUS declines cert. in sex offender classification case | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:55:33 -0000

Dan, thank you for your comment!

Was there some thought that had the issue been framed on the "merits", SCOTUS would not have considered it?

Certainly at this point, the 5th Circuit decision would be controlling.

Re: Small victories | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:51:16 -0000

Thanks... it's a good feeling. You're doing a great thing with the clinic, too. Keep it up!

Re: Legislation to classify 16 & 17yo as juveniles | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:03:37 -0000

A rose -

There are certain crimes for which juveniles, regardless of age, will always be tried as adults. Murder, ofcourse, is one of them. From what I understand, though, an increasing number of juveniles have been tried as adults for far less serious matters and this seeks to address that.

Re: Legislation to classify 16 & 17yo as juveniles | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:06:35 -0000

ambimb:

I'm not a 100% sure, off the top of my head, how the Youthful Offender statute came about, or what the law looked like before that (I'll look it up), but that is what has been in use in CT for 16 & 17y.o. It affords similar protections, but up until last year, an application to grant YO status had to be made. As of last year, it becomes automatic.

Then there's the whole issue of transfer to adult court, which I didn't go into.

Re: Is the “broken window” theory itself broken? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:05:57 -0000

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure about the thoery of levitt and dubner. I would have to read Freakonomics to get a better sense, but that too, seems rather simplistic to me.

Re: One more addition to death row | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:43:52 -0000

Yes, I am back! I've been swamped with work - far too many trials and appeals. Mostly successes, if I may brag a bit ;)

Check for an e-mail from me.

Re: Layout question | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:13:37 -0000

Duly noted. I have cleaned it up a bit. Does it look better?

Re: Layout question | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:42:53 -0000

You just made me spit out my drink. Thank you for that priceless observation.

Re: It’s on. | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:16:22 -0000

I am absolutely not disputing the fact that there are bad lawyers. I think there are a lot of things that go into how much attention is paid to a case. That doesn't change the fact that this line is drawn between pds and private attorneys based simply on the fact that one is paid by the state and the other charges money.

In my personal experience, good pds far outnumber good private attorneys.

I guess I'm just sick of this "public pretender" crap.

Re: It’s on. | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:51:34 -0000

Now that's not nice ;)

Re: It’s on. | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:32:37 -0000

Exactly. The conclusion the article makes is pd = bad, priv atty = good.

You can analogize that to all sorts of sociological generalizations that are made; which many would be ready to admit are wrong.

I wonder why this reputation of pds has persisted for so many years...

Re: It’s on. | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:17:12 -0000

You know, you're absolutely right. I cannot and should not go head to head with someone that knows how to brush a kitten's teeth or how to get rid of bad odor from cars

[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/70103/how_to_get_rid_of_a_bad_odor_in_a_car.html].

Lord knows I've tried and haven't been able to.

Re: It’s on. | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:20:07 -0000

You know what's sad? I tried to read the other articles (decorating apartment walls}, but I kept asking myself: "Do I want to take her advice? Will my walls fall down if I do what she says?"

This is why people shouldn't talk about topics they have no knowledge of.

Re: Why I don’t watch legal shows: Exhibit A | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:10:39 -0000

Hahahaha.

I saw an episode yesterday where, during cross examination, the father tries to confess to the murder his son is charged with. The prosecutor says: "really? we have your receipts showing you were [in some town far away], without ANY offer of proof or ANY objection to mentioning something not in evidence.

I love blogging :)

Re: Failure to Appear: A prosecutor’s best friend? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:46:24 -0000

Bond? It's possible, if the defendant has the ability to post high bonds. The amount of the bond typically goes up significantly when a failure to appear is charged.

I'm quite surprised you've never had a client charged with a failure to appear. I see it quite regularly.

Re: Felony for invoking right against self-incrimination? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:44:39 -0000

You sir, are correct. For some reason I got Montana stuck in my head and I couldn't shake it. Please convey my sincerest (well) apologies to the residents and legislators of Montana.

Re: Deal or No Deal? | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:22:56 -0000

Well, I think the underlying goal is a good one. I'm not so sure about the "punishment in lieu of exclusion" suggestion, simply because it would allow the evidence to be admitted. I'd be more for having the cops serve a sentence AND having the evidence excluded.

Re: Deal or No Deal? | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:31:22 -0000

I see what you're saying, but then what you'd also be saying is that as long as they're prosecuted, the fruits of their crime are still "legal".

It's like a defendant getting convicted of possession of drugs and then asking for them back so he could smoke them.

Re: Deal or No Deal? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:20:58 -0000

How about just legalizing marijuana? Wouldn't that erase a huge burden on the criminal justice system?

Re: Julie Amero’s case gaining national attention | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:18:43 -0000

Well, the way I read it (and the accompanying case law), it is akin to reckless manslaughter. You have to be aware that your actions will cause the effect proscribed by law. Which is why it was referred to a general intent crime as opposed to a specific intent crime. Further, none of the case law I have seen on the statute classifies it as a per se crime, not requiring mens rea.

I could be wrong; I'll have to do more research.

Re: Design | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:47:48 -0000

Hmmm, is your screen resolution 800x600? That might be a problem. Darn it. I'll have to fix it.

Re: Design | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:50:46 -0000

Hmm, it seems that the banner appears only at 1280 x 1024....

Re: Design | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:25:19 -0000

Any better?

Re: New blogs | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:28:58 -0000

My apologies. I'll fix it :)

Re: Residency restrictions map and an interesting observation | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:59:05 -0000

That would seem to be in line with state sizes and the underlying rationale. The larger the town, the more you can realistically afford to set these boundaries.

Re: Is failure to register a continuing/future offense? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:25:28 -0000

I guess my point was to focus only on the future crime portion of the rule. Most of these offenders don't commit acts that would result in death/serious bodily injury, so a firm reading of the text of the rule would not require disclosure.

You seem pretty convinced that failure to register is an ongoing offense and not one that has been committed in the past (i.e. the first day that the client fails to register). I am curious as to how you decided that. I'm still struggling with that.

Re: Prosecutor investigated for embezzling money intended for crime victims | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:23:07 -0000

Just read that he has now resigned. I worked in Milford for a bit and the state's attorney's office there was very nice and easy to work with.

Re: NJ sex offender mania spreads to internet access | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:32:23 -0000

I think New Jersey does, but don't hold me to that. In Connecticut, I know there are no "levels" of sex offenders.

Re: Prosecutor investigated for embezzling money intended for crime victims | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:38:00 -0000

Well, my experience with Milford was limited to a week years ago. Maybe I got the polite version.

On a related note, Robin Lipsky (who used to split time there) has been nominated to be a Superior Court Judge.

Re: Playboy causes stir on Vandy campus | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:22:55 -0000

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

Re: push against residency restrictions finally paying off | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:04:46 -0000

Oh I certainly don't think this means that they will go away, but it has to be a good thing when a legislator says "we're going to have to rethink these blanket restrictions, because studies are saying they don't work"

Re: Sex offender legislation roundup | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:38:54 -0000

Doe v. CT didn't actually raise a substantive due process claim; it merely addressed the procedural due process issue. I think the court has left open the question of whether it does, indeed, violate substantive due process and I bet we'll see a challenge in the future.

Re: Violent offender registry proposed - the branding continues | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:03:30 -0000

Oh, yeah, I was going to mention that in the post, but I forgot. Between this and sex offenders, I think about half of all offenses in the state are covered (or will be) via registries.

I'll add some thoughts to the post.

Re: Violent offender registry proposed - the branding continues | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:25:05 -0000

The registries, standing alone, maybe not be problematic. After all, these are public records and anyone can access them at the courthouse. (I'm not going to concede that I'm okay with them).The residency restrictions, on the other hand, are surely punitive in nature and that I do have a lot of problems with.

Re: Trackbacks | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:06:49 -0000

Thanks! I'm not using movabletype. I tried it very briefly, but it seemed that it wasn't as flexible as wordpress. So I'm using wordpress now and I really like it.

Re: Violent offender registry proposed - the branding continues | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:20:20 -0000

I haven't looked very closely at the Adam Walsh Act. I think it would behoove me to do so.

Re: Texas removes duty to retreat | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:47:26 -0000

Thanks for the comment. I wasn't expecting outrage or anything, since I had read that the bill didn't change much. I suspected that my opinion of this was ill-informed and I was looking to see if someone had explained it in a concise way.

Given your explanation, I tend to agree. I don't think it's a huge deal. As a defense attorney, I probably should be happy that they have created such an assumption. I'm just wary of assumptions.

Re: Texas removes duty to retreat | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:37:10 -0000

yes, the use of the phrase "a free for all" may be sensationalist, but I am highlighting the worst case scenario.

Granted, other states (including FL) that have enacted similar laws have not seen an increase in violence, but the potential remains. This law doesn't only remove the duty to retreat from one's house, but also from one's car. So conceivably, you don't have to be "attacked" in the middle of the night.

Yes, my objection is very limited, but I think I'll stick by it for now.

Re: My identity has been revealed | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:54:23 -0000

If only I knew your real name; I'd report you to the authorities.

Re: My identity has been revealed | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:48:05 -0000

Pshaw :P

Re: PD victory! | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:26:33 -0000

Gender duly noted ;)

Re: “Acceptable” registries and residency restrictions | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:56:51 -0000

Good point as to the length of work restrictions. I'll have to give it more thought, but my initial instinct is that 10 years for mid-level and 20 years for high-level offenders should do the trick.

Re: “Acceptable” registries and residency restrictions | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:41:16 -0000

Thanks for the comment. Excellent points all. I should have made it clearer that I was proceeding on the assumption that registries and residency restriction would continue to stay in place.

I have said previously on the blog that I am against residency restrictions and even registries for the most part. So if it were "really" up to me, they would not exist. Recognizing that they're probably here to stay, these are my recommendations.

Again, I should have been clearer as to the existence of the registry. It would not be available via the internet, but only at the courthouse - or maybe town hall as well.

I already am an avid reader of your blog :)

Re: “Acceptable” registries and residency restrictions | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:13:16 -0000

Time removed from prior offenses definitely is a factor to consider. I don't want to summarily exclude all offenses committed prior to an arbitrarily chosen date, but something akin to prior misconduct admissibility rules would be appropriate. 10 years or more prior to the date of offense are automatically excluded and then the closer the offense is to that ten year mark (without going over) the less weight it has.

Re: a pd falls | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:08:45 -0000

The link wasn't necessary, but thank you :) I'm very interested in reading the resignation letter. I bet it's vitriolic.

Re: Lots of bills reported out of committee | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:58:49 -0000

On 0708 - we all know how fluid parole's definition of "violent offender" is; so how far before they take the stance that the statute doesn't limit them to the listed offenses.

Edit: Umm, yeah, that made no sense. Sorry.

Re: Studies on efficacy of registries and residency restrictions | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:09:25 -0000

The non-wrapping of URLs in the comments is bugging me. I'll have to find a fix for it. In the meantime, I'm going to edit that, if you don't mind, so it doesn't run off into the sidebar like that.

As to your comment, I think the lack of readily available studies on this crucial matter is very telling. There is no scientific basis (as of yet) for this push in favor of residency restrictions. For all we know, they may be utterly useless or counter-productive. I think some defense organization needs to commission a study on this immediately, before it is too late.

Re: New guestblogger | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:20:28 -0000

Now what are you saying? Pretty women can't be lawyers?

Re: Studies on efficacy of registries and residency restrictions | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:12:25 -0000

If you'd like, sure! Alternatively, I think you can use HTML in the comments.

So the tag would be:

< a href="http://www.google.com" >Google< /a > (without the spaces before and after the < and >

and that would produce:

Google

Re: Studies on efficacy of registries and residency restrictions | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:18:35 -0000

You know what, you're absolutely right! I don't have my e-mail address anywhere! No wonder I haven't received any spam e-mails lately.

threegenerations at gmail dot com

Re: Serious Proposed Changes to DUI Statute | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:03:11 -0000

So many things wrong with this bill. The car forfeiture, the inability to challenge probable cause. Ugh.

Re: Documents obtained In Re: Sherri Jefferson | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:22:40 -0000

Well, I've long wondered that. Sorry, Audacity ;)

Seriously, though, I'm not a white, west-coast city boy and I think this is outrageous. I was sitting at my desk, reading the affidavits with one hand on my forehead, aghast!

This treatment of PDs and the lack of attention by any media outlets has to stop.

What was all that nonsense about entering through a particular door???

Re: Serious Proposed Changes to DUI Statute | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:13:45 -0000

The more I read this, the more appalled I am. I can't believe this piece of legislation was voted out of committee.

While you're right that the focus of the legislation probably was the criminal penalties, the administrative penalties are extremely severe and should not be enforced.

We can only hope that this dies on the floor.

Re: Documents obtained In Re: Sherri Jefferson | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:15:23 -0000

Yikes. That does not paint a pretty picture. It just shouldn't be like that.

Re: The wisdom of “open pleas” | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 06:36:06 -0000

I think there's a difference between what you're saying and what I meant by an open plea. If the sentence is, say, a cap of 5 years with the right to argue for less, then sure.

But if sentence is "whatever the judge wants to give you" with no recommendation by the state, then I think you're putting the client in a really bad spot, because you have no indication at all of what he'll end up serving.

Recently, I saw a guy plead to murder with no agreed upon sentence. What the heck is the point of that? If you're going to plead to murder with no low sentence agreed upon beforehand, might as well go to trial! IIRC, this guy got 60.

Re: A review of Connecticut’s prison overcrowding problem | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:42:05 -0000

I'm not sure if that number is readily available, but yes, you're right.

At least "mandatory minimums" don't really mean "mandatory minimums". Although with parole's unfettered discretion, who knows.

As for parole releasing scores of inmates to alleviate the prison population problem, it would seem to me to be a quick fix (and one that has been applied in the past). Honestly, and I know we agree on this, there has to be an system-wide change in the application of parole laws; the lengths of sentences of offenses and of course, a clearer demarcation between violent and non-violent.

Re: A review of Connecticut’s prison overcrowding problem | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:27:58 -0000

Mandatory-minimum sentences don't prevent parole release, is what I meant.

Re: A review of Connecticut’s prison overcrowding problem | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 06:50:15 -0000

Isn't that partly because parole isn't available for those sentences?

Re: “tender years” exception to hearsay | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:01:14 -0000

Yeah, you're absolutely right. Crawford would prohibit the admission of such statements. What's troubling, however, is that legislators are still proposing such bills. I'm assuming that whoever conducts their research would have stumbled across Snowden and disregarded it for some reason.

For those interested, I'll create a new post on it, but in the meantime, here's the decision:

State v. Snowden [pdf]

Re: Videotaped interrogations gets pilot program | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:48:57 -0000

Karoli, this is a measure that has been proposed before, but didn't get funding. It has been getting more favor across the country because of the rash of exonerations and false confessions. In particular, I remember a MN study where there was initial resistance from law enforcement, but after a few years (maybe more) of its implementation, they swore by it.

You can't go wrong with this if your true goal is "the truth".

Thankfully there are no provisions that require a supervisor's permission - as with the feds.

Re: testing new design | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:57:17 -0000

No, it isn't based on K2 (at least not that I know of). It is Brian Gardner's Blue Zinfandel.

What sidebar tweaking would you suggest? It is a bit more spacious, which is why I like it.

Re: Minorities fare worse after being pulled over | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:47:12 -0000

I wonder if such an analysis is even feasible.

Re: Geographical sentencing disparities | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 02 May 2007 20:50:36 -0000

That definitely plays a large role. That's what we always joke about smaller jurisdictions - simple possession is just as bad as multiple murders. But that's a problem and it isn't right.

Then again, the only "real" solution is some sort of sentencing guideline and we've seen how well that's worked.

Re: Browser poll | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 10 May 2007 16:34:52 -0000

Well, I wanted to distinguish between those who "visit" my site and those who "read the blog". While visitors might happen upon the blog via searches or random links, the readers are the ones that come and leave comments and are repeat visitors. So I wanted to parse those out from the "Page view: 1; Duration: 0.00" crowd.

Re: Browser poll | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 10 May 2007 20:28:25 -0000

You're right. I didn't think of that.

By the way, that absolutely sucks. Who would do that? Block a browser! Never heard of it.

Re: CT jury selection takes longest: Why it is not a bad thing | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 May 2007 10:50:31 -0000

I do not have those statistics off-hand, but if my memory serves me right, the national average is that about 4-7% of cases go to trial. I'd also be willing to bet that CT is within that national average (as is SC).

So all states are devoting similar percentages of resources to jury trials.

I think you're making the erroneous assumption that no one in CT is under pressure to plead guilty. The same pressure exists everywhere. However, when selecting a jury - the very people that will decide whether to deprive an individual of liberty, the more time we spend effectively choosing the right people, the better it is.

I noted SC takes 30 minutes on average. On average, that is barely enough time to get to know the names of each juror and ask basic biographical information. In Connecticut, you question each juror individually and get to ask them detailed questions about their biases, their preferences, their openness. That is what serves us all better, in my opinion.

I also don't think calling Connecticut's system "luxurious" is appropriate. I don't think anything associated with a criminal trial is "luxurious". "Appropriate" might be a better word.

Now that's not to say that the average may have been pushed upward due to some cases where the attorneys are incredibly slow; but my basic point is more time > less time spent picking a jury.

Re: CT jury selection takes longest: Why it is not a bad thing | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 May 2007 11:17:46 -0000

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "cost", then. If you are referring to financial cost, then I'd have to disagree. I don't think any cost is too great to ensure that all defendants receive fair trials by unbiased jurors.

As far as having to wait a while to get a jury trial; sure that's the process, but I don't think many defendants would complain that they want an immediate trial and that their trials were held up for lack of jurors. More often than not the trials aren't held immediately for reasons of investigation, pre-trial negotiation, discovery, etc. A lack of jurors is hardly a concern.

Most defendants feel "pressure" to waive their Constitutional rights and plead guilty because they are all too aware that the sentence meted out after trial is almost invariably greater than the sentence they would receive via a plea agreement. The state holds that over them (in fact, the most common threat is "We'll go to trial and you'll get the maximum") and wields that sword effectively.

If you want a trial, you'll get one within a reasonable time period. The speedy trial act was enacted for that purpose.

Re: Things you should tell your client | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 May 2007 13:45:13 -0000

Oh that is fantastic! Is a copy of that available online?

Re: Jury selection in “jury box voire dire” jurisdictions | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 May 2007 20:33:53 -0000

Even if it is "in private", is it still on the record? I'd imagine it would have to be...

Re: It’s a mad, mad, M.A.D.D. world! | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 17 May 2007 08:38:39 -0000

WIB: It's bs when our clients say it; not when "respected" members of society say it.

In fact, a lot of times, our clients are the ones that have the history to back up such claims.

Windy: I suspect that's true, but one can hope, right?

Re: US House passes loan repayment bill | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 17 May 2007 08:40:13 -0000

I edited it for you. The code should work <strike>strike</strike>

Yep. The code is < strike > text < /strike > (without spaces)

Re: MySpace saga | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:56:38 -0000

Yeah, but it's not as much the ability to turn off the computer as it is instilling values in the kids (and common sense).

Kids are increasingly being left to their own devices.

Re: How did that happen? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 20 May 2007 16:06:25 -0000

In the first case, we were lucky as the verdict was not guilty; in the second, it's a legal argument, so I'll just have to appeal it again.

Your story about the juror that wasn't paying attention during voire dire is particularly interesting. If you scroll down on the main page of this blog, you'll see that I've been having a discussion with Mark Bennett for the past week and more about jury selection and the advantages of questioning jurors all at once or individually. Here, in CT, we pick jurors individually and I'd say it is less likely that a juror doesn't pay attention. Your thoughts about the whole process would be nice.

Additionally, it is made particularly difficult to point out several important aspects of the case because we don't have opening argument. I'd love that opportunity to remind the jury to remember the facts, because it is their memory that counts and to set up the story for them, so they know what to look out for and where it will fit in. As it stands, all we have are closings and there's always the issue of balancing length of a closing with facts to remind the jury of your defense.

Edit: Okay, so those posts don't show up on the main page, click on the category "juries" and you will see the posts.

Re: MySpace saga | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 20 May 2007 17:46:58 -0000

That's a discussion for another day and not this forum ;)

(In that, I have a lot to say, but I'm pretty sure this isn't the right place to say it)

Re: two new blogs | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 28 May 2007 10:46:16 -0000

Thank you. I hope this entices you to become a regular reader! :)

Re: two new blogs | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 29 May 2007 22:31:15 -0000

Oh that's not necessary, but thank you!

Re: What is appropriate compensation for a wrongful conviction? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:39:19 -0000

I agree that there needs to be a repayment scheme. While it may be a starting point to use the "salary" earned during the last year of liberty, there needs to be some consideration taken for where the person was in their life (in terms of education, age, etc.). There has to be a base amount of compensation per year, regardless of any income earning potential.

Re: CT Senate passes harsh “Jessica’s Law” and “tender years” exception | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:13:00 -0000

I've edited your comment so that the link doesn't run off into the sidebar.

As to Mark Lunsford, yeah it is so bizarre. I bet the family is wondering what will happen next.

It just goes to show that these statutory rape laws are pretty outdated and the age gap needs to be widened if they are to exist. Why non-consensual sex between teens wouldn't fall within regular rape laws is beyond me.

Re: Why don’t we have jury sentencing in non-capital criminal cases? | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:45:14 -0000

The one obvious thing I didn't mention - which you touch upon - is cost. If there were jury sentencings, the cost of the CJ system would skyrocket.

I think I disagree that juries hear mitigation evidence. They don't, really. Unless we are talking about capital penalty trials (and that's the dichotomy). In normal trials, they are the arbiters of fact and nothing else.

In capital penalty phase trials, they are still finding facts and whether the facts support "aggravating" or "mitigating" factors. If a certain number of factors are met, then you get death (or life). To have them sentence defendants would be to change the very function of the jury system.

I'm not sure I follow your complaint about LWOP sentences in first degree murder cases. Here, there is only one offense - murder and there is no parole for defendants convicted of murder.

How is it an "enhancement" in your jurisdiction?

Re: Why don’t we have jury sentencing in non-capital criminal cases? | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:37:57 -0000

Can you get life sentences for crimes other than murder (in your state)?

I agree that that penalty phases aren't all about facts, but they are primarily. Jurors are given two choices: life or death. You assume life, unless the state proves either a) or b) or c) (or some variation thereof), in which case, you return a verdict of death.

A normal sentencing is quite different. For one, there are ranges of sentences and "fact-finding" in those sentencings goes only so far. That, I think, is the inherent difference between a non-dp sentencing and a dp sentencing and why I think judges are better equipped to handle non-dp sentencings than juries.

Re: Why don’t we have jury sentencing in non-capital criminal cases? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:29:25 -0000

The last point that you mention is something I was thinking about. I'd certainly like juries to be informed of the consequences of the verdict.

This occurred to me while I was watching a special on Heidi Fleiss, whose state trial jury returned a guilty verdict on pandering and not guilty on cocaine charges because they thought the pandering charges were less serious, but in fact called for a 3 year min-man. Then there was the whole saga of a new trial because of vote trading and what-not.

I think it would help the defense's case if juries were informed of the minimum and maximum sentences allowable by statute for the offenses charged.

Re: Julie Amero granted new trial | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:28:07 -0000

I agree. There was some major goof up here. At least the conviction has now been overturned.

As to how this happened, my best guess is that the prosecutor himself wasn't too well versed in malware and did what he thought was best: stick by the jury's verdict and the testimony of his "expert".

Re: Glenarlow Wilson wins state Habeas and State appeals | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:05:16 -0000

Karoli, I wish I could answer that. I have had similar cases where the state has decided to pursue an appeal.

The stay is automatic and pretty universal. The Connecticut Practice Book provides that there will be an automatic stay in criminal and non-criminal matters when an appeal is taken.

I suspect the State is appealing the habeas court's restructuring of the sentence. Typically, a habeas court cannot modify a sentence, but only vacate it. The only case in which a habeas court can impose a new sentence is if the claim was a breach of plea agreement.

However, I have not personally dealt with 8th Amendment claims, so I have little idea of the ideal remedy in such cases.

Re: Glenarlow Wilson wins state Habeas and State appeals | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:22:17 -0000

[quote comment="1969"]Gideon,

Thanks for the clarification on that. it does make sense.[/quote]
No problem. I'd still like to see the opinion and the notification of grounds for appeal to make up my mind, but that's my best guess.

Re: So what happened to the death penalty bill? | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:27:22 -0000

[quote comment="1955"]Those are some insane proposals. The last transcript I had on a d.p. case (just the trial, not the pleadings and motions hearings) was in excess of 3,000 pages. You cannot even read and analyze the thing in that amount of time. Such time limitations would lead to per se ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.[/quote]
Well that's just it. It killed a perfectly reasonable death penalty bill. Word is that the proponent is a criminal defense lawyer. :(

Go figure.

Re: So what happened to the death penalty bill? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:22:54 -0000

[quote comment="2000"]"Word is that the proponent is a criminal defense lawyer. "

Where do you get that? That language has prosecutor written all over it.[/quote]
Fargo, I must confess that the name of the proponent escapes me at this point and I cannot seem to locate it. My information as to that aspect is, indeed, "third-hand".

Re: Motion to Suppress: an untapped opportunity | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:34:17 -0000

I agree. Any pre-trial opportunity you get to make the state show its hand is to be utilized.

Re: Motion to Suppress: an untapped opportunity | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:11:58 -0000

Absolutely. Same here. We do have a doctrine that allows review of Constitutional claims that have not been preserved, but for the most part, you have to make the argument!

I once read a transcript where the attorney said: "I make a motion for judgment of acquittal. I don't care to argue."

What?

Re: En Garde! | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:05:10 -0000

Connecticut General Statute 54-82b states:

§ 54-82b*. Right to trial by jury.

(a) The party accused in a criminal action in the Superior Court may demand a trial by jury of issues which are triable of right by a jury. There is no right to trial by jury in criminal actions where the maximum penalty is a fine of one hundred ninety-nine dollars or in any matter involving violations payable through the Centralized Infractions Bureau where the maximum penalty is a fine of five hundred dollars or less.

(b) In criminal proceedings the judge shall advise the accused of his right to trial by jury at the time he is put to plea and, if the accused does not then claim a jury, his right thereto shall be deemed waived, but if a judge acting on motion made by the accused within ten days after judgment finds that such waiver was made when the accused was not fully cognizant of his rights or when, in the opinion of the judge, the proper administration of justice requires it, the judge shall vacate the judgment and cause the proceeding to be set for jury trial.

(c) In any criminal trial by a jury, except as otherwise provided by law, such trial shall be by a jury of six.

Not quite everything, but close enough :D

Re: Many sex offenders end up at shelters | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:24:03 -0000

Wow. I want that case!

Re: Problematic probation terms | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:53:51 -0000

One of the Supreme Court decisions Miranda is referring to is State v. Faraday [pdf]

With those principles in mind, we conclude that the trial court was not required to notify the defendant, upon entering his plea, that a failure to acknowledge guilt could result in a violation of the condition of his probation requiring sex offender treatment. First, the conduct proscribed by a particular condition of probation is not a ‘‘direct consequence’’ of the plea. State v. Andrews, supra, 253 Conn. 504. In the present case, the defendant does not dispute that the trial court stated to him, upon entering his plea, that he was to undergo sex offender treatment as a condition of his probation.

At that point, it was not incumbent upon the trial court also to list all the potential conduct that could result in a discharge from that program. Furthermore, because the office of adult probation is free to modify the terms of the defendant’s probation at any time; State v. Smith, supra, 255 Conn. 841; it is unrealistic to expect the court to canvass a defendant regarding the conduct necessary to comply with those terms. Finally, § 53a-32a was in effect at the time the defendant entered his plea, which explicitly provided that a discharge from sex offender treatment for a failure to acknowledge guilt will automatically trigger a probation revocation proceeding.

This belies the defendant’s contention that he was without knowledge, when he entered his plea, that his failure to acknowledge the commission of the charged crimes would result in a violation of probation. Nevertheless, the defendant argues that the trial court could not revoke his probation based on his failure to admit guilt because such a requirement was inconsistent with his guilty plea under the Alford doctrine. We are not persuaded.

Re: Problematic probation terms | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:58:21 -0000

WIB, the opinion linked to above has cites to jurisdictions where

a defendant, who enters a guilty plea under the Alford doctrine, cannot be deemed to have violated his probation for a failure to admit guilt unless he specifically was informed during the plea canvass that such conduct was proscribed. See, e.g., People v. Walters, 164 Misc. 2d 986, 988–89, 627 N.Y.S.2d 289 (1995); State v. Birchler, Ohio Court of Appeals, Docket No. 00AP-311 (October 5, 2000), 2000 Ohio App. Lexis 4622, *3.

Re: I’ve got a bone to pick with you | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:44:09 -0000

[quote comment="2354"]Some of these comments might be a bit out of context:

Take this deal; I’ll get you out tomorrow: This might be true. While it offends my sense of justice, this is often the only way for people to terminate criminal incarceration. There are many circumstances where it is based on a good-faith belief and understanding of local law.

Don’t worry, they won’t convict you: This is a prediction. It could be based on reliable assumptions. In some cases, lawyers know the way judges think so well, they know what they will convict and acquit on.

If you take this offer, I can’t help you: Stating that a defense lawyer can be of minimal assistance to someone that pleads guilty is hardly “bad” advocacy.

I don’t represent snitches: This can be viewed two ways. The first is that someone chooses not to represent informants. This is a complex issue of professional responsibility. I don’t think that this is unethical per se. After all, it is conceivable that an attorney has moral problems with the “snitching” process. (And, as some have pointed out, the use of CIs might actually contribute to a decline in public safety and false convictions.) It could also be taken as a strategic view that one should not assist a client in cooperating with the government. While I don’t favor this view, some have argued that it is defensible in some jurisdictions because the government has put CIs in danger.

Give me more money or I won’t go to court for you: Probably unethical.[/quote]My problem with the first "promise" is that often times, attorneys can't get the clients out before the end of their term and promise it anyway, just so they take the deal. If they promise it, I'd like to see some follow-up and at least confirmation that the promise was indeed made.

To the second point you raise; it's one thing to give an opinion based on the evidence you think the state has; another to assure the client that he should not take the deal because the State "has nothing". If such assurances are given, they should be document and based on actual facts and knowledge of the case, after investigation. Even then, I'm not so sure I'd ever say something like that.

The third point, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. There are lawyers that will not effectively negotiate with the state for plea offers and there are lawyers that will not go to trial. I think by precluding either of the options you are shortchanging your client.

[quote comment="2358"]John Wesley Hall, Jr., who is an esteemed and highly decorated criminal defense lawyer, (he's also the guy who argued Wilson v. Arkansas doesn't represent snitches so I'm not sure that is necessarily the work of a bad lawyer.[/quote]

As to the snitching issue; I guess that's a personal preference, but I have a huge problem with it. Our jobs are to zealously defend our clients against charges levied by the State. If your client has information that would help him get a fairer sentence, then why would you not use that? I agree as the safety issue; it should be carefully considered. I don't like the blanket position, though.

Re: Should we be selective? Part II | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:21:24 -0000

[quote comment="2386"]I think there is a distinction.

A “snitch” in “snitching” hasn’t done anything criminal. He has strategic decision. You might conclude that actively participating in snitching (as lawyer are often asked to do) damages society as a whole. Or, you might conclude that it is bad strategy (which includes “bad for your client’s life).

Someone accused of child molesting has been accused of doing things that a criminal. Depending on your view of the evidence, you might conclude that 1) he has, indeed, done something bad; and 2) you can’t represent him.

These are different questions people need to ask themselves. Personally, I would represent people cooperating with the government (and deciding, on a case-by-case basis whether they could be protected and whether they would do any better not cooperating – which is often the case), and people accused of child molestation.[/quote]
Sure, but isn't that what criminal defense lawyers do? Defend people accused of doing something bad? My point merely was that while I can understand where individual facts of a case might lead someone to decide that they are unable to represent that particular defendant, it is quite something else to exclude a whole class of defendants based on some moral stand.

Re: Deal raises questions about probation’s reach in sex-offender cases | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:17:36 -0000

Thanks. I was hoping you'd chime in. I'll look for the opinion when it comes out.

Re: Do we have a “look”? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:47:37 -0000

How badly? :D

Also, black every day? Really?

Re: Do we have a “look”? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 20:24:51 -0000

[quote comment="2568"]Yes, I love me some Johnny. But seriously. Every day, for these endless years, I have worn something black. On the day of last state of the union, I did black from head to toe. Just my own little statement.

Prosecutor: we had one who really liked mini skirts, leather knee high boots and midriff shirts to show her piercing. No lie. I heard that one judge expressed her displeasure with this display and the (DV) prosecutor explained, "My boyfriend likes me to dress this way."[/quote]
A Domestic Violence prosecutor no less! LOL. :D

Re: Is failure to register a continuing offense? Part II | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:31:24 -0000

Yeah, realistically I don't think the state is going to charge multiple counts, unless they want to really stick it to the client and be jerks about it. I mean, it's possible.

The FTA analogy could be a good one. There are differences, but at first blush I don't think they are fatal.

Re: Runaway train | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:32:43 -0000

[quote comment="2879"]Awesome song/video. Good job.

In my opinion, being an adult child of an alcoholic is almost a prerequisite to public defending. You try to fix the unfixable, and fail, and keep doing it, over and over and over. Because the next time might be the time you succeed. Just one of my many theories;-)

Have a nice day!!![/quote]Thanks!

There are days when we all feel sad and disappointed. I just wanted to remind everyone that we are doing good things and to keep our chins up.

I truly believe we are engaged in a noble profession.

Re: Theme itch | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:38:02 -0000

Yeah, me too. I started drawing a design and I should have an idea ready soon. That's where the problem comes in. I will be unable to do anything after that...so I'll have to keep scouring wp themes until I find something that's similar.

I tried looking at the tutorials for creating a WP theme, but I have no knowledge of CSS and PHP, so everything was a little too dense.

Re: Poll: Most Evil Legal Principles | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:46:20 -0000

[quote comment="2937"]Claim not preserved for appeal. Harmless error is a close second for me. What irritates me about appeal preservation is that legal issues are lost, and I do not see what interests are served (apart from the appellate court's desire to have a free weekend).[/quote]
I agree. They're both very close for me. On the one hand, "harmless error" is thrown about with such abandon that it sickens me, but on the other, it's almost like they don't want to. The record is adequate - just decide it.

[quote comment="2939"]If by "reasonable suspicion" you mean the idea that a Terry Stop is somehow not an arrest, that would get my vote. Terry is the worst Fourth Amendment case ever.[/quote]
Yeah, I was referring to the "concept" of reasonable suspicion, which is no more than just an uninformed hunch.

Re: Poll: Most Evil Legal Principles | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:33:43 -0000

[quote comment="2947"]I'm not sure this counts as the type of "legal principle" you are asking about, but how about overpunishment for 100% guilty defendants?

I'm mostly talking about cases where the defendant is looking at 25 to Life for his 3rd possession of 1 to 4 grams of cocaine (like in Texas).

I think there's a good chance people 100 years from now will look back on that and find it immoral.[/quote]
I agree. While not a "legal principle" it definitely is one of the major problems facing the criminal justice system. Unnecessarily lengthy punishments for non-violent offenses do nothing other than be a drain on resources and result in prison overcrowding.

Re: Poll: Most Evil Legal Principles | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:22:07 -0000

[quote comment="2959"]So, how is this case working out for TN? I keep arguing this and no-one listens.

"Our supreme court has stated that "it is inappropriate for the appellate courts to preside over the creation of a body of 'harmless error law' " arising from the continued failure of a trial court to meet procedural requirements. *128 State v. Gorman, 628 S.W.2d 739, 740 (Tenn.1982). We believe it to be similarly inappropriate for a continuing practice of prosecutors using biblical references during trial. At some point, the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process will require that the continued practice not be subject to the harmless error rule."

State v. Richardson
995 S.W.2d 119
Tenn.Crim.App.,1998.
Aug 13, 1998 (Approx. 10 pages)[/quote]
Looks like non-precedent. Someone got lucky.

Re: Poll: Most Evil Legal Principles | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:58:45 -0000

[quote comment="2968"]"Totality of the circumstances": The inkblot test for affirming convictions. The "let's not articulate a clear rule, instead, let's just convict because it feels right" standard of review in criminal cases. This "principal" creates more Alice-in-Wonderland, arbitrary and capricious results than any other one I can name. Therefore, it is the most evil.[/quote]
Ooh! Good one.

Re: Racial disparity, cont’d… | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:55:12 -0000

I think the problem goes several layers deep. It depends on so much - severity of offense (obviously), criminal history (which could be a product of race - black kids tend to get arrested more frequently than white kids) and mitigating factors, usually remorse, family ties, etc.

Race plays a role in this disparity and in sentencing disparities. How and how much, I don't know. But it's time people started calling it what it is and addressing the problem.

Re: Three years speedy enough? | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:37:16 -0000

[quote comment="3019"]Is it a fundamental right that a person be provided with an interpreter? Moreover, most speedy trial statutes require that the defendant move for a speedy trial, and many have exceptions. I am not an expert in Maryland criminal procedure, are you?

Moreover, Gideon, your condescension is disgusting. People ought to be outraged--especially since evidence is coming to light that this guy speaks English.

I am sure that you would fight tooth and nail for your client. That's your job.[/quote]

The fundamental right is that the defendant be aware of the charges against and be able to assist in his own defense. If he is unable to understand the proceedings against him, then he cannot assist in his own defense. That's the fundamental right.

Yes, most speedy trial statutes are written from the point of view of the defendant. In this case, the defendant filed an equivalent speedy trial motion; the grounds being the same that would support any such speedy trial motion - excessive delay in prosecution.

There is a difference between speaking English and understanding the proceedings. Just because an individual speaks English (how proficiently, we do not know), doesn't mean that he is capable of comprehending legal terms and the meanings of legal proceedings.

The incompetency standard is a nice corollary here - whether the individual has the capacity (be it mental or linguistic) to understand the proceedings.

Condescending? Perhaps. Amused and frustrated? More so.

Re: Three years speedy enough? | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:43:46 -0000

[quote comment="3023"]Somehow I doubt that this turkey's knowledge of English is so limited that he did not understand the nature of the charges against him or could not assist in his own defense. In any event, his asylum should be revoked and he should be shipped back to Liberia. I am sure that the authorities there have little patience for child rapists. Perhaps, he'll have wished he got his trial here. One can only hope.[/quote]
I will pass no judgment on whether he is guilty or not (what did you expect? this is a pd blog ;) ). However, I did acknowledge in my post that someone messed up big time here.

Re: Eyewitness fallibility and “thousands” of wrongful convictions | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:19:38 -0000

I knew I was missing something. I have all these things marked in my reader, but I must have overlooked it.

Re: CT rejects “automatic standing” rule | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:09:43 -0000

I was too. However, they indicate in their opinion that on at least two prior occasions, they were asked to decide the issue and declined to do so, because it wasn't the right case.

Whether that means that the record wasn't adequate or that the record wasn't adequate to reject "automatic standing" is left to one's imagination and bias.

Re: Residency restrictions map | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:25:54 -0000

Ilah, thanks for the clarifications. Don't know how I messed that up.

Re: Residency restrictions map | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:04:57 -0000

[quote comment="3097"]Easy to do, and in this case, the more you know about the laws the easier it is to get them confused. Indiana also made the legislative decision to apply the "Sexually Violent Predator" label to certain crimes retroactively, and some of those crimes also make a registrant an OAC. And both SVP and OAC are subject to some of the same restrictions.

There is a seperate process to get the SVP label removed, so I suppose one could get the OAC label removed but not SVP, or SVP removed but not OAC, and then there wouldn't be a difference in the restrictions.

Just to make it more interesting, the law now says that anyone who wasn't incarcerated, or on probation/parole in 1994 can apply to have pre-2007 requirements/restrictions rather than the current ones--even if they have the label of SVP or OAC.

All of that was in the same bill. All of them, in one place or another, overlap and sometimes contradict each other.[/quote]
Sigh.

So I'd be correct in assuming that the SVP restrictions are stricter than the OAC restrictions?

Re: Connecticut readers | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:09:53 -0000

Hey! 43% ain't bad!

Re: Triple homicide behind calls for review of parole system. Or “Ugh.” | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:33:40 -0000

I will try to address each of your points in turn.

[quote comment="3100"]This is one reason why many many people dislike defense lawyers. It's one thing to defend your clients with the zealousness of a tiger, quite another to make arguments about criminal justice that discount one very very important thing about the criminal justice system. In addition, criminal defense lawyers tend to blame society when ex-cons reoffend because the prisons don't rehabilitate. The blame lies with the ex-con.

[/quote]

I want to be very clear. (I thought I was, but I guess not.) I am in no way commenting on their offenses themselves. As I stated in my post, these are awful crimes, depraved and heinous. There is no doubt about that. Which is why I resisted posting, because I had nothing but profanities to offer. Then this story about parole comes along, which stirred me enough to start a discussion on the law and policy. The focus of my post was on the misguided call for a review of parole procedures and I do think this call is misguided.

As for rehab, it is (or used to be) a goal of incarceration. If we are incarcerating individuals on the grounds that they did "something bad", then the logical next step is to do something to "fix" them or rehabilitate them. Or have you joined the silent movement that has abandoned all rehabilitation efforts?

[quote]What is really off-putting about your post is your dismissal of the three victims here. Three people are dead, and before that suffered unimaginably. The survivor probably would give anything, anything, to be able to trade his life for one of his family members lives. You have the unmitigated gall to suggest that the state should not look over its parole procedures and eligibility for parole. Whatever. When people are discovered to be innocent, what do you think about prosecutors who take the attitude "Well it was a terrible thing, but you know, sh_t happens". You don't like it very much I am sure. Well, guess what, your attitude is similar.[/quote]

Where have I dismissed the victims and this tragedy? It is not the focus of my post. I am not commenting on their acts.

My point was and is that the parole board could have done nothing to foresee this, so to blame them is misguided and incorrect.

[quote]The older of these two pieces of human detritus should have been locked away for the rest of his life. He was a career criminal with numerous convictions. Moreover, his numerous home invasions (which are burglaries where the burglar knows or should know that people are actually home) should have sent a red flag to the parole board. People who are willing on numerous occasions to enter people's homes while those people are homes are willing, if push comes to shove (i.e., if the occupants decide to resist), to, at a minimum, cause serious bodily injury to anyone in the house. Plus, as this case amply demonstrates, the temptation, once one of these home invaders has control of the occupants, to abuse the occupants is hard for career criminals to resist. And Mr. Moral Highground, let me ask you this, if someone had asked you about the older guy, would you, with the knowledge of the parole board, have risked your life on (a) that he would never burgle again and (b) if he did, that he wouldn't hurt anyone. While I agree that is a bit of an unfair question, the point of it is that when we release criminals, we are taking a risk. And when truly awful crimes like this occur, we sometimes need to re-evaluate our policies. The "violent/non-violent" distinction here was silly, as the older guy's prior (and repeated) crimes should that he was clearly willing to hurt vulnerable people. And let's put it this way, I am the father of two young sons. If someone is in my house, I will fight to the death to protect them. To the death. People who break into houses repeatedly know that they may have to deal with people like that. They are prepared to inflict violence.[/quote]I disagree with you that all people who have burgled are willing to engage in violence. For example, today also brings the story of the man who fled a house in the process of a burglary when he discovered there was a 15-year old boy there.

I understand your point about what a parent would do. I don't dispute that. Again, I am not commenting on the actual crime itself. There is no wiggle room on the awfulness of these acts. They are truly horrific.

[quote]The parole board is not the only problem here. The other is the law. The older guy should have gotten a life without parole sentence for his crimes. A 44 year-old with a history of crime as serious as his has proven beyond any doubt his complete inability to conform his actions to law. The law should therefore have provided for his lifelong incapacitation.

As for the death penalty, this crime clearly qualifies as the "worst of the worst". What kind of disgusting subhuman detritus rapes a girl in the presence of her family and then burns the family to death? These people don't deserve another breath of air.[/quote]Which brings me back to my first point - rehabilitation. Clearly there is something going on that is not being addressed. Taxpayer money would be better spent delving into why this individual has the desire to constantly burgle. Perhaps it is to feed a drug addiction. We won't know if we don't ask the questions.

I am anti-death penalty as a principle, so I'm not going to comment on that. I don't want to make this another discussion about the death penalty.

Re: Triple homicide behind calls for review of parole system. Or “Ugh.” | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:06:27 -0000

One more. You said:
[quote]The “violent/non-violent” distinction here was silly[/quote]

The reason I brought that up is to highlight the fact that under the currently existed parole scheme, those who are not violent get classified as such and have to serve almost all of their sentences. In such a scheme, there isn't much room for more harshness.

The parole scheme is harsh as it stands. If, under that harsh scheme, these two were deemed fit for re-entry, then this truly is out of the ordinary (in more ways than one).

Which brings me back to my basic point: Parole would have had to be a fortune teller to know this was going to happen.

Let me repeat this, lest I am not clear enough: I am not condoning these acts, nor am I defending them.

Re: Triple homicide behind calls for review of parole system. Or “Ugh.” | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:16:11 -0000

[quote comment="3107"]Gideon, you set up a straw man. I don't think that you are condoning these acts. What I am saying is that after three people have been murdered (in a most gruesome way) that you are saying categorically that the people who let these people out should not even question the system. That is arrogance beyond belief. Remember, we are talking about public safety here. And, when the shoe is on the other foot and some prosecutor doesn't think that an innocent person being convicted shouldn't prompt an evaluation of why and whether something can be done in the future to prevent such a miscarriage, you guys are positively apoplectic.[/quote]I am not smart enough to know how to intentionally create a straw man :)

The questions are being asked and I am providing one answer.

(As an aside, I find it quite ironic that I am defending the parole board.)

[quote]As for your other points, to be honest, I think you miss mine. I NEVER said that all people who burgle present heighten threats of violence, what I did say is that a guy who repeatedly home invades (i.e., when he knows or should know that people will be home) like the older guy here, then he is an danger, and he (a) should not have been paroled and (b) should be locked up for the rest of his life.[/quote]If I did, I apologize. I will still disagree with you. The difference between robbery and burglary is the use of force. Repeated convictions for burglary, but none for robbery should indicate that he will turn violent at some point, or that he is not violent? Based on the evidence before it, the parole board could not have foreseen this.

[quote]As for "rehabilitation", I would argue that Connecticut made every effort here to rehab this scum. Look at the supervision. But the issue, really, is your facile blame share here. Society is not at fault here at all. The lack of rehabilitation is used as a hammer to undermine the moral authority we have as a society to lock up criminals. And taxpayer money is better spent incapacitating these people than trying to rehab them. Yes, I agree that we should try to rehab criminals. But, rehab or not, criminals with the 44 year old's history should be locked up for good.[/quote] Again, I will disagree. I think efforts should be made to rehabilitate and harsh penalties should be used only as a last resort. As of now, there is no evidence of rehabilitation either way, but I suspect that there wasn't much.

I will give you this: If efforts were made and they failed and he continued to re-offend as he did, then the repeat offender statute should have been used.

Re: Nino | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:05:13 -0000

Heh. Heh. :D :P

Re: Death charged | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:30:16 -0000

[quote comment="3148"]This case illustrates why a mandatory death penalty should be law. These men deserve to pay with their lives for this crime. Woodson should be overruled.[/quote]
You bring up an interesting point.

Just recently, a death penalty Constitutionality hearing concluded in Hartford, where the defense argued that the death penalty in CT was unconstitutional because it was arbitrarily sought.

There's a lot of movement in the law right now and we've got front row seats.

Re: Death charged | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:51:22 -0000

[quote comment="3150"]I am aware of that case. It's silliness. A defendant, for many reasons, does not have the right to have some cosmic fairness in the prosecution of the death penalty. Some jurisdictions are more lenient; some jurisdictions increase or decrease their harshness over time (due to budgeting, number of murderers, different prosecutors, different plea policies).

If, as some suggest, that the death penalty deters murders, then all this nonsense carries a price in blood.[/quote]
You think it's silly that the death penalty should be applied across the board, without arbitrariness?

Re: Death charged | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:31:21 -0000

[quote comment="3168"]Gideon asks: "Can they get a fair trial anywhere in this State given the publicity this crime has received?"

Why wouldn't they? This is not some CNN-FOX whodunit! What possible defense can they raise? "I had a rough childhood?" "Life isn't fair?"

The "fair trial" concept does not, in the real world, apply to all criminal cases in the sense that there's doubt as to whether a defendant can get one. There are no doubts here. Their fair trial should consist of a finding of their guilt by the trier of fact, and then sentencing consistent with whatever guidelines are used in cases such as this. They should have no problem getting a "fair trial."[/quote]I should have said "impartial" trial as in an impartial jury.

Given Attorney Dearington's statement that "the public wants them fried tomorrow", it is pretty clear that the consensus is that these men should be put to death.

Where are you, given this publicity, going to find 12 members for a jury that haven't made up their minds?

That was my point; albeit not clearly worded.

As to your comment - your version of a fair trial here presupposes their guilt. While it may be evident to almost everyone, a jury still has to find them guilty. I doubt there'll even be a guilt phase of this trial. There will be pleas and it will proceed straight to the penalty phase. There, the question definitely will be, can we seat an impartial jury?

Re: Loan forgiveness bill passes Senate! | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:23:48 -0000

No doubt. Great way to end the week.

Re: Triple homicide behind calls for review of parole system. Or “Ugh.” | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:04:34 -0000

[quote comment="3228"]Hi Gideon,

While I can see (if not necessarily agree with) your point that the fact that these two got through the system does not necessarily mean the system is broken, I am somewhat curious about the question Sean O'Brien has asked several times on the thread.

If the situation was "reversed", so to speak, and a pair of innocent men had been convicted and spent long periods in jail based on what seemed to be convincing evidence, would you accept a statement by a district attorney that "This doesn't show that the system is broken. Shit happens."?

Or would you say that the fact that such a thing had occured was enough reason to take a long look at the system and see how future recurrences might be prevented?[/quote]
It's a good question. I think there are differences in the two situations, which warrants a review in one and not in the other.

I don't think the parole system is broken in the way people are saying it is in the aftermath of this incident.

You know what, I'll make a new post about it and hopefully we can have another lively discussion.

Re: Death charged | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:10:58 -0000

[quote comment="3229"]

Interesting question. (And I should point out at the start of this that I am not a lawyer) One point of clarification- I assume that you're talking about a jury for the penalty phase of the trial? Everyone is presumed innocent, of course, but given the facts of this particular case I think it's unlikely that the two suspects' guilt will be seriously questioned.
Unfortunately, there are no easy remedies to this problem. Even if we determine that the entire juror pool in Connecticut is irreparably prejudiced by news coverage, what do we do? Some options that occur to me, none of them particularly appealing:

- Say "the heck with it" and try anyway. Aside from the moral problems with this, trying someone with a jury that you know (or at least strongly suspect) is biased might be good grounds for appeal.(This is probably about what they'll do in real life, although the defense will probably try to at least get people who say they haven't been prejudiced by news coverage. As Gideon's later post points out, this may or may not be true)

- Conclude that an impartial jury trial is impossible and move the case to another jurisdiction. I'm not sure about the legalities of this, but the obvious practical problem is that wherever you move the trial to will quickly be saturated by media as well.

- Conclude that an impartial jury trial is impossible and dismiss the charges. I believe I've heard of this gambit being tried, but I can't cite where and I don't think it was taken all that seriously. It creates all the wrong incentives for criminals- the more infamous a crime you commit, the liklier you'll get off.

- Request to delay the trial until the media attention dies down and the story has had some time to fade. In six months or so, it's possible that people outside the Cheshire area will have forgotten about the coverage and would not be biased. Unfortunately, the issues with "speedy trial" are obvious- you're essentially condemning the defendants to a certain amount of time in jail without trial. Might it be more acceptable in the penalty phase, particularly of a capital murder case? In that case, the defendants have already presumably been found guilty, and the choice is between a death sentence and life imprisonment without parole. One could make the argument that a six-month delay will not affect their final outcome, and could actually be more just if it increases their chance of getting an impartial jury.

[/quote]

Yes, that is what I meant.

I don't think any of the first three suggestions is possible. You can't just say "the heck with it" and give it a shot. Won't happen.

I think there can be a strong argument that any jurisdiction in this State will be unable to provide an impartial juror pool. They can't transfer it to another state.

The State is not going to dismiss any charges (although if this becomes a big issue, they might be inclined to accept pleas of guilty and sentences of life instead of pursuing the death penalty).

The last point you raise is critical. This case is not going to go to trial for two, maybe three years. Will people remember it then as they do now? Certainly if this is the catalyst for some wholesale changes in the criminal justice system, they will. If it isn't, or the changes are behind the scenes, then people might forget by the time they have to pick a jury. In that case, all these problems might not exist.

Re: Loan forgiveness bill passes Senate! | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:57:26 -0000

Beautiful, isn't it? :D

Now if only they move on it quickly.

Re: Monday Morning Jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:21:58 -0000

Ah, thanks. It only goes missing when I wake up late on Mondays and have to rush to work :D

Re: Lipstick on pigs, fact vs fiction and damage done to ID reform | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:50:13 -0000

[quote comment="3302"]Gideon's World.

Erroneous convictions = need for review of justice system.

Three people tortured and burned to death by paroled career criminals = nothing to see here, move along folks.

You know, criminal defense attorneys have to vigorously represent individual defendants--they don't have to reflexively take the side of defendants as a class. I agree that the criminal justice system needs to constantly find ways to be better and more accurate. What you guys forget is that the criminal justice system is what keeps us all safe. And that is a goal which you should support, but do not seem to support.[/quote]
Yes, I am all for murder, mayhem and anarchy. Great insight.

Re: Gov. Rell proposes first changes | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:23:45 -0000

Except Rell made no such concessions. Her mandate is that all inmates convicted of Burglary 2nd are violent.

I am asking the obvious question.

Re: More on Cheshire killings | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:08:37 -0000

And you come back to this. Glad you chimed in, though. I was beginning to feel lonely in CT.

Re: A plea of not guilty is NOT evading responsibility | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:40:52 -0000

I'm not even going to pretend to understand that.

Re: A plea of not guilty is NOT evading responsibility | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:12:11 -0000

You've got the naked head of a duck. What more do you want?

Re: Loan forgiveness bill passes Senate! | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:43:44 -0000

Here's the vote:

link

Go to http://thomas.loc.gov and search for S. 1642. I can't link there, because it is a temporary link.

Re: Cheshire killings and parole fallout recap | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:07:44 -0000

For a first time offender with mental health and sexual abuse issues? I don't think so.

Re: Cheshire killings and parole fallout recap | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:03:07 -0000

[quote comment="3400"]Funny how doing something 12 times qualifies you as a first time offender.

Breaking into a home, at night, when occupants are in the home should net an adult 5 years in jail, at a minimum. If armed, the sentence should be 30 years. If occupants are attacked in any way (even if the burglar is "defending" himself), the sentence should be LWOP.

This is how to deal with home invaders. Well, actually, a better way is for the homeowners to shoot them dead.[/quote]

They were all separate counts of the same docket. If you had any concept of how criminal law works, you'd understand that in the plea bargaining process there is give and take. The State asked for 30 after 10; the judge sentenced him to 9, taking into account his "acceptance of responsibility" and co-operation and mental health issues.

It was the first time he was arrested and prosecuted. That, by definition, means that he had no prior record.

If you have no prior record, then in the criminal justice system, you are a first time offender.

First time offenders for burglaries don't get 30 years.

Re: Habeas petition denied; makes newspaper; newspaper uses wrong terms | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:08:23 -0000

The prejudice prong is.

Re: Habeas petition denied; makes newspaper; newspaper uses wrong terms | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:21:30 -0000

Jesse: Thanks for your comment :)

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is not some complicated legal concept. It is one of the most precious Constitutional rights afforded our citizens. It is also not a legal term of art, such as a Terry stop.

A Writ of Habeas Corpus is not a petition for a new trial. It is also not a technical phrase. To call it a petition for a new trial is a gross generalization and frankly an insult to the Great Writ.

I understand your point about catching the reader's attention: I would not be averse to a title like: "Judge denies X's bid for a new trial". Then the paragraph uses the correct term: "A Superior Court judge denied X's challenge to his conviction. X claimed that his lawyer didn't represent him effectively, a right that is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This claim was raised via what is called a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the oldest Constitutional safeguard against the power of the State to illegally confine individuals" or some variation thereof.

Why do you have to pander to the lack of knowledge of the reader? I thought the point of the newspaper was to inform and educate? Use the correct term and people will become familiar with it. They should. It is a fundamental Constitutional protection against the power of the government to illegally confine you. That's a pretty damn big deal.

Re: Habeas petition denied; makes newspaper; newspaper uses wrong terms | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:34:01 -0000

[quote comment="3525"]I don't think habeas as a concept is complicated, but only as a phrase. Yeah, a reporter can explain it, but why?

Reading your hypothetical paragraph as a hypothetical editor, it's very standard daily newspaper style up to the sentence that starts "This claim was raised via..."

The reason that sentence is non-standard is because you begin explaining jargon that is not essential to understanding the story. The essentials of the story are the convict wanted a new trial, the judge wouldn't give it to him.

The reason mentioning habeas is superfluous is we almost never - if ever - see any other petition raised by a convicted criminal. Aren't all petition's for a new trial habeas writs, some based on ineffective assistance of counsel, some not? And what does habeas do that is not a petition for a new trial? x = y and y = x, no?

It seems that way to this lay person.

People incarcerated without any charge could bring a habeas writ, I suppose, but that's so rarely happening outside of Guantanamo. Perhaps in a Guantanamo story, habeas would be a more essential phrase, but I haven't given that much thought.

So why use both phrases - "petition for new trial" and "writ of habeas corpus" - if one is immediately understood, the other is not, and there doesn't seem to be a great need for both in order to convey essentially what happened in court?

These are genuine questions, by the way, not rhetorical flair.

This isn't just court reporting: we newspaper folk avoid jargon whenever possible, no matter how sacred the jargon is.

As a side note, I would also argue that writ of habeas corpus is a legal term of art, admittedly a much older, more revered and traditional term than, say, Alford plea or Terry stop, but nonetheless it's jargon that's more useful to the initiated than the lay.

I agree with Karoli, by the way, that the media are to blame for the public's misunderstanding of standards of evidence. I would, however, single out in particular one medium: television. TV reporters rarely get "beats" and so don't develop any expertise anywhere. I'm in court three or four times per week and I frequently tutor my TV colleagues on court conventions, rules and procedures because I, too, hate misinformation, even if it's in my competitor's report.[/quote]
The Writ of Habeas Corpus is mentioned in the Constitution - Miranda warnings are not. The latter is a legal term of art - referring to a collection of rights.

As to the differences between a petition for a new trial and a Writ of Habeas Corpus, I'll give you one recent example: If you are following Michael Skakel's recent legal attempts, that is a petition for a new trial, not a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The standard of proof is different, as are the legal remedies available. Not all Habeas petitions involve IAC claims (legal term).

They are separate and distinct processes. In Connecticut, there is no right to counsel in a petition for a new trial, but there is one in a Writ for Habeas Corpus.

Re: Habeas petition denied; makes newspaper; newspaper uses wrong terms | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:40:02 -0000

As to why you should use that term? I guess I always prefer referring to things/concepts/principles by their accurate name.

Re: Habeas petition denied; makes newspaper; newspaper uses wrong terms | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:48:45 -0000

I don't know. I still think that if you use the correct term often enough, people will start to understand. It's an annoyance to me, that's all.

Re: Habeas petition denied; makes newspaper; newspaper uses wrong terms | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 06:57:19 -0000

[quote comment="3535"]I completely sympathize with that sentiment but I'm not sure it comes up often enough for that to be the case. I've reported on three appeals in the last year (all three were murder cases), each of which were habeas writs based on ineffective assistance of counsel (to my recollection), but that's only 3 stories out of 200-250 for the year (plus the thousands of articles in the paper written not about court or crime). As you say, habeas writs are denied all the time (that's why we don't report them very often but for the most high-profile convicts).

And thanks for the exchange. Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd love more media criticism from a public defender. The attorneys I deal with personally probably want to curry my favor more than honestly criticize my work.[/quote]

Yes, thanks for engaging! This was better than "no comment", which is probably what I would say in real life.

Re: Habeas petition denied; makes newspaper; newspaper uses wrong terms | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:04:51 -0000

[quote comment="3584"]Perhaps it's time to change all the legal jargon to terms that most people learn in college if you want reporters to understand the courts. Just like the Bible has been re-translated into modern language and Catholics ceased using Latin in mass now many years ago, perhaps legal lingo needs a comprehensive update.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked for and with a lot of them. I've got a much-used copy of Black's Law Dictionary on the shelf next to me, but I still get stuff wrong. From what I see reading appellate rulings - some of the lawyers out there also get it wrong, which is why we have these ineffective counsel cases in the first place!

Whaddya think? Is it time for a Revised Standard Version of legalese?[/quote]

It would have to be a massive undertaking and one that would face tremendous opposition. I'm not sure if you can replace all legal terms, but lawyers and judges have to do a much better job of explaining them and casting them in normal language - such as the Rule Against Perpetuities ;)

Re: Sex offender homelessness is not an excuse | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:14:48 -0000

Sean,

It goes without saying that safety of children is important; I'm not going to preface each post I make on the issue of sex offender registration and residency restrictions with a reminder of that.

Also, the point of my posts is to highlight the overreaction to the hysteria running amok.

Sorry if my style is not pleasing to you.

Re: Cheshire accused parole records released: Crack and crystal meth rear their ugly heads | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:55:47 -0000

[quote comment="3639"]I hard Joshua was blaming most of it on Hayes, he admitted hitting Mr. Petit with the bat, but the rapes, strangling of the mother and gas lighting was not him. Well, someone will tell him being there is the same thing, but maybe he thinks the death penalty will be on the table too. I suspected Hayes killed the mother, but on drugs, anyone can do almost anything.[/quote]
That's what I suspect. One of them will try to flip to avoid getting death.

Re: Trial blinders | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:57:31 -0000

[quote comment="3648"]I am soo glad you posted this blog. Around the DA's office im known as the "Bleeding Heart." Because no matter what the case, when it goes to trial or plea, I am always finding some reddeeming attribute or facts that require deviation from the Recommendation or a Not Guilty verdict.
I think the fact that we "BELIEVE" is what gives us an edge. This moment of clarity that you describe is visible to the others and no matter what we say or do, if we cant sell it to ourselves our clients are doomed.

Keep the blinders going.

malum[/quote]
Thanks for commiserating! I am realistic about my chances when I'm preparing or doing the initial investigation, but for some reason, the minute I step into the courtroom, it's on!

I guess if you don't feel that way, you shouldn't be in this line of work :)

Re: Tough on crime: At what cost? | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:47:01 -0000

[quote comment="3669"]Some points:

1) There are costs to letting criminals off with lenient sentences, and not just in blood, the increase in crime causes increased medical costs, depressed economic activity etc. etc. Going on the presumption that many criminals do what they do multiple times (e.g., a guy who knocks over an old lady probably mugs on numerous occasions), locking up a mugger or a burglar for a long stretch prevents a ton of crime, and crimes have costs too.

2) I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that prison beds and other types of programs dealing with criminals are scarce resources. This reality pops up with the one size fits all approach to sex offenders. The more resources expended on dealing with low-level threats (and I include such persons' decreased earning potential etc. as an expense), the less that will be focused on truly dangerous offenders.

3) Twenty years ago, I don't think we were all that bright when it came to punishing criminals. Revolving door justice brought a ton of misery onto society. And that was unacceptable. Repeated and violent offenders need to be locked away for good. For good.

So Gideon, I'll ask a hypo, point blank:

Let's say a guy has the following record: a couple of convictions for forcible robbery (armed with a knife), a couple of convictions of burglary, and a couple of drug possession convictions, and then he graduates to forcible stranger rape and robbery (so there's no issue about consent). What, in an ideal world would his total sentence be? And then of that, when would he be eligible for parole? And if you're going to say it depends on criminal, then what would be the minimum total time and the earliest time eligible for parole?

Mine is life, parole eligible by 30.[/quote]
In your hypo, given his record, assuming no drug dependency, I'd say 25, execution suspended after 20, parole eligibility after 17 years (roughly 85%), 5 years probation (assuming this is a plea).

Re: Now a Murderer’s Registry: Is there a better solution? | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:15:17 -0000

Will those seeking this be asked to provide information of their own, so the state can keep track of who is looking for what, in the event someone decides to take the law into their own hands?

Also, it's been almost a year since that press release. I know docket information is now available, but am I missing where conviction information is available?

PS: I understand these things take time, I'm just wondering if it is going to become a reality...

Re: Now a Murderer’s Registry: Is there a better solution? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:13:35 -0000

A murderer's registry in Connecticut would be useless. Murderer's don't get parole here and the max sentence is 60 years. You could have the odd case where the defendant gets 25 (the min) and gets out by the time he's in his late 40s, early 50s, but I don't think you'd see too many.

How do you distinguish between those convicted of murder and those who plead down to manslaughter?

Re: Now a Murderer’s Registry: Is there a better solution? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:00:58 -0000

I agree. While these records have always been part of the public domain, it does require some effort to go to the courthouse and ask for that information.

Sitting at your desk, surfing idly, doesn't quite present the same hurdles and inconveniences.

Which is why I think that if these registries are to be implemented, there should be data collection. If you want to find out the record of someone, you have to tell the system who you are.

Re: When I grow up | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:28:03 -0000

Well there's a simple solution, isn't there? Don't charge the death penalty. If the death penalty is sought, the defense will and should be vigorous.

Perhaps when you're arrested, you can ask for a lawyer that will not represent you zealously since he's determined you're guilty.

I'll take Ullman.

Re: Tough on crime: At what cost? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:51:33 -0000

I suspect the only reason we get that is that we're required to have parity with the prosecutors, per statute.

Re: When I grow up | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:08:20 -0000

[quote comment="3786"]Ok Ruth, let's get out of la-la land. The fact is that resources are scarce and that not every death case needs millions of dollars spent on it. Personally, I'd rather have the public defenders spend more resources on people who have strong defenses.

First, cases like this one cry out for a mandatory death penalty. A mandatory death penalty in cases like this would save a lot of money and would end the endless whining over ineffective rep at the penalty phase.

Second, this "we'll spend, spend, spend" attitude is fine, for a defense attorney defending a client, but it needs to be reined in by society.

I don't think your hypo undermines my points at all.[/quote]

This is rather frightening. You want to make subjective determinations to decide whose life is worth vigorously defending?

Thank God you're not a criminal defense lawyer.

Re: Trial blinders | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:46:53 -0000

[quote comment="3751"]I am not a public defender, nor am I in the criminal justice field whatsoever; I am in the medical field. I stumbled upon your blog through several links from thatlawyerdude. I was sent to his site to gain insight on the legal system through several google groups. I want and need to do this because my husband is being represented by a public defender in FL. It has been over a year now and nothing has been done on my husband's case.

You can see that for yourself at my blog...there is a link to his case info./docket. I didn't want to have a negative opinion about all public defenders, I am sure like most every other profession, there are some good ones, bad ones and some that need to realize that this is just simply not their calling in life. I am desperate...I have gotten nowhere in the past year with my husband's public defender and now he is leaving his case for a promotion in another division. Please, visit my blog...give me some insight on what my husband should do, what motions can he file...something?!

I know this website is not to be used for legal advice and you are probably thousands of miles away...but could you respond in some way?

I would appreciate it greatly. http://jennandchrisphillips.blogspot.com[/quote]
Jenn, I can only say that you should make it a point to have a face-to-face meeting with your husband's new attorney, perhaps taking to him in writing a list of what it is that concerns you about the case and what it is that concerned you about his last attorney.

Re: My court is better than your court | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:07:16 -0000

[quote comment="3800"]Not knowing the specifics, I will defer to you about what is really going on. However, I am not draw too many conclusions from this.

First of all, sometimes the “this is how we do things” line is just a rhetorical piece of crap. See the C&F post on “we are all laughing at you.” here.

Secondly, not all “practices” really are deferring to the prosecutor (especially in courts where there are more player than just the prosecutor and the defense – i.e. police have wide charging discretion), but are fairly pre-defendant. They have been worked out over time as a means to accomplish some policy without interfering with some political goals. For example, they often emerge as a way around certain mandatory minimums, over-blow sex offender registration requirements, etc. Sometimes they are a way to reduce sentences without appearing to do so.

In other courts they are codified into local rules based upon local situations (e.g. language issues, circuit riding, etc.), the nature of the buildings. (I.e. are bench conferences held before the bench, in a little room, etc. etc.)

But, it would be nice to see more academic discussion of local practices, and their reasons.

If someone calls a PD’s supervisor, probably won’t make much difference. So, in most cases it is futile.[/quote]
Yeah, I get your point, but this isn't like that at all. It is truly a product of the balance that prosecutors and defense lawyers have in a particular courthouse.

These are arbitrary "rules" that have evolved not based on any jursidictional provisions (of which there are none), but based on the routines in that particular court that have persisted due to years of giving in by the defense bar.

I'm not talking about process either (like pre-trial conferences or sidebars or things like that) - I'm talking about substantive stuff - like in some courts, they just don't file motions or probation is always assumed to be a part of the sentence regardless of whether the defendant is advised of it on the record.

Re: Tough on crime: At what cost? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:38:38 -0000

[quote comment="3851"]Gideon, I was just surprised because I started at half that and currently make about 2/3 that. Yes, I'm a public defender, and proud of it! I'm not just spamming your site...[/quote]
Ruth, I was surprised too, when I started at the PD's office. I'm not complaining, but I had heard the horror stories too. Maybe you should move to CT!

I figured you were a pd and not just a spammer who liked pds ;)

Re: A tale of two cities: Hartford and Cheshire | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:20:55 -0000

Wow.

You're making three very strong assumptions:

1) That those two killed in Hartford were part of a robbery gone bad. That was the initial report, but has since not been repeated. In fact, no one knows what happened.

2) That no one who is killed in Hartford is an innocent victim (because the point of the press conference wasn't two specific victims versus Cheshire - it was to bring attention to all Hartford victims).

3) That some lives (those engaging in crime) are less valuable than others.

Re: Poll: Most Evil Legal Principles | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:28:01 -0000

I agree. It really is an awful legal hurdle. While some courts have embraced being pro-se as sufficient cause, most courts have not.

Re: Cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:24:33 -0000

Scott, I completely agree with you, but what about this limited statement on the record:

"I have discussed with my client the state's offer and the pros and cons of accepting it and it is his decision to reject the offer at this time".

You're basically placing a limited Boykin canvass on the record, in lieu of a Boykin canvass during a plea.

Would you still think it unacceptable?

Re: Cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:31:50 -0000

I have updated the post to reflect this discussion.

Re: Cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:18:03 -0000

[quote comment="4080"]I love this blog. I'm always surprised by the intelligent comments.

[/quote]

Hey now! That sounds like an insult cloaked in a compliment! :P

Re: Cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:53:44 -0000

[quote comment="4080"]I love this blog. I'm always surprised by the intelligent comments.

Of the 8 or so murder cases I have written about in the last year (from one suburban county), there was only one where the defense has or is going to rely on outright denial of any culpability as it relates to the death.

In 7 of 8 murders, the defense attorney knew from arraignment on that the defense argument would be a mental health argument or a statutory argument, something akin to "yeah, the evidence shows s/he was obviously involved in the incident that led to So-and-so's death but statutorily those actions weren't F1 murder because..."

I'm not familiar with this Reyes case. But what of these 7 cases where the defense was never going to deny involvement? Does it become more OK to say "he shoulda taken the deal" or is it just as objectionable?

After a slam-dunk prelim and a half dozon failed defense motions, for example, (again I'm not familiar with the Reyes case) it can be pretty obvious that a defendant ought to take a deal when its offered. I have a hard time condemning the defense attorneys CYA instincts. This case might be the only public persona the attorney has. It's not completely rediculous to want to clarify who it is that's making the completely unwise decisions.[/quote]

I think the point is that I don't understand why an attorney - in any circumstance - would say something to the press that doesn't benefit their client.

As we discussed above, if the attorney feels it necessary to state on the record that the decision is not his, but his clients, that might be okay (and some would say prudent).

This is not Attorney Gerace's only public persona, but even if it were, I don't think it should be a consideration.

Re: Cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:07:31 -0000

[quote comment="4099"]You are indeed correct, Windy. As to Miranda's concerns, why would you be so concerned about IAC? It would never enter my thoughts, particularly in a way that would suggest the practice of defensive law.

We have all agreed that Gid's version, versus Gerace's, avoids the problem, so there is neither issue nor point to debating the point. So now that you abandoned your approval of Gerace and substituted Gid's version, your point is moot.

However, Miranda, when you advocate make a "complete" record that involves confidential disclosures. then your argument becomes problematic again. How does it hurt to let the world know that the client has chosen to ignore your advice? Do you really fail to see the problem?

Your fear is self-protective. Gideon's version does not disclose that the client acted against advice of counsel. It acknowledges counsel's duty and the client's choice. Nothing more. And that's how ethical lawyers do it.

SHG[/quote]

Scott: I agree with you entirely, but having had some experience doing habeas claims involving IAC, I know it is frustrating that lawyers don't make a complete record (as much as they can or should), which makes it that much more difficult for a habeas attorney to properly review a claim.

While it may not be appropriate in this context, I agree with Miranda that an attorney must always strive to make a record - be it for appellate or collateral review.

There is the intertwining of the ethical obligation of the attorney and the obligation to create a record that will be sufficient to invoke post-conviction scrutiny. It is interesting and I suspect this problem would not arise were some attorneys not reluctant to tell the truth in subsequent proceedings.

Re: When I grow up | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:49:22 -0000

JTD: Yes there is. Murder (just plain ole murder) in CT carries a penalty of 25 to life, with life being 60 years.

There is no parole for someone convicted of murder.

So yes, they can charge a capital felony but not seek the death penalty.

Which means that both these guys can plead guilty, spare everyone a trial and go away for life without the possibility of parole.

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:10:46 -0000

Looks like Miranda is in the house, so I'll let her speak for herself (I've been burned in that regard before ;) )

Again, I think you're misunderstanding. I'm talking about general practice. I think it is always a good idea to create a record.

for example, if I didn't do something that I should have, I would gladly state it on the record so as to preserve and/or create a claim for my client.

Obviously I'm not advocating lying on the record.

I do not agree with Gerace (I don't understand how you could think I do).

Re: 9/8/2007: NLG Forum at Quinnipiac Law | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:20:54 -0000

[quote comment="4114"]How come a majority of PD's act and look like "dump truck" lawyers? Don't get me wrong. I like lawyers, even PD's...yes a cop that likes PD's. Especially the ones who take me aside after a case and show me things I could have done different.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.... "dump truck"?

Almost all public defenders I know dress professionally and act professionally.

Re: 9/8/2007: NLG Forum at Quinnipiac Law | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:21:54 -0000

[quote comment="4106"]I know cowboys, I have friends who are cowboys, and George W. Bush ain't no cowboy.[/quote]

C'mon now.

Re: Campbell gets death | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:08:12 -0000

You take this very personally, don't you?

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:22:49 -0000

[quote comment="4136"]Of course, one must wonder why the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees one's right to a fair trial, requires effective representation of counsel when it comes to the plea bargaining process.[/quote]

No. There's really no reason to wonder.

Re: Campbell gets death | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:35:15 -0000

[quote comment="4147"]I've only recently entered the anti-death penalty camp and, to be honest, it wasn't an easy journey.

I sympathize with Sean's position (especially in light of the recent massacre in Cheshire) because the judicial and penal systems have not lived up to their obligations to the people of this state.

Opposition to the DP would be much stronger if "the system" demonstrated some degree of competence in its disposition of violent and repeat offenders.

Defendants have an absolute right to due process of law which, naturally, I support but until monsters like the man referenced above are truly locked up for the rest of their natural lives, public support for the death penalty will continue apace.[/quote]

Welcome! :)

The man referenced above will be locked up for the rest of his life (which in this case is till the state executes him).

You cannot get parole for murder in Connecticut and maybe people don't know that. The maximum sentence is 60 years, which for many is the rest of their lives.

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:46:06 -0000

[quote comment="4150"]
I wouldn't say that. What does "necessary for the court proceeding" mean? A judge might think it is necessary to inquire into things that are none of his business, but the court's "necessity" does not trump the client's confidentiality. I would say that the lawyer can only disclose client communications if (a) he is required to by law or ethical rule; or (b) it would help the client.[/quote]

What? So if a Judge says to you:

[quote]"Attorney Bennett, today was an accept/reject date. Have you discussed the State's offer with your client?"[/quote]

What would your response be?

If the Court follows that up with:

[quote]And what is your client's decision?[/quote]

Your response is...?

How is that not necessary to the proceeding?

Re: Campbell gets death | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:54:16 -0000

[quote comment="4154"]I don't know if personally is the right word, but I loathe murderers. And I think that when you deliberately take a life, you should pay with your own.

As for being locked up for the rest of his life, well, he may kill a guard or fellow prisoner. Witness Kenneth Parr, a sick animal who raped a mother in front of her children. He was executed, but not before he threw a guard down some stairs (something which could kill someone).[/quote]

What is this? Minority report?

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:56:27 -0000

[quote comment="4155"]Gideon, what is the textual basis of extending a right to effective counsel, which is to preserve the right to a fair trial, to plea deals?[/quote]

The right to counsel, which implies the right to effective assistance of counsel.

This is well-settled law.

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:31:46 -0000

No, not in that case. It depends on the specific facts of a case.

If the offer was never conveyed to the client, then yes. If the offer was conveyed and he rejected it, then no.

For example, see Boria v. Keane, 2nd Cir.

The defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel at all stages of a criminal prosecution - that is not disputable.

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:45:11 -0000

[quote comment="4162"]The Ninth Circuit has gone further. And, like I said, the raison d'etre for the right to effective counsel is to preserve the right of a fair trial. If the guy gets a fair trial . . . .

And I guarantee you that there would be at least four votes for my position on the Supreme Court, and if we elect another GOP president in 2008, there will likely be more.[/quote]Sorry but you're just wrong on that point.

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:06:37 -0000

[quote comment="4165"]This is from Mickens v. Taylor:

The Sixth Amendment provides that a criminal defendant shall have the right to “the assistance of counsel for his defence.” This right has been accorded, we have said, “not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial.” United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658 (1984).

If the guy gets a fair trial . . . . . . . how can he complain?[/quote]I think you misunderstand.

The right to a fair trial is not the only purpose of the right to effective assistance of counsel. Effective Assistance of Counsel must be had at all stages of a criminal prosecution regardless of whether it ends in a trial or not.

Trust me on this. I deal with this frequently.

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:18:08 -0000

[quote comment="4168"]Like I said, it seems extremely difficult for a court to say, too bad state, you gave a guy a fair trial (where he had a shot at getting acquitted) and now you gotta redo it because counsel screwed up by not passing along plea or by misexplaining the consequences of plea. I don't think there's a good textual basis for your position, and I think my position would win at least 4 votes at SCOTUS, and it should win all 9 votes. Remember, Strickland is extra-textual, and should be limited to trial (and trial like things, i.e., motions in limine, alibi notices etc.).

Where, pray tell, is the "right to have a plea offer passed on to you with perfect clarity" in the Constitution? I've looked, and it's not there.[/quote]

It doesn't seem extremely difficult and it isn't. Courts have said it and repeatedly.

I guess you're making a political statement here and I'm not interested in that. If you want to discuss the law, fine.

It's right next to reasonable suspicion.

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:26:57 -0000

Plea bargaining is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, during which the advice of counsel is important. See Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 632-33, 89 L. Ed. 2d 631, 106 S. Ct. 1404 (1986).

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:30:37 -0000

From the case I cited earlier - Boria v. Keane:

[quote]While the Second Circuit may not have spoken, the Strickland Court has indicated how the question should be resolved. Just before starting its discussion of the merits, it observed that it had "granted certiorari to consider the standards by which to judge a contention that the Constitution requires that a criminal judgment be overturned because of the actual ineffective assistance of counsel." 466 U.S. at 684. Later it pointed to "prevailing norms of practice as reflected in American Bar Association standards" as guides "to determining what is reasonable." Id. at 688.

The American Bar Association's standard on the precise question before us is simply stated in its Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Ethical Consideration 7-7 (1992):

A defense lawyer in a criminal case has the duty to advise his client fully on whether a particular plea to a charge appears to be desirable. (emphasis added)

Anthony G. Amsterdam, in Trial Manual 5 for the Defense of Criminal [**11] Cases (1988), observed:

The decision whether to plead guilty or contest a criminal charge is ordinarily the [*497] most important single decision in any criminal case. This decision must ultimately be left to the client's wishes. Counsel cannot plead a client guilty, or not guilty, against the client's will. [citation omitted] But counsel may and must give the client the benefit of counsel's professional advice on this crucial decision. § 201 at 339(the word "must" was emphasized by the author; otherwise, the emphasis is ours)

This manual is a joint project of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the National Defender Project of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the ALI-ABA Committee on Continuing Professional Education. The Reporter, Anthony G. Amsterdam, is a distinguished Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Programs and Trial Advocacy at New York University School of Law.

And finally, in United States v. Villar 416 F. Supp. 887, 889 (S.D.N.Y 1976), Judge Motley -- in circumstances quite different from those at bar -- made the following observation about effective assistance of counsel:

Effective assistance of counsel [**12] includes counsel's informed opinion as to what pleas should be entered. Walker v. Caldwell, 476 F.2d 213, 224 (5th Cir. 1973); Jones v. Cunningham, 313 F.2d 347 (4th Cir. 1963), cert denied 375 U.S. 832, 84 S. Ct. 42, 11 L. Ed. 2d 63 (1965). As Chief Judge Sobeloff stated in the latter case (at 353):

Of course, it is not for a lawyer to fabricate defenses, but he does have an affirmative obligation to make suitable inquiry to determine whether valid ones exist. Such a duty is imposed for the salutary reason that 'prior to trial an accused is entitled to rely upon his counsel to make an independent examination of the facts, circumstances, pleadings and laws involved and then to offer his informed opinion as to what plea should be entered.' Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 721, 68 S. Ct. 316, 322, 92 L. Ed. 309 (1948). (emphasis Judge Motley's)

Turning to the facts before us, it would be impossible to imagine a clearer case of a lawyer depriving a client of constitutionally required advice.[/quote]

I could go on all night, but I'm not going to.

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:34:56 -0000

[quote comment="4173"]That doesn't mean that the guy has a right to have the result of a fair trial overturned because counsel, though there, was ineffective.[/quote]

Defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel at all critical stages.

Plea bargaining is a critical stage.

But for attorney's ineffectiveness he would have taken the plea.

Conviction overturned.

It really is that simple.

Maybe you want to explain why you don't think it is.

Re: The maelstrom that is cover your ass-ery | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:36:24 -0000

Okay, you believe what you want to. I'll believe what the law says.

Re: Quick design poll and new tagline contest | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:45:14 -0000

[quote comment="4180"]It seems to me you have the makings of a perfectly good tagline on your disclaimer page:

I AM WRONG. I AM AN IDIOT. I AM CLUELESS. I AM UNEDUCATED. NO AFFILIATION HERE BETWEEN MY OPINIONS AND THAT OF MY EMPLOYER OR ANY BODY ELSE. I CANNOT GIVE YOU ADVICE. I AM A TRAINED PIGEON. Thank you for reading.

I mean, really, doesn't that just say it all?

Otherwise...

a public defenderhelping you get away with it since 1975

a public defenderdefending those people

a public defenderdefending you people

a public defenderyes, I AM a real lawyer

a public defendercheaper than a real lawyer

a public defenderno, I don't work for the prosecutor

a public defender'cause it's not how much you steal---it's how much you get away with

a public defendernow with 15% less plea bargaining

a public defenderlike perry mason, only you don't have to be innocent[/quote]
Brilliant! Excellent suggestions all!

Re: Quick design poll and new tagline contest | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:46:26 -0000

[quote comment="4198"]I really like the template you've got on the test blog. A lot. I'm sick of this template, too, and am considering something different. I just haven't figured out what.[/quote]

I do too. It's just going to take me some time to get used to the 2-sidebars on the right, I guess. Instinctively I prefer the 3-split column layout.

I really do like this theme - it's solid and I've customized it quite a bit, but the look is getting old.

Re: Campbell gets death | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:38:32 -0000

[quote comment="4209"]
Gideon, sincere question, I'm not baiting you (really) but what percentage are actually charged with murder as compared to those who are offered a better deal in exchange for a guilty plea?[/quote]Oh I would have no way of knowing. I do see a lot of guys plead to murder though.

Do you mean defendants that are charged with capital felony and then they plead to murder in exchange for life?

Re: Quick design poll and new tagline contest | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:32:57 -0000

[quote comment="4219"]My opinion -

1. The yellow headlines promote eyestrain, and

2. What happened to the Gideon picture and S.Ct. handwritten pleading? I kinda liked it.

3. Otherwise the new look is OK, it will take time to get used to; when other blogs change their layout I, at first, hate it; but then it sorta' "grows" on me and I end up liking it.[/quote]
Oh I'm not going to adopt that specific theme. Even if I do, I will tinker with the colors and the header.

It's just up there as a layout reference. Which layout do readers prefer?

Re: Quick design poll and new tagline contest | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:43:21 -0000

[quote comment="4224"]An oldie, but a goodie:

A Public Defender: You've paid enough for your crimes already.[/quote]
I thought it was: "Haven't you paid enough for your crimes already?"

Re: Prison > Homelessness | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:52:03 -0000

Yes. It fits in the theme of this blog. I'm not sure what you're expecting here.

Re: Prison > Homelessness | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:20:40 -0000

I'm not going to explain the common theme in both sets of stories. I think it's pretty obvious to readers of this blog.

Re: Quick design poll and new tagline contest | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:37:31 -0000

[quote comment="4202"]What? You're asking me? I get antsy and change the layout of my blog every time the wind changes direction . . .

Arrrgggg!!!! I can't take the pressure!!![/quote]
Yet, somehow, you always manage to make it look slick!

Re: Quick design poll and new tagline contest | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:38:02 -0000

[quote comment="4206"]A Public Defender:

A reasonable doubt at a reasonable price.

Why pay more?

100% of the lawyer at 0% of the fee.

Cheap at half the price.

More law for less money.[/quote]

Why pay more? LOL!

Re: I bit the bullet | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:58:50 -0000

LOL.

That was weak.

Yes, I just bought one. I thought about buying the iPhone, but it's just too damn expensive.

However, I just discovered that I plug my iPod into my car using an old cassette converter for a discman, so now I am officially excited :D

Re: The insidious underbelly of three strikes laws and zero tolerance | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:32:31 -0000

[quote comment="4314"]Just for the record, "tolerance" is an engineering concept, but "zero tolerance" is not. Or at least it's not a good concept. That's because in engineering, the greater the tolerance, the better.

For example, the power supply in your computer might tolerate an input of 100-130 volts. That's a good thing, because your house's electrical system is probably providing somewhere between 115 and 125 volts.

However, if your computer has a narrower tolerance, say 118-122, there's a pretty good chance it won't work at all in your house. You'd have to spend money on power conditioning equipment. That's the problem with tight tolerances: They impose compliance costs on other parts of the system.

I don't think you can draw any conclusions from this about the kind of tolerance you're talking about. The word just doesn't have the same meaning in both contexts.[/quote]

You lost me there....

Re: Monday morning jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:44:50 -0000

My, my. Such attitude from a young 'un and a Repub to boot!

Re: The insidious underbelly of three strikes laws and zero tolerance | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:37:53 -0000

[quote comment="4336"]Ah, it doesn't matter. Sometimes I just like the look of my own writing... I was trying to respond to Rapaport's assertion that "zero tolerance" was "culled from the engineering lexicon" by pointing out that "zero tolerance" isn't something any engineer would want to deal with, and I got a little lost along the way.[/quote]
Oh okay, that makes sense.

Re: Monday morning jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:47:35 -0000

[quote comment="4342"]Ah, "saving" Kevin Foster . . . .

Don't people have better things to do with their time?[/quote]

Yeah, like commenting on blogs ;)

I kid, I kid :D

Re: Monday morning jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:48:19 -0000

[quote comment="4343"]You can't hold that against me. I'm contractually obligated to be a Republican.[/quote]

Ah, a prosecutor at heart, are ya?

Re: The insidious underbelly of three strikes laws and zero tolerance | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:55:28 -0000

[quote comment="4353"]Just to begin with, the piece in the Courant makes no distinction between two concepts: zero tolerance and three strikes and you’re out. But there is a distinction. A zero tolerance law would not permit a second crime without severe penalties. Laws themselves, since sanctions are attached to them, assume zero tolerance. The bank robber may expect to be punished if caught.

A three strikes and you’re out rule applied to burglary certainly is not irrational; it may be more expensive than, shall we say, non prosecution or prosecution without punishment. I don’t know what the poll figures would say about either possibility, but I assume neither would be wildly popular.

Poll research done on the question of “Three Strikes and You’re Out” legislation probably would yield soft results for the reasons you mention – but also because some quiddities are non-measurable. As a result of “Three Strikes and You’re Out” legislation, criminal A decides not to rob a home in January; how is such a datum to be collected?

All this brings us back to sweet reason. Is reasonable to think that the enforcement of sanctions makes reasonable people afraid to break the law? Those who answer this question affirmatively are not being unreasonable, are they?[/quote]

But that's exactly what some studies show - that the existence of these laws do not result in a decrease in crime. So while there may be one or two people who decide not to rob or burgle - we don't know why they decided not to do that. It may be just as likely that they would have decided otherwise even if the three strikes law was not in existence.

What the tangible data does show is that these crimes are committed at the same rate with three strikes laws as without three strikes laws.

There are plenty of sanctions on the books already. Has crime dropped to zero?

Re: Monday morning jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:58:47 -0000

[quote comment="4349"]Ouch! That hurt. Is that for the iPod jab?[/quote]

Yeah, I guess we're even :P

Re: The insidious underbelly of three strikes laws and zero tolerance | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:23:48 -0000

[quote comment="4357"]Gideon,

I'm glad we both agree that the polls are indecisive. They are simply indicative, and everyone is free to draw his own conclusion -- preferably from other data.[/quote]

I didn't say they were indecisive. In fact, they show that three strikes laws have little or no impact on crime.

Re: The insidious underbelly of three strikes laws and zero tolerance | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:30:41 -0000

[quote comment="4361"]Pity. I thought we could agree on something. They are merely indicative, you know. There is no way of measuring intentions by polls. If criminal A has decided he doses not wish to rob house B because he is weary of inmprisonment, there is no poll carefully calibrated enough to measure his intention.[/quote]

Where do you find a poll?

These are studies that look at two sets of data: 1) Crime before three strikes laws and 2) Crimes after three strikes laws.

If the number of crimes in both sets of data are the same, what should that tell you?

Re: The insidious underbelly of three strikes laws and zero tolerance | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:52:08 -0000

I'm not citing any polls.....

I'm citing studies that look at data...oh forget it.

Re: Tips for the new blawger | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:20:42 -0000

[quote comment="4379"]Oh come on. Dont make feel self-conscious. Now im going to be up for hours trying to decide how to redesign. Is it a Mac thing?[/quote]

Sorry, didn't mean to be mean, but white on black is tough to read. Perhaps it's just the font size or the font itself.

Re: The insidious underbelly of three strikes laws and zero tolerance | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:21:09 -0000

[quote comment="4399"]Scoplaw,

I agree that ponishment should fit the crime. We do not cut off the hands of thieves who steal. Will you agree that the punishment should be progressively more severe the more the criminal engages in criminal activity? If so, we are on our way. Will you agree that a house full of lawyers ought to be able to write legislation with these contingencies in mind? The three strikes and you're out legislation could be tailored to certain kinds of crimes (home burglaries, for instance), in which case the guy who steals a crust of bread from a vendor because he is hungry would not spend the rest of his life in jail, as he should not. But these things cannot be discussed at all so long as data collectors are shoving their in our faces studies that are not convincing. If we, as a society, have concluded that punishmnets, however severe, do not deter crime, the logical course of action would be to give up punishing people. But, for some reason, that is a conclusion that the reasonable folk on your side of the aisle do not reach. Why not?[/quote]

That's not the conclusion, however. The conclusion is that these additional penalties do not deter crime. They deter crime at the same rate as existing penalties.

So the extra cost in implementing these additional penalties is not justified.

Re: Sleeping lawyers: Not just in Texas | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:02:06 -0000

Even when it is not a motion for new trial/motion to vacate, but a Habeas Corpus petition?

Here, there are 2-3 designated habeas judges who sit on all habeas cases, unless they were involved in some way with the defendant in which case they usually recuse themselves.

With standard IAC claims, I can't see how a Judge would not be influenced by his memory of the trial.

Re: Sleeping lawyers: Not just in Texas | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:21:58 -0000

So it probably was just a motion to vacate, not a habeas corpus petition. That's interesting. Was there a habeas? Perhaps there will be.

Wouldn't she have to recuse herself from the panel at the 2nd Circuit if they did appeal it?

Re: Sleeping lawyers: Not just in Texas | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:10:17 -0000

[quote comment="4413"]I'm sure she would have to recuse herself from the appellate panel. But the circuit is a small place, and if I were a defendant, I wouldn't feel good about one circuit judge being forced to (imlcitly) slam another circuit judge in order for me to win. Would you?[/quote]

With facts like these? Most defendants would. Lawyers, on the other hand...

Re: Tips for the new blawger | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:52:28 -0000

Glen, thanks for reading! Feel free to comment more often :)

Re: It’s alway sunny in….. | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:17:23 -0000

Sigh. Thanks :)

Re: SOL eliminated for sex crimes with DNA evidence | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:25:11 -0000

How is that scenario different from your regular sexual assault where consent is a defense?

If the "victim" knows the "accused", then why would they wait for more than 5 years to arrest him?

I think this bill is specifically for "cold cases".

Re: Rewind: Did you have a public defender or a lawyer? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:08:23 -0000

What nonsense? I'm currently in flight to Ankarra.

Re: CT SC Excises Portion of Statute to Comply With Apprendi | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:01:16 -0000

Nice! Just saw this. I'll have to read the decision in detail now.

Re: I have survived | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:14:42 -0000

Haha. I wish. I thought it was pretty obvious, but I've just been kidding about my vacation destinations. The real location is a closely guarded national secret ;)

If I ever do come south, I will make sure to visit GA.

Re: Rewind: Deal or No Deal? | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:15:27 -0000

[quote comment="5067"]Come out, come out whoever you are.

enuf already, undelete jan's posts so we can guess.[/quote]

Bullshit. I'm sitting here with an itchy trigger finger, waiting to delete comments as soon as they're submitted.

Re: Monday Morning jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:57:22 -0000

Ah, thank you :) I appreciate the kind words.

Re: Hearing on criminal justice reforms today | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:52:34 -0000

[quote comment="5460"]just a small correction -- building a new prison costs $110 million, not $10 million.[/quote]
Thanks for that correction. Don't know how I missed that.

Re: Costs of proposed criminal justice reforms staggering | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:53:22 -0000

And these are the costs of doing so. The taxpayers of CT certainly have the right to know how much they will have to spend. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis in the end.

Re: Monday Morning Jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:24:07 -0000

[quote comment="5691"]Glad I got my posting in early this morning. Making the jumpstart has officially made my day.[/quote]

Glad I could help :)

Re: Constitution Day | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:08:19 -0000

Haha. That was originally one of the poll choices, but I figured it was too cheesy, even for this blog. Well done :)

Re: Constitution Day | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:54:32 -0000

Citizenship Day? Doesn't quite sound the same as Constitution Day.

Re: The Alford Doctrine: Why do judges care? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:51:12 -0000

Except that's not what the Alford doctrine is. It's an admission of some form of guilt, just not as stated by the State.

He does plead guilty. It's an Alford plea. Guilty plea under the Alford doctrine.

Re: “Banned words” accuser sues judge | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:21:06 -0000

It truly is a tough spot, I think. A cross between the emotional aspect of crime and the need for a fair trial. It is precisely for that reason that I think the judge is correct in excluding use of these terms.

Re: The Alford Doctrine: Why do judges care? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:33:34 -0000

[quote comment="5757"]I believe that I can recall one Alford plea that I heard about in New York. Alford, nolo, we don't do that stuff here. The judges won't take 'em, end of story.

There is a very definite place for an Alford plea. When the choice is plea to something in excess of the truth or go to trial (with a high probability of conviction) and suffer the consequences of a significantly enhanced sentence, the Alford plea offers a rational alternative, particularly if we are considering it from an objective perspective. It is theoretically sound, and functionally accomplished a societally acceptable goal.

So why are New York judges so adamantly against it?[/quote]

That seems so strange to me. Yesterday I saw two cases in which the attorney said: "Alford pleas, please" and the judge replied simply: "Yes".

Why do you think NY judges are so adamantly against it?

Re: “Banned words” accuser sues judge | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:36:26 -0000

[quote comment="5830"]Nothing tough about it. 1) Judges can tell people not to testify or tell the jury about legal conclusions; and 2) most of the time you can't sue a state judge in a federal court to complain about the outcome of his decision.[/quote]

Tough in the sense that I can understand why the accuser would be upset about this ruling, not that there's anything tough about the ruling itself.

Re: Breaking News: Gov. Rell bans parole for all violent offenders | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:06:26 -0000

Well, no, duh! The next step is life without parole for all violent offenders. Just keep building more prisons and sending more people to jail!

Then we all know that drug users and dealers use guns, so they're violent too, so they get locked up for life.

Re: Crime reform gets politicized | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:11:20 -0000

You obviously know this, but I'm against painting people with a broad brush. You've made it clear that all "criminals" are the same. Pretty dim view to take of humanity, in my opinion.

Re: Breaking News: Gov. Rell bans parole for all violent offenders | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:37:38 -0000

I can tell you why this is happening, not under what authority.

Back in June (July?), two parolees went into an affluent white neighborhood and killed a mother and two daughters. There was uproar in the State. Excuses were made, scapegoats were found. Politicians have been bellowing since then and the state's criminal system needs a fix.

Since then, every time a parolee has committed a crime, the press has made it front page news and tied it in with Cheshire.

I guess yesterday, when a parolee stole a car and then got shot in NY, was the last straw.

So now, no parole for you!

I don't know if it is legal or how long it will last.

To get the full sense of the timeline of events, click on the Cheshire category.

Re: Crime reform gets politicized | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:39:44 -0000

On the other hand, I could name the hundreds of thousands of parolees that have not committed a crime.

So....the appropriate response is to lock them all up?

Re: I don’t hate you, I just like it when you’re not around | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:21:58 -0000

[quote comment="5871"]I do this work because I love the fight. But I must admit, I am marveled when my client turns and hugs me after being sentenced to 10 years. I would like to believe that it is because they appreciate how hard I worked for them. but in all honesty I would have to say that its because I treat them with respect and dignity. Like a fellow human being.[/quote]

That's the key.

Re: Jena Six: Burden of proof and racial disparities in charging | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:28:21 -0000

Heh :D

Your posts tend to be much longer than mine.

Re: Jena Six: Burden of proof and racial disparities in charging | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:19:27 -0000

[quote comment="5898"]and so . . . ?[/quote]

I'm just giving you a hard time! Stop being so serious :)

Re: Nutmeggers delinquent in jury duty | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:44:59 -0000

Seriously. How stupid is that? More disturbing that a criminal defense attorney proposed that. I'd think we didn't want people who were forced to be there.

Re: Emergency hearing on parole ban and unconstitutionality of overcrowding | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:52:41 -0000

[quote comment="6004"]And the judge that called it a constitutional violation to force inmates to sleep on the floor is a criminal-loving hack.[/quote]

Oh well, in that case!

Re: The trial tax or “Life takes Visa” | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:43:12 -0000

Plea strike? What's that?

Re: The trial tax or “Life takes Visa” | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:04:06 -0000

[quote comment="6016"]I guess I'm not the only one who saw that ad as a metaphor for the criminal justice system. Actually, I find it completely creepy, but that's me.

But that ad demonstrates why it's so vital to do trials on the triable cases. If you don't disrupt the line, the presumption of guilt builds up too much momentum. Judges NEED to be reminded that the probable cause statement isn't all there is to a case. The best way I've found to do that is making them sit through trials and be reminded of how different things can look when the whole story comes out.[/quote]

Why do you think it's creepy? It's eerie and kinda funny, to be sure, but I don't see creepy.

I agree, however, that defense attorneys should not be afraid to threaten trial (in the appropriate cases, of course) and remind the other "participants" that if they don't make reasonable offers, you will put them through the effort of proving their case.

Re: The trial tax or “Life takes Visa” | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:06:38 -0000

[quote comment="6010"]

First, what of the state's argument that taking a case to trial is a reflection of the defendant's refusal to accept responsibility for his actions (as opposed to a plea situation)? Not an explicit argument against anyone's right to a trial, but certainly seems to put the defendant in a different position for sentencing.[/quote] Absolutely. That is also compounded by the disadvantage to the client who continues to profess his innocence in the face of a guilty verdict. I've seen judges go off on defendants for maintaining that position after trial.

[quote]Second, isn't there an argument that by accepting a plea, the defendant effectively "saves" the witnesses from having to come to court to testify. Financial concerns aside, testifying in a courtroom full of strangers, being subjected to rigorous cross-examination, taking time off work, etc all puts additional stress on all the witnesses, particularly the victims. Though more pronounced in violent crime cases and cases involving children, some trace of that exists in every criminal case.[/quote] Yes and that is part of the bargaining process. But is it worth that much more that the sentences are significantly higher after trial than they were pre-trial?
[/quote]

Re: Emergency hearing on parole ban and unconstitutionality of overcrowding | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:09:09 -0000

[quote comment="6011"]Gideon - you seem to know a lot about what is going on regarding this topic. Do you know of any advocacy groups taking on this issue in CT?[/quote]
Ember, I do not. I don't think there are any, or perhaps it is too early. However, these statements by Lisa Holden (one of the co-chairs of Gov. Rell's sentencing committee) are encouraging.

Re: Civility among the brethren | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:39:24 -0000

The middle finger was to describe your post, not your actions.

Re: Civility among the brethren | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:54:54 -0000

How about "thumbs his nose"? Don't mean to offend you, just trying to be light-hearted about the whole thing.

Re: Civility among the brethren | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:35:12 -0000

[quote comment="6082"]It's all about sensibilities, Shawn. There are ways to convey one's thoughts, whether happy or not, that do not require vulgar conduct. I find them to be much more suited to my sensibilities, and more effective.

I would tell you some of my secrets, but it would get me in huge trouble.[/quote]

Go on....

Re: Civility among the brethren | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:07:25 -0000

Om.

Re: Civility among the brethren | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:00:13 -0000

[quote comment="6098"]No, no, no. A thousand times no. I couldn't possibly do that in a public forum, especially one so widely read as this. If it were Bennett's, where only about 3 Texans read it a week, then it might be possible, but certainly not here.[/quote]
Hahahaha. You keep shining that light up my a$$.

Re: Civility among the brethren | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:00:56 -0000

[quote comment="6100"]Ouch.[/quote]
I can't believe he went there. ZING! East Coast-1, United State of Texas-0

Re: Monday Morning Jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:42:32 -0000

That's old news ;)

Re: Further thoughts on the Russell plea and its implications | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:15:12 -0000

[quote comment="6232"]
Gideon,

I wasn't under the impression, before the Russell case, that we were permitted to destroy evidence or advise our clients to do so. Were you?

I see a successful misprision prosecution -- for failing to report a felony, the knowledge of which comes from privileged communications -- as a much worse precedent than a tampering prosecution.

The plea papers in the misprision case might be enlightening, but they're not showing up on PACER yet.[/quote]
Of course not. What I was attempting to say is that we don't know anything new.

I agree that the misprision plea is far more worrisome than the obstruction prosecution.

Re: “Pimps up, Ho’s down” leads to law prof going on leave | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:17:04 -0000

[quote comment="6331"]Heeeeyyyyyy . . . . isn't UConn wunnathem fancypants first-tier law schools?[/quote] Barely.

Re: “Pimps up, Ho’s down” leads to law prof going on leave | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:18:06 -0000

[quote comment="6330"]You say, "Some strange news from my alma..."

Oh come now, no one's that naive. But, perhaps you haven't been around America's campuses lately? If not, FIRE will be of interest to you (http://www.thefire.org/), and especially their evaluation of UCONN: (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/schools/291)[/...

That's only undergrad. The only other "strange" thing to come out of the law school is this back in January:

Bullets & Bubbly

Re: Cover your ass-ery continues | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:00:44 -0000

[quote comment="6373"]Methinks Mr. Gerace has issues. Perhaps it's just this case, relative to the profile and the appearance that he has failed to do much for his client, but he needs to grow up and take the heat that goes with the job.[/quote]
Well, in hindsight, that 15 year offer sure looks good!

Re: Cover your ass-ery continues | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:02:14 -0000

[quote comment="6380"]When I read attorney Gerace's comments to the judge, I cringed, and I think I know why. If I tell the judge my client is not following my advice, am I not undercutting my client and thereby failing to zealous advance his interests? A memo to the file suffices to provide rear flank insurance.

In fact, wouldn't a better response to the court have been one that took issue with the court's claim that there is an Alfor plea tax at sentencing?

As but one example, I routinely decline to answer one local judge's plea colloquy inquiry (to wit: Is your client entering his plea AGAINST your advice?) by reminding the judge that I never discose privileged matters, tho his inquiry seeks just that. This has never become an issue, then or later.[/quote]

This is exactly the problem and the discussion that ensued a few months ago. It really would suffice to write a memo to the file and present the client's decision in a simple and dignified manner.

Re: Cover your ass-ery continues | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:03:52 -0000

[quote comment="6385"]I think in Arkansas...many attorneys will advise the court in a bench conference of matters where defendants clearly are doing something wacky ie:

"I have conveyed the offer of probation and I have told him a jury will likely give him a cabillion years."

I do not know the state law there, but I would think it would be odd to have an enhancement for sentencing that was...essentially a no contest plea right?[/quote]
As did I. Unfortunately, as I have been informed by more seasoned colleagues, it is not unusual for that to happen in child sex assault cases.

Re: “Pimps up, Ho’s down” leads to law prof going on leave | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:05:13 -0000

[quote comment="6389"]Everyone I've talked to thinks this is a stupid reaction by the new wet-noodle dean. It makes the school look bad and will only hurt attracting decent faculty. "Come to UCONN, where academic freedom exists sometimes." The administration needs to be overhauled top to bottom.[/quote]
Thanks for your comment! Do you know if anything else is going to happen or is this matter closed? Are the students writing to Dean Paul or is it pretty much over?

Re: Why I hate statutory rape laws | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:58:07 -0000

[quote comment="6407"]Oh, man, I hate that kind of case. Every one should get tried. (I know, that's not realistic).

But fifteen year old girls iniate it frequently. Poor kids.[/quote]

It really is sad. Now, for no good reason (and that too because of only 15 days), this kid's life might be ruined.

Who does this benefit? Maybe the step-father, but that's it.

Re: Why I hate statutory rape laws | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:56:54 -0000

[quote comment="6434"]Here, they have to be 4 years apart in age, but it's still a felony, even if it's consensual. It also doesn't matter whether the girl or the boy is older. The older of the two get prosecuted. How's that for nonsensical?[/quote] I think it should be a matter of simple subtraction. If you're 18 and the other person is 15, then you're 3 years older, regardless of whether it is 3 years and 2 days or 3 years and 200 days.

Re: Why I hate statutory rape laws | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:57:34 -0000

[quote comment="6429"]I had a misdemeanor statutory rape case last year that was dismissed because the prosecutor felt the "victim" initiated it AND she wasn't the kind of girl that the laws were meant to protect. Who say's prosecutorial discretion is dead? (Actually, I say that. All. the. time.)[/quote]
Ah, the slut defense?

Glad to hear that they're at least misdemeanors.

Re: What should the state’s responsibility be? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:33:08 -0000

Even now?

Re: 24 years in jail is not enough | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:22:17 -0000

[quote comment="6627"]I care about how this guy fits back into society--that doesn't mean I discount the feelings of people who have to live near this predator--like Gideon did.[/quote]

Sean, I'll respond to all your comments here. First: My "true colors". I'm surprised you say that. I think you've read enough posts on this blog to know what my thoughts are, so why the surprise when I say something consistent with what I've always said?

Second: Yes, I was a bit harsh on the neighbors and I acknowledged it in my original post. Sometimes, we must not coddle.

Third, this is not a social sciences blog, nor is this a prosecutorial blog. Caveat emptor.

Thanks for reading :)

Re: 24 years in jail is not enough | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:22:41 -0000

[quote comment="6626"]Apparently, the Governor of the Constitution state does not think the State is bound by the Constitution, as she has asked the AG to try and find a way to keep Mr. Pollitt confined.[/quote]

Thankfully, she failed.

Re: The day the law almost died: the David Pollitt story | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:25:15 -0000

[quote comment="6633"]There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was pure political pandering, all involved knowing that it was unlawful, unconstitutional and doomed to fail. But at least Rell can tell the good people of Southbury that she tried and that evil judge stopped her.[/quote]

Which makes it worse, in my opinion. It is almost worthy of being called despicable.

Re: The day the law almost died: the David Pollitt story | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:14:58 -0000

[quote comment="6640"]

You meant "evil activist judge" right?

It's bad enough that zoning boards work this way.[/quote]
Which is quite ironic, because she isn't the most defendant friendly judge in the State.

Re: 24 years in jail is not enough | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:40:12 -0000

[quote comment="6644"]The point is, Gideon, that you have shown that all you really care about are these precious criminals. Your post is condescending and dismissive of people's legitimate fears.

In any event, without knowing Connecticut law, I would have to agree with you that this guy is legally entitled to be free. I am pro-law. I just understand that people don't want to live next to a serial rapist. Perhaps you do.

If someone like that were moving into my neighborhood, I would tell him in no uncertain terms that if he touched my wife or kids that I would trust a jury of my peers.

I hope this guy can be a productive member of society and that he never hurts a fly. Unfortunately, someone may pay for the overly lenient policies of the past. Forgive the people of that neighborhood for not wanting to be one of them . . . . oh yes, that's right, they can move. What an arrogant and nasty thing to say. Why don't you let this prick move in with you./[/quote]

The point is, SPO, that this blog isn't about "showing that I care about these people". This blog is about my opinions on criminal law events and decisions in the State. So forgive me if I don't "present both sides". This is the wrong place if you're looking for that.

Saying that they can move is just as arrogant and nasty as saying that this guy is a predator and doesn't deserve to live with his sister.

Let's not forget that he was not convicted of sexual assault on minors; yet that is how he is being portrayed.

Re: The day the law almost died: the David Pollitt story | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:44:56 -0000

[quote comment="6657"]What kind of chief executive is she? If you're gonna say "screw the Constitution" you might as well just do it. She's the one with all the guns; she can just order Mr. Pollitt's continued detention. Make him file a writ of habeas corpus to try to get released. Then, what the hell, ignore the court's order granting habeas release.[/quote]

I'll forgo the obligatory Texas and Gov. Bush joke here ;)

It's just damn scary that anyone can think they have the authority to do that and more so when it's a Governor.

Re: The day the law almost died: the David Pollitt story | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:19:34 -0000

[quote comment="6681"]
I think you mean "abhorrent". I'm not sure that "abhorrable" is a word.[/quote]
Right you are.

Re: More on Pollitt and a bit on Crawford and the death penalty | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:22:53 -0000

[quote comment="6728"]I have to wonder, of the people voicing outrage and disbelief regarding Pollitt's release-

How many have made efforts in the past to contact lawmakers and push for a change related sentencing guidelines?

How many will make a continued effort in demanding changes?

How many will fade back into the woodwork after the threat to their immediate community ends?[/quote]
Very well said. If it doesn't happen in my neighborhood, I don't care.

Re: 24 years in jail is not enough | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:23:22 -0000

[quote comment="6734"]This post makes me ill. My brother lives in that cul-de-sac, two houses away from where that monster is moving in. He lives there with his wife and six small children. They bought their home after a careful search for a safe, happy place for their children to grow and play. His wife is home all day with the children, investing everything she has in her precious family.[/quote]

Ms. (I am assuming here) Kay, thank you for your comment. I agree that perhaps that nook is not the same carefree nook it once used to be; yet I think the use of terms like "monster" and "precious family" do nothing to further the conversation.

Mr. Pollitt's move does not signal the end of tranquility in their neighborhood; nor should it. What it should do is remind people to be more vigilant and in a sense, yes, remind people of the harsh realities of life.

[quote]Now, because of another family's lack of concern for the overall well-being of their community, they are forced to suffer. My sister-in-law has taken your thoughtful advice and is packing today to get out of there. She is doing this amidst extensive renovations that began several months ago. Renovations that they hesitantly invested in to make their home a better place for their children.[/quote] That is her choice and obviously one that she chose to make. That is unfortunate, because I think it is unnecessary. That street is not the only street in the State where there are sex offenders and it is sad that she feels like that is the only solution.

However, I disagree with your contention that simply by providing a home for a member of her "precious family", Ms. Rosengren has displayed a disregard for the neighborhood, nor that it should be a concern. As long as Mr. Pollitt behaves himself like a civilized human being and a productive, law-abiding member of society, no one should have reason for complaint.

[quote]Their careful planning, their concern for bettering their children's lives in this home... all down the toilet. Yes, they will "move out." What else can they do? My sister-in-law is concerned for her safety as well as her children's, even if this scumbag isn't a child predator, he is potentially a danger to her. Even locked up in his house with supervision, he is free to watch the comings and goings of her family across the street. Not a comfortable way to live, under the watchful eye of a bored, convicted criminal. She is terrified.[/quote]

What can she do? Well, obviously she has two choices: stay or go. She has chosen the latter. She could also have stayed and realized that people do get reformed; that the probation conditions are extremely strict; that no matter where you go - to work, to live - you are surrounded by products of the criminal justice system.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mr. Pollitt will not be "bored". This is an individual who will the sunrise for the first time in 24 years. There are plenty of things that will keep him occupied for the near future, not the least of which will be gainful employment.

[quote]I do agree that he cannot be kept in prison longer than he was sentenced for, but I also believe that there has to be a better alternative than this. What if he didn't have a family to go home to? Is it really necessary for his family to ruin the lives of all the families around them? Nobody else wanted him, that's what happens when you hurt people viciously like he did. It's not his sister's place to force him on the innocent people of this community.[/quote]

I'm glad you recognize that any legal system has to provide for an end to an inmate's sentence and a prohibition from keeping him incarcerated further. Consider the scenario where he didn't have family. Would you really feel safer in your town knowing that he lived in a half-way house, with no structure, with no family support, with no one to rely on?

Or is it just that he's moving into your neighborhood? Would you care if he moved into his sister's house across town?

Consider that perhaps the rest of his family didn't want to take him in because of the very reaction that Ms. Rosengren's neighborhood has had. Not everyone has the fortitude to deal with that.

Let us all finally remember that Mr. Pollitt has, as of yet, done nothing to any of the people living on that street. Any ruining of lives is, at this point, a creation of their fears.

[quote]Yeah, idiocy. Yeah, move out. Rich that you can be so cavalier. You're not being forced to uproot your family. You're not going to lose tens-of-thousands of dollars that you spent on a home that you decided would be worth the extra expense because it was on a cul-de-sac, in a safe neighborhood with good schools. You're not going to lose all the extra money and sweat equity spent on renovating a house so that it would be more comfortable for your family in the long run. You have nothing to lose on your high horse of constitutional rights at the expense of potential victims!

Why don't you use your knowledge and experience to come up with suggestions for a better way instead of insulting the victims of this unfortunate turn of justice?[/quote]

Could my tone have been better? Absolutely. I acknowledge as much in my original post. If you'd like some more civilized fare, try my more recent offerings here, here and here.

The rest of your comment is a rant and I respect that. Thanks for commenting.

Re: 24 years in jail is not enough | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:25:52 -0000

[quote comment="6735"]And, no, my brother's family has not been involved in the uproar surrounding this debacle. No cruel signs, or harrassment. They have watched quietly as this ugliness and thier abrupt change of fortune has unfolded, unwilling to draw unwanted attention in such a vulnerable situation. Made helpless by the kindness of their neighbor...[/quote]
I am glad to hear that. Some of the reports of the treatment of Mr. Pollitt's sister and her daughters is indeed sad.

Whatever other people's feelings might be, harassing and threatening her sister is a short step away from actually doing anything and then they'll have two criminals living on that street.

Re: The American Idol Governor | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:45:34 -0000

[quote comment="6724"]Wow - thanks for that link on recidivism. I was speaking from the "conventional wisdom" which apparently is not so wise......

I've been kvetching about the public and media "going to far" in terms of condemning sex offenders to a life of permanent underclass status, that document is pretty eye opening....[/quote]

Ah, no problem. While I'm not sure that any study is definitive, it does indicate that "conventional wisdom" is incorrect.

Re: Just so we’re clear | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:23:11 -0000

[quote comment="6764"]I wonder who pissed you off?!? And here I thought we were free to blog about what we really think... Blog on brother!!![/quote]

I was being honest when I said no one in particular. It's just time to remind people a) that this is a personal blog, so I'll say whatever I want and b) that my opinions have nothing to do with my employers.

Re: Just so we’re clear | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:14:39 -0000

[quote comment="6800"]PS. to your fair and balanced news sources, I would add this.[/quote]
Haha. You know, I seriously considered it... but I thought I should stick to local news outlets.

Re: The impatient jury | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:10:24 -0000

[quote comment="6962"]Make a record and move for a mistrial.[/quote]
I think I would also ask for an evidentiary hearing. Put the jurors under oath and make them spell out their problems.

Or is that what you meant by "make a record"?

Re: The impatient jury | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:44:25 -0000

[quote comment="6964"]Do you have a hearing like that in CT? I want one too, where I get to question the jurors during deliberations. Where can I buy one?[/quote]
Haha. No, it's not a hearing per se, but just an offer of proof. If there is an indication of juror bias or jury tampering then sometimes the court will question the jurors to determine whether there is reason to declare a mistrial.

I was saying that I'd ask for the same here.

As to your question, the "subscribe to comments" check box had been automatically selected. I have fixed that now.

Re: The best laid plans… | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:19:45 -0000

Yikes. We all have it different, even though we're fighting the same battle.

Thanks for reading, Robin! :)

Re: Just so we’re clear | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:26:06 -0000

[quote comment="7029"]Dude or Dudette...
If you like public defenders or are one..then I say rant on. Tell it like it is.[/quote]
Lol...this is "a public defender". I'd say that's a good bet that I am a public defender.

I want to tell it like it is, but I don't want to be rude just for the sake of it. A friendly reminder now and then doesn't hurt.

Re: Second Circuit on Crawford | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:28:32 -0000

[quote comment="7256"]The opinion is available here [pdf file]

While the Bruton issue is obviously, there is no mention of Bruton in the opinion at all. Rather than assume it is a sub silentio holding that Crawford trumps Bruton, which similarly makes no sense since they deal with entirely different issues, it seems more likely that the appellees failed to raise it, or that it was not raised by trial counsel and waived on appeal.

The notion that Bruton is somehow interconnected with a Crawford rulings simply makes no sense to me at all, and I certainly wouldn't conclude that the opinion can be read that way when Bruton is never mentioned. This smacks, to me, of a screw up somewhere on the defense side, and a court that wasn't going to raise a winning argument for the defendant if the defense didn't.[/quote]
Maybe I misunderstand you, but are you saying there's no connection between Crawford and Bruton?

I think the problem in the application of Bruton here might be that the facts of Bruton involved a testimonial statement. The principle, however, should apply. How else is the defendant to "confront his accuser", in this case, the co-defendant?

Re: Second Circuit on Crawford | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:36:46 -0000

[quote comment="7264"]While both are confrontation clause based, one is a rule of general application, the other specific. One has a remedy of severence, the other preclusion. They may overlap under certain circumstances, but are not functional equivalents.

See Confrontation Blog

and Indignant Indigent[/quote]

I don't think I said they were functional equivalents. I think in the case above, both Bruton and Crawford are implicated; why the Court did not address Bruton is the question.

Re: My truth is no better than your truth | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:32:13 -0000

[quote comment="7404"]Perhaps your best post ever. Telling the story is as important in sentencing after a plea as it is at a trial. Friday, one of our lawyers got probation in a case where the ADA was asking for seven to twelve...in large part, because he knew the facts, he knew his client, he had worked hard on how to explain his client to the judge.[/quote]
Thanks.

That's a very good point. When you have a sentence that calls for a right to argue, you have to put on the best mitigation case possible. Knowing the client and the client's story is a huge part of that.

Re: 208 (FL) prompts calls for EyeID Reform | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:47:43 -0000

[quote comment="7452"]208?

I believe this would bring it up to 210, though it's getting harder to keep track of what number to give each individual exonerated defendant. What a nice problem to have.[/quote]

The article says 208th, but that could be wrong. Either way, it's good to see the number growing.

Btw, I saw this movie last week and it's worth watching if you can get your hands on it. A well told tale of wrongful convictions, the reasons for them and the fights that were fought to secure release.

Re: Crack is not pot, dammit (Appellate Court ARO 10/31/07). | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:09:49 -0000

[quote comment="7568"]I always tell people the importance of proofreading their work and the error of cut-and-paste. But no one ever listens.

Which may (at least in this case) be a good thing.[/quote]

It really is a weak excuse that the error was caused by cut and paste.

The victory will be short-lived, though. The Supreme Court will grant cert and promptly reverse. Book it.

Re: Monday Morning Jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:13:16 -0000

[quote comment="7547"]Question re: Skakel. How is it that his crime, which was a juvenile case, becomes non-juvenile simply because he got older? I really don't know what the rules are, but that seems problematic.[/quote]

That was the big question in his appeal to the state Supreme Court. Read it and perhaps you can explain it to me. I still don't get it.

Majority
Concurrence

Both are pdf files.

Re: Lawmaker pondering sensible reform to sex offender registry | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:33:22 -0000

[quote comment="7673"]Did I miss it, or was there really no mention of AWA compliance in the article?

Put this article next to the one from Oklahoma (indicating that AWA compliance results in classifying nearly 80% of offenders as highest risk), and it's a basic nutshell of where the system can take a wrong (or right) turn.[/quote]
You're right. There was no mention of AWA compliance. I'm not up on the basics of that. Do all states have to comply and what are the specific requirements? Is there any leeway for state's to enact their own tiers?

Re: Crack is not pot, dammit (Appellate Court ARO 10/31/07). | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:34:46 -0000

[quote comment="7715"]Well, I guess if you are correct, Gideon, the 4th Amendment really is a thing of the past.

::mutter mutter particularity mutter mutter::[/quote]

4th? No such thing in my copy of the 'Tution. Starts with the second and goes straight to the 11th. $10 for you if you know what the 11th is without looking it up.

Re: IAC during plea bargaining | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:17:56 -0000

[quote comment="7768"]Cronic seems to solve this issue:

"In our evaluation of that conclusion, we begin by recognizing that the right to the effective assistance of counsel is recognized not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial."

Well, he got a fair trial . . . .[/quote]
So, at the most, we have conflicting opinions. I doubt Cronic overrules Blackledge or Strickland.

Re: First drafts of crim justice reform bills unveiled | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:03:38 -0000

[quote comment="7801"]I'm having difficulty understanding why you have such a distaste for the burglary = home invasion = burglary (-person) = burglary” bit. Unless it's just because it's stupid.

Ah, but wait and see. I guarantee you that with this new home invasion definition, a bit o' legislation mandating longer sentences for home invasion will be forthcoming.[/quote]

Yeah, that's my main opposition to this definition.

Re: IAC during plea bargaining | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:05:15 -0000

[quote comment="7820"]Here's another quote from Cronic:

"Apart from circumstances of that magnitude, however, there is generally no basis for finding a Sixth Amendment violation unless the accused can show how specific errors of counsel undermined the reliability of the finding of guilt."[/quote]

That quote does not talk about the finding of guilt after trial. A finding of guilt can also be via a plea of guilty.

I've updated my post to reflect more. There's a history of jurisprudence holding that the plea bargaining process is a critical stage and that a defendant is entitled to effective assistance during all stages of a criminal proceeding, not just a trial.

Re: IAC during plea bargaining | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:48:57 -0000

[quote comment="7824"]remember, in this case, the finding of guilt was reliable, as it was the result of a fair trial . . . .

That makes it inapposite to a case where the lawyer told the criminal to take a plea.

Thus, I think it difficult to get around the quotes in Cronic.[/quote]

However, there is a question as to whether there should have been a trial in the first place. I don't think the 6th Amendment jurisprudence restricts effective assistance only during a trial. I understand your quoting Cronic, but why don't you think a defendant would be entitled to effective representation during the pre-trial stages?

Re: IAC during plea bargaining | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:47:31 -0000

[quote comment="7835"]Because I think you're misreading the precedent. The right is not to effective assistance of counsel in the abstract. The right is to have your conviction overturned if IAC caused the defendant harm, i.e., resulted in a result that was not reliable. Here, we have a result that IS reliable. Ergo, no claim.

You can criticize this as overly formalistic, but the bottom line is that to rule for the defendant in Hoffman would be a significant expansion. The right to effective assistance is to make sure that defendants get fair trials (and when I say trials, i mean all of the pretrial crap going along with it, e.g., suppression, alibi etc.) or plead guilty with their eyes open. When a defendant fails to accept a plea and then claims IAC (to say nothing of his "having his cake and eating it too"--i.e., he got to roll the dice at trial, and he got a good deal) and gets a fair trial, then he has gotten what was promised him by the constitution, i.e., a reliable determination of guilt, which is all the Constitution promises. Remember, you have to prove more than simply ineffective rep--you have to prove harm, and the harm has to go to the reliability of the judgment. Here, there's none of that.

I seem to recall earlier that you were quite sure of yourself. I sense some slippage.[/quote]

I'll address the rest later, but there is no slippage. I am pretty sure that there is (or has to be) right to effective assistance of counsel at all stages and that includes pre-trial/plea bargaining.

Re: Monday Morning Jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:12:48 -0000

[quote comment="7887"]Even better than the article on the NACDL website is Lisa Steele's Quinnipiac Law Review article on the topic - tailored specifically for CT. It's at 25 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 799.[/quote]

Thanks, I'll have to check it out tomorrow!

Re: Monday Morning Jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:14:01 -0000

Looks like Lisa wrote this one too, but the Law Review article should definitely be more helpful to those practicing here.

Re: Watching your life go down the drain | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:15:35 -0000

JFC man. Do you ever get off your soapbox?

Re: Watching your life go down the drain | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:57:24 -0000

[quote comment="7957"]Do you?[/quote]

First of all, you missed the point of the post. Second, you don't have to keep pushing your agenda - we all know that you hate all defendants. Third, show some compassion. Fourth, you missed the point of the post.

Re: Watching your life go down the drain | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:37:16 -0000

Again, that's not the point of the post. I'm not sure you understand that, despite your protestations to the contrary.

I'm not going to comment any further. Either you get it or you don't.

Re: Enforcing the right to effective assistance of counsel | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:26:49 -0000

[quote comment="8207"]It would be nice if the Georgia ACLU would file something similar, but since they fired all their lawyers.. guess it won't be happening.[/quote]

Heh. I don't doubt that something momentous will happen in Georgia. However, they need to figure it out soon. The circus has gone on long enough.

Re: Enforcing the right to effective assistance of counsel | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:49:34 -0000

Long Time PD:

The culture of sub-standard representation is ingrained not only in states without a well-funded public defender system, but also in states that have flourishing, established divisions that provide representation to the indigent. It is also not limited to public defenders.

Some of the things I've seen passed off as "representation"....

Re: New features | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:26:02 -0000

2.2 was fine; I had no problems with it. This 2.3.1 is acting really strange. I had to disable Spam Karma and Quoter... I'm also not sure about these tags.

Re: Post title suggestion | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:18:10 -0000

Excellent!

Re: When the black box is opened | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:26:00 -0000

You're saying it's okay that someone was wrongfully convicted?

Re: High-risk sex offenders have nowhere to go | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:53:23 -0000

Put him back in jail for what? Futurecrime?

Re: High-risk sex offenders have nowhere to go | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:21:29 -0000

That's why we need some residential programs that are able to treat people like him or at least provide them a place to live with some monitoring.

Re: High-risk sex offenders have nowhere to go | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:08:03 -0000

It's certainly an option.

Re: Always a failing score | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:19:01 -0000

I'm not quite sure. I recognize that clients will always want to know how good their lawyer is, but any response will always be either incomplete, incorrect or misleading. I think the need for such a question might be obviated by the behavior of the attorney prior to and during initial communication. If your first meeting with the client takes the form of an involved discussion (by meeting, I don't mean initial intake), then perhaps the client can see that the attorney is confident - or at least committed.

Reputation also goes a long way. You'll be surprised (or maybe you won't) how quickly word spreads in jails.

Re: Always a failing score | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:02:33 -0000

You're absolutely right. It is that nuanced.

Re: So what should the reforms be? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:46:39 -0000

About a year ago, I had problems with this sort of legislation. I, too, feared the obvious repercussions. Now I'm ambivalent. I could be convinced either way.

I don't like the presumption bit of it, though. I should, being a crim defense lawyer, but I don't.

Re: Lawmaker pondering sensible reform to sex offender registry | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:32:34 -0000

Mark,

The bill did not pass. The Risk Assessment Board was given more time to complete its study and findings.

Re: Some things that I don’t get | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:45:31 -0000

Hehe. It really is very strange.

Re: Two new studies on sentencing disparity and attorney performance | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:49:25 -0000

Scoplaw, I quite agree with you, but as Scott often points out, our viewpoint is different from that of the non-pd lawyer. After all, the study was conducted by a U of Chicago professor and as seen by my follow up post, not everyone has the same reaction.

We see no difference because we're in the trenches and we know what it takes to be successful. The vast majority don't.

Re: Changes to Federal Rule 29? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:18:49 -0000

Good to know. Thanks! :)

Re: Not my thing | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:49:41 -0000

I would, but then I'd have to reveal my identity. If you promise not to divulge, then I'll attempt to make it down there.

Re: Monday Morning Jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:17:46 -0000

I wanted to use "interesting", but I had already used it, so I settled on the first thing that came to mind. You're right - informative would have been better.

Re: Sometimes I think the media shouldn’t cover crim justice stories at all | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:05:20 -0000

Michael Ross begged to be executed. He doesn't count. That still doesn't say anything about the challenge, either.

Re: Study finds CT’s death penalty racially biased | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:06:29 -0000

Yeah, but that's just it. The prosecutorial discretion is racially motivated, is part of the claim. The numbers do back it up.

Of course, the downside (for anti-dp people) is that more prosecutors will start seeking the DP.

Re: Sometimes I think the media shouldn’t cover crim justice stories at all | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:12:52 -0000

Yeah, I think that's what the study says. That there are many more offenses that are the same, if not worse, that did not result in the death penalty being sought.

Obviously I don't have the raw data, if that's what you're looking for.

Re: Sometimes I think the media shouldn’t cover crim justice stories at all | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:34:38 -0000

I'm not a student of criminal justice, so do you mind explaining why black victims of homicide are different from white victims "on a macro level"?

Re: Sometimes I think the media shouldn’t cover crim justice stories at all | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:31:55 -0000

Putting aside the very disturbing implications of your comment, let's focus on what the statistics in CT show. If the data shows that regardless of what the victim's criminal background is, if the crimes are of a comparable nature and the only difference between the seeking of the dp and the decision not to seek is the race of the victim, then why wouldn't the death penalty as applied in the State be unconstitutional?

Re: Justice | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:08:43 -0000

So, SPO, using that same logic, shouldn't the public sex offender registries have been taken down once the first vigilante used it to kill a released sex offender?

Or are their lives not worth as much because they're criminals?

What if the witness you speak of had a criminal record? Would you be okay with handing over contents of the file to the client then?

What if they were black?

Re: Justice | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:24:06 -0000

If the complaining witness clams up, I'm pretty sure that even if that case is dropped, my client is getting charged with tampering with a witness.

Yes, it is absolutely a real ethical duty to hand over everything in the file to the client. It is not your file, it is the client's file.

My question about black people stems simply from your statements over a period of time that black defendants and/or black victims are "different". The comments are there on the blog; anyone who wants to verify can go back and read them.

As to the witnesses with criminal records, they're doing the right thing so their life shouldn't be messed with, but it's okay if their murderers are charged with death at a lower rate, because "Percentage-wise, black victims of homicide are more likely to be criminals, more likely to be victims of non-capital eligible murders."

Incidentally, you're wrong. The study shows that the more "urban" areas charge death at the highest rates, compared to the non-urban areas. Yet, there is an over 21% disparity in the charging depending on the race of the victim.

I thought it appropriate to edit the comment. Sorry if you disagree.

Re: Justice | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:56:45 -0000

Okay, enough of this nonsense about "lots of people die". Seriously, stop your irresponsible hyperbole.

Second, if you have so much contempt, why do you keep commenting? If the only reason you have to comment here is to express your contempt, then it is not welcome.

Third, if it is in the file it belongs to the client. Maybe in your area of law it is different, but in criminal law it is so.

Fourth, I think I understand what you're saying about the data of the racial disparity, but I've read the entire study and it takes into account all the variables. It is comprehensive. If I could provide an electronic copy, I would. But I cannot.

So, I will say this to you one last time: If you wish to engage in a discussion here, feel free to do so, but remember it must be in a civil manner and if your only purpose is to continue to belittle those in this profession and to express your contempt, then I suggest you find another outlet.

Re: Justice | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:55:33 -0000

No one is facilitating anything. I'm extremely confident that if any attorney has even an inkling that his client is going to misuse the information then he will not turn it over.

What if the defendant is pro-se? He is entitled to copies of the reports - unredacted. In that case, would you say the prosecutor is responsible?

Finally, this study. Have you read it? No. How the hell can you dismiss anything that you haven't read? Talk about bias...

Re: Santa baby | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:30:51 -0000

Heh. You know, between the two of us covering this, we're a "pair-a-leg-als"

Heh. Heh.

I feel like Peter Griffin.

Re: The Rodneys: 2007 edition | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:12:43 -0000

Wow. It seems to have struck a nerve with you!

The awards are just for fun - don't take them too seriously. It is a popularity contest.

Why the categories as they are? I don't know; why not?

Re: A man jumps off a building… | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:22:38 -0000

I don't remember crim law all too well, but I think an important question would be whether transferred intent includes foreseeability. If it does, then perhaps the charge of murder is improper. If it does not (and think of the possibilities!), then she could properly be charged with murder.

I'll go take a look at LaFave.

Re: A man jumps off a building… | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:27:38 -0000

This is what the MPC says:

A.L.I., Model Penal Code and Commentaries (1985) § 2.03 provides in relevant part: "(2) When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplation of the actor unless:

"(a) the actual result differs from that designed or contemplated, as the case may be, only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the injury or harm designed or contemplated would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or

"(b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor's liability or on the gravity of his offense."

Is it too remote or accidental that a man jumping off a building at exactly the same time as the shot was fired would get killed? Probably.

Re: The Rodneys: 2007 edition | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:16:18 -0000

Well, as a PD, I'm not taking it seriously either. It's just a bit of fun for all of us that don't get no respect :)

Re: A man jumps off a building… | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:27:03 -0000

Heck, we might even have a capital felony: kidnapping and murder!

Re: 0 for 11: Appellate Court ARO 12/5/07 | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:40:00 -0000

I don't understand...that's what it said in the decision I read and quoted above: "incongruity"

Re: The state of the - yawn

Gideon — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:20:24 -0000

Hah! Someone asked me that at work and I tried to wiggle out of answering it. She fake objected and tried to get the "judge" to force me to answer it. Then the conversation devolved into a re-enactment of the scene from My Cousin Vinny when Marissa Tomei is on the stand.

But seriously - I understand why you'd be interested in this. As for the rest, I have no clue. Or am I reading too much into it?

Btw: I think this might be your first visit here, so, welcome! I'm an avid reader :)

Re: The state of the - yawn

Gideon — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:12:01 -0000

I guess so. Although...I can understand law review articles getting discussion - they might have something of substance. But this? I guess if it's entirely fluff and not to be taken seriously, but that's belied by the number of posts and the thought put into it.

This is navel gazing at its worst.

Oh, and, "we"? You're one of them now?

Re: Justice | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:02:24 -0000

No, those are special cases that we are hiding from you.

Re: Because she’s hot | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:03:21 -0000

YSMTR, it is normal.

Re: Justice | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:26:38 -0000

Geezus, let it go already. We know where you stand.

Re: The state of the - yawn

Gideon — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:35:18 -0000

What if I refuse.

Re: The state of the - yawn

Gideon — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:53:47 -0000

Carolyn, thanks for the comment. Unfortunately your blog is blocked for me here. I will have to wait until I return home to re-read it.

I have several points to make, but I will wait until later, when I have had the opportunity to refresh my recollection.

Re: Listserves: I don’t know if they’re evil, but they’re damn entertaining | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:57:52 -0000

I think I have a problem with relying on them. Knowing that you can always ask a question there in a do-or-die situation and get an answer. It's fine as one of the alternatives for sources of help and information, but over-dependence on it (and there are quite a few that operate in that fashion) is dangerous and not good practice.

Re: The state of the - yawn

Gideon — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:51:41 -0000

Susan: I guess I'm just confused at this notion of "power". What power?

Frankly, the only "use" I've gotten out of blogs (aside from getting to know some interesting people) is reading about cases that I normally wouldn't have heard about.

I'm more up on what's happening in the legal field throughout the country, but only a small fraction of it actually affects my practice. Maybe it is because I am a public defender, working for an organization and a hierarchical structure, that it doesn't impact me as much.

But I haven't seen that reflected in posts on this topic.

So, I guess I still don't get why I should care.

(I don't mean this in a snarky way - I truly don't)

Re: Listserves: I don’t know if they’re evil, but they’re damn entertaining | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:54:41 -0000

As I was driving around after my last comment, it occurred to me that there might be another reason why you and I view listserves differently.

I work in an office with colleagues and supervisors and hundreds of other attorneys in the system that I can call if I need to. Maybe it is different for the solo, who can't walk down the hall and ask the question.

Do you think that has anything to do with the relative value we place on these listserves? Or did it always form a part of your opinion and I just missed it? (It's possible. I'm stupid like that.)

Re: The state of the - yawn

Gideon — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:00:39 -0000

Carolyn: I re-read your post.

Two points: How do you think blogging will impact the law and how will it impact my clients? Do you think that if there are more (and perhaps better) blogs, clients will be more informed about the law and lawyering itself and demand and expect more? (I'm really asking - not being a wiseass)

Second, I think your predictions should be more of a bloggers manifesto for the coming year. There are several things on your list that I think bloggers should do and frankly, should have done already.

Again, I think there's a difference in perspective given our modes of profession, as it were. As someone who is a pd and wants to be a pd till I retire, the marketing bit doesn't really mean anything to me and I don't see blogs impacting the law itself any time soon (or at all).

Re: The state of the - yawn

Gideon — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:34:12 -0000

Susan, all of the above are excellent points and I'm quite in agreement on the use of social networking in our representation of clients and the impact it has.

But I think we've digressed from the original points made on the posts that I linked to (bar Carolyn's). Those posts were all about legal blogs and whether there will be more legal blogs and if the rich will get richer in terms of readership.

I think Carolyn was the only one that made the connection between the discussion as it existed and the impact on our profession as a whole in the future. And it is that original thought - "are enough people reading us" - that I take issue with as it is repeated over and over again. The self-importance of lawyers was shining through.

Re: Is Manslaughter an LIO of murder? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:22:57 -0000

You need me to give you more options to call me names? You're imaginative enough. Come up with something on your own :P

Re: Is Manslaughter an LIO of murder? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:35:21 -0000

Well, I don't think that is the specific problem that I have (although courts here have held that manslaughter with a firearm can be an LIO of murder, if charged accordingly).

I'm struggling with the recklessness part of it.

Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat. Hasn't been since losing the Democratic primary in '06. He is a Republipendent.

Re: Is Manslaughter an LIO of murder? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:55:42 -0000

That's what I thought! All the case law that's out there holds that it is an LIO, presumably because recklessness is part of forming a specific intent. I just don't get it.

Re: Is Manslaughter an LIO of murder? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:54:48 -0000

Yeah, I don't get it. I think it's currently in the process of being challenged.

Re: Is Manslaughter an LIO of murder? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:37:31 -0000

Not quite. The intent you need to commit murder is the intent to kill. The intent required for manslaughter under sub (1) is the intent to seriously injure, but not kill. For if it were intent to kill, then it would be murder.

The problem I have is with sub (3).

Re: Speechless | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:39:48 -0000

Where did you get that in her response? How did you get anything from her response? You're "with her" in what? I'm befuddled!

Anyway, according to the "poll", only 1/5th of Americans can't place the US on a map. Given the population of the country, however, it seems rather high. I'm sure there's a miniscule percentage of the population that can't place the country on a map.

Re: Speechless | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:18:04 -0000

Icelandic. Ouch.

She's not that hot and if that's how she always talks...well...

Nevertheless, blond and dumb > Scott

Re: Because she’s hot | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:03:27 -0000

Jesse, thanks for the comment and the link! I was actually expecting you to comment on another post (this one), but maybe you didn't disagree. Happy Holidays!

Re: Lawyers appreciate… a good fight | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:32:31 -0000

I forgot about that. I guess she can respond when she gets back.

Re: Jumpstart - Christmas Edition | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:03:05 -0000

Thanks for the post :)

Re: Lawyers appreciate… a good fight | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:51:24 -0000

We look forward to you returning to blogging! Happy Holidays :)

Re: In which Gideon wishes more prosecutors were reasonable | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:28:41 -0000

Why do you even bother?

Re: In which Gideon wishes more prosecutors were reasonable | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:26:59 -0000

<img src="http://www.myoldtruck.com/gallery/files/1/2/9/jeez_not_this_shit_again.jpg" alt="troll">

You, my good sir, are now officially a troll.</img>

Re: Lingua lex | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:59:38 -0000

Not even in appellate briefs?

Re: Lingua lex | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:10:41 -0000

I don't think I've ever used that phrase. It seems very awkward.

Re: Sunday Stupidity | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:13:16 -0000

Yeah, I did notice that! Stronger than her body shape would lead you to believe.

Still, pretty damn funny :D

Re: Selling yourself by trashing others | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:22:18 -0000

Very good points from all. My basic problem is that every point made by these lawyers in these posts could have been made by dropping the comparisons to public defenders and they would have been just as effective.

What is the need to trash on other members of the same profession (and let's not kid ourselves - they're trying to make themselves look better by playing up the stereotypes about public defenders)?

A lot of what they said is true - but it doesn't apply only to public defenders. So why aren't other firms mentioned? Because there's the prevailing notion that public defenders are a)overworked and b) don't do anything but force clients to plead guilty.

It's fear mongering.

Re: Selling yourself by trashing others | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:46:39 -0000

Atticus - no one is arguing that this is our "biggest problem". It's just annoying, nonetheless. At least to me.

Yes, the ways to dispel the myth is to prove it wrong by action. I don't doubt that and strive for that myself.

Yet, it doesn't help that fellow members of the bar would exploit that stereotype for their own pecuniary gain.

Re: The right to a jury trial: Can you afford it? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:40:26 -0000

Saucy: Right on the money...err..I mean spot.

So what is to be done? Have a fund? What are the chances of that being exploited or misused? Should income eligibility guidelines be revised to be more realistic?

Actually, that's not a bad idea.

Re: The right to a jury trial: Can you afford it? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:40:42 -0000

SPO: It's a start :D

Re: The right to a jury trial: Can you afford it? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:41:16 -0000

Miss Conduct: I say that every day. Thanks for commenting! :)

Re: The right to a jury trial: Can you afford it? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:35:10 -0000

I thought about you while posting this, because I know you'd posted about your fee before, but you have the luxury of charging a little extra - having an established practice. Not everyone can afford you and it is those that can't who get "hosed".

Re: The right to a jury trial: Can you afford it? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:06:39 -0000

Some further thoughts from Scott (since he doesn't know how to send a trackback)

Re: The right to a jury trial: Can you afford it? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:08:57 -0000

Mark, I do think that you've got the better method by far - work it into your flat fee from the beginning and that way you're able to offer a discount on a trial fee.

The problem is that not everyone does it and despite your generosity (or shrewd business sense), not everyone can take advantage of it.

Re: The right to a jury trial: Can you afford it? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:12:25 -0000

How do you come to a determination of what a fair fee would be? Do you have a base rate that you charge for every case - assuming there will be no trial and then tack on a scaled amount depending on the likelihood of trial in that particular case?

Re: The right to a jury trial: Can you afford it? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:43:48 -0000

Here's Mark's take on this.

So let me ask you all a question: Are hourly rates in criminal cases ethical? I'm not talking about contract work with the public defenders office, where you can get paid a flat fee plus hourly rates. For a private attorney - do you think hourly rates in criminal cases are a good idea?

Re: The right to a jury trial: Can you afford it? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:48:16 -0000

What if you billed the client every week? It would make for smaller bills, perhaps making it more palatable to the client to pay?

Re: Decision of the day, Texas edition | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:09:19 -0000

Optics?

Re: Decision of the day, Texas edition | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:13:33 -0000

Cat:

A grand jury is a group of people that are selected and sworn in by a court, just like jurors that are chosen to serve on a trial jury. In fact, the grand jurors are usually chosen from the same pool of people that provide trial jurors: A judge selects and swears in a grand jury, just like judges select and swear in trial juries.

From Here

Re: Re-direct? Re-cross? Jury? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:21:53 -0000

The point is the burden of proof. Yes, they may ask questions damaging to the State too - I recognize that, but we're quite okay with convictions where the defense attorney is pretty incompetent and yet when the prosecutor forgets to ask a question - it becomes about a quest for truth.

Every "player" in this "game" has his/her own role. The jury decides based on the evidence presented to it. Why don't we allow juries to go to crime scenes or read newspapers?

Burden of proof - the State has it and the state alone must meet it.

Re: Monday Morning Jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:54:38 -0000

Glad you liked it :)

Re: Phoning it in | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:37:37 -0000

Procedural as in it wasn't a decision on the merits of his claim. It's not that they said that being absent during the plea is not ineffective, they just said that it shouldn't have been heard by the district court because they haven't expressly said that.

You really could have made your point without the "Clinton hacks" statement.

Re: Gov’s task force gets 2 out of 3 right | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:51:49 -0000

Because that fact pattern is already covered by an existing statute.

As if there aren't enough useless duplicate statutes on the books already.

Re: Gov’s task force gets 2 out of 3 right | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:06:09 -0000

Here's another: You can be convicted of both unlawfully entering and unlawfully remaining in a residence. Add in home invasion and now you have three offenses for the identical act.

Re: Gov’s task force gets 2 out of 3 right | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:12:44 -0000

Miranda: you have permission to speak for me. Anything to make me seem more intelligent.

Re: Prosecutors want hazardous duty pay? | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:15:05 -0000

Lord, you're a broken record. Again you miss the point of this post. In comparison to prosecutors, defense attorneys are more often the target of threats and anger.

That was the only point of my post.

Re: Enjoy it while it lasts | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:57:28 -0000

This saccharine might make me puke.

Re: Keeping abreast of developments in the law | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:32:06 -0000

I disagree. I don't think it should prevent you from making creative arguments - in fact, it would help you in making creative arguments.

On the other hand, if you argue something that's well settled in your jurisdiction and you plainly display that you're just not aware of it, you're doing your client a disservice.

I just can't see how it would hurt you in your representation of a client.

Re: Keeping abreast of developments in the law | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:51:12 -0000

I agree wholeheartedly. Elements analysis does come first, but this might just be a close second. It's impact pervades our entire practice.

Re: Who needs merit when you’re in habeas | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:13:04 -0000

Oh you...

It was more of a play on the Court's use of the words.

Re: Enjoy it while it lasts | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:14:00 -0000

Are you saying you don't understand why I needed to post about this?

Re: Enjoy it while it lasts | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:14:51 -0000

Yeah, there wouldn't be. Just a small win in real life. Miranda's a friend, I have a blog, so I figured, why the hell not?

Re: What’s in a word? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:25:31 -0000

How many times will that happen? Once? Twice? Then you'll get the hang of it and it will be natural.

Re: Who needs merit when you’re in habeas | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:52:50 -0000

A) They don't have to be

2) Even if they are, I think it's quite something for an appellate court to not say something about an attorney that admits to filing frivolous claims.

III) How do you know I'm "feigning"? It surely was dramatic, but not in the least fake.

Re: Blawgosphere pay attention: AT & T might have lost its mind | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:41:08 -0000

Really? I hadn't heard that before. That is truly disturbing.

Re: Why justice has nothing to do with a conviction | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:05:54 -0000

That's why I said I think.

Re: The superduperawesome megacriminaljusticereform bill | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:19:21 -0000

Right and I think that's the necessary wrinkle that might differentiate it from burglary. I haven't done an elements analysis yet, so I don't know if it makes any difference.

As you're probably aware, however, almost anything can be a dangerous instrument. Such as a screwdriver to unscrew the tv stand.

Re: This month at the Supreme Court | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:13:49 -0000

The Appellate Court docket is too long and they don't publish summaries, so it would be pointless to do that, but I do skim it as well.

Re: Logging in to the 5th | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:39:58 -0000

Yeah, but that's like providing a link to google.

Re: Logging in to the 5th | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:47:50 -0000

I didn't say it was a Miranda issue, but like a Miranda waiver.

Are you saying that it isn't a self-incrimination problem at all?

Re: Theme song | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:56:21 -0000

What did you do? Try to embed video in the comment?

Re: Three degrees of YOU’RE A PREDATOR! | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:20:21 -0000

That's exactly right.

And what's this business about an "anonymous caller"? Another parent who can't deal with the fact that their kid is on myspace and is of porn-viewing age (which, if they remembered back to their own childhood is, like, 13)?

Re: Three degrees of YOU’RE A PREDATOR! | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:08:51 -0000

Maggie - it would be even worse if it were Facebook, but this was on MySpace, where you can see whatever you want unless it is set to private unless you're a friend.

Re: Three degrees of YOU’RE A PREDATOR! | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:19:20 -0000

Heh. Spacebook. Maybe social networking for stoners?

Re: Three degrees of YOU’RE A PREDATOR! | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:46:16 -0000

There's no law. It's MySpace. Some parent caught their kid looking at it and figured out how he/she got there. Anyone can look at friends' pages and see what they have linked to.

Re: If you haven’t already | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:40:19 -0000

I don't like her at all. However, the stopped clock...

Re: Superficial analysis of CT Supreme Court decisions | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:50:45 -0000

I might do that next weekend. I toyed with that idea, but by the time I got done with this analysis, I was bored.

Another tidbit, though:

Justice Katz wrote the only dissent of the whole period. Just one dissent in 49 cases.

Only two concurrences in 49 cases. That's it.

So 46 decisions with one opinion. 48 of them where all the judges agreed on the outcome. Incredible.

Re: Crack House Due Process | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:32:33 -0000

Fantastic idea. I'll update the post.

Re: Crack House Due Process | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:08:21 -0000

Lol. Yessiree. I especially love when they try to tackle confidential informants and assault on an officer cases.

Re: The forever persecuted | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:42:14 -0000

So basically you're saying it's ripe for a challenge? :D

Re: Ordering a pizza in 2020 | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:34:07 -0000

Kinda cool and scary at the same time.

Re: Just so you know | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:01:45 -0000

Indeed! Congratulations! :D

Re: Just so you know | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:14:32 -0000

Hey, you're a palindrome! 2002!

Re: Lazale Ashby gets death | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:28:08 -0000

My job is done. He will never kill anyone else and I can sleep soundly at night with the actions I took to bring this man to justice.

So how would that be any less true if he were sentenced to life in prison?

Re: Population explosion: Will we ever get beyond the quick-fix? | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:37:13 -0000

Michael: Thanks for the comment and well said. It seems that corrections is one of those things - like defense for the federal government - that too many people are far too invested in to make any real changes. Preventive methods that have just as much of a shot as incarceration aren't given a chance, because it doesn't "sound" good. A shame, really.

Re: Population explosion: Will we ever get beyond the quick-fix? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:07:22 -0000

I think he might have meant 200 DNA exonerations overall.

Re: Youngest lifer back in jail: (why) are(n’t) you surprised? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:40:26 -0000

SPO: If you really can't fathom the point of the post or the message behind it, then...well, I'm not surprised.

It also strikes me as odd that you keep expecting anything different from my posts. This is a blog written by me - a public defender. I come to these stories from a certain perspective and I write only about one aspect of the story, which is the message. This is not a news blog, which covers all sides. I don't know why you keep expecting that one day I will wake up and decide I want to be a journalist.

Re: Youngest lifer back in jail: (why) are(n’t) you surprised? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:17:29 -0000

You didn't "get the better of me". I just stopped responding to you.

Re: W(h)ither Miranda? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:46:39 -0000

I think the videotaping works if we move away from a bright-line rule. If there was greater focus on the voluntariness of a confession, then a video from start to finish might better serve the judge in making the determination of whether a confession was voluntary.

Obviously, you are going to have people who feel coerced regardless, but that's another issue, where perhaps education might come into play.

Of course, you are correct that if there is a coerced confession - the coercion aspect of which is not "caught on tape", then any challenge to it might be completely useless.

I think it's better than what we currently have, though. If nothing else, the cops might behave a little better.

Re: Is videotaping interrogations a better solution? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:34:20 -0000

Well, I certainly did try. Don't know what I got wrong.

Edit: I edited it a bit. Perhaps that's more accurate?

TexPD: That's something that can be avoided only if the videotaping occurs from the outset. If the starting point is too late, then some of that coercion may occur prior to it. Certainly, if all contact is videotaped, it probably would eliminate false promises like that.

Re: Is videotaping interrogations a better solution? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:55:37 -0000

Oh I agree. Limited videotaping is absolutely useless and potentially quite harmful. But what if "we" mandate that the entire interrogation should be videotaped?

The obvious hurdle with that, as I mention, is how to define that start point. Do you start videotaping when a suspect is "in custody"? We all know how pointless that term is when it comes to interrogations and actually getting incriminating information. So something before that? Initial contact? A warning to not talk in a location where the contact cannot be recorded?

That's the part that I'm least clear on, but if we put our heads together, I'm sure we can come up with a workable starting point that would eliminate - or reduce greatly - any concerns that there was prior inappropriate/coercive contact.

Re: The “Hillary as public defender” flak (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:48:12 -0000

Look at this for instance:

For example

Yes, not everyone has that same viewpoint, as I mentioned in the post itself, but this isn't anything really new. This is a prevalent viewpoint, one that we encounter often from friends, acquaintances and strangers.

Re: Money won’t buy you better justice | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:57:38 -0000

Yeah, I do meander with my thoughts. It's about offers, investigations..all sorts of things. Just the general idea that more money will make results more favorable.

Re: Piercing the blogging veil | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:42:49 -0000

I don't know that there's anything to fear. It's just uncomfortable knowing that a growing number of people who work with me (and are far more experienced) are reading this.

Re: Piercing the blogging veil | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:22:01 -0000

Saucy: Yes. Both in my immediate office and obviously division wide. Now, stop it or I'll out you too :p

Anne: Whatfor?

Re: Piercing the blogging veil | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:39:53 -0000

You're right. I should change that picture. It's not me, actually. It's my sworn enemy - the Daleks. The last one alive in the universe, actually.

Re: Piercing the blogging veil | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:51:49 -0000

Now you're pissing me off :-p

Re: Piercing the blogging veil | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:26:07 -0000

NolleQueen: You're going to have to tell me who outed me. Send me an e-mail. Also, I'm pretty sure that any favorable impression you have of me will almost certainly disappear upon meeting me in person. Just ask the SaucyVixen or Miranda. No one listens to me in the office.

SaucyVixen: You're on your own tomorrow.

Re: Disparity challenge to death penalty survives motion to dismiss (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:39:44 -0000

All this without even reading the decision. You're so smart.

Re: Piercing the blogging veil | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:35:00 -0000

Which is why I don't write about my job specifically or the people I work with or my bosses or their bosses. Not that I have anything critical to say, but if someone did, it would be quite stupid of them to write about it on a semi-anonymous blog.

Re: Disparity challenge to death penalty survives motion to dismiss (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:40:15 -0000

SPO: You supposedly work in civil law, right? What's the standard for granting a Motion to Dismiss?

Also, let's tone down the characterization of the judge.

Re: Piercing the blogging veil | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:47:18 -0000

Sorry, didn't mean for it to come across that way. I guess I've seen plenty of careers ruined because of blogs and unyielding bosses, that by now, I have no idea why anyone would do it.

Sorry it made things bad for you.

Re: Piercing the blogging veil | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:36:52 -0000

Thanks and thanks for reading :)

Re: Disparity challenge to death penalty survives motion to dismiss (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:09:15 -0000

SPO: Did you even read the opinion or is this more nonsense posturing from you?

Why should you tone down the characterization? Because I'm telling you to.

Re: Disparity challenge to death penalty survives motion to dismiss (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:05:52 -0000

Hah! You haven't even read the opinion? Man, your credibility is now slipping into negative territory.

It's not about hurting their feelings. It's about being civil. Them's the rules here. Don't like it, don't post.

Re: Disparity challenge to death penalty survives motion to dismiss (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:16:34 -0000

Because I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you when you're pulling stuff out of thin air and don't even have the good sense to read the decision before engaging in a vilification of that decision. It's a waste of everyone's time and is particularly pointless. Sorry, SPO, I'm not going to take you seriously anymore.

Re: Youngest lifer back in jail: (why) are(n’t) you surprised? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:47:41 -0000

SPO: If you say so. Let me ask you this. Why do you believe that there shouldn't be a right to effective assistance of counsel during the pre-trial stage of a criminal prosecution?

Re: Youngest lifer back in jail: (why) are(n’t) you surprised? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:51:20 -0000

Let me reproduce the paragraph from my post that you quote (incompletely):

Did the three years he spent in the company of older, more experienced criminals wipe away any hope of him leading a productive life? (I have been unable to discover whether he spent those three years in prison or some sort of juvenile detention facility. Let us assume he spent them in a real prison, for he is certainly not the only juvenile to be sentenced to such illustrious company.)

Read that again. See if you understand what I said.

"These facts" show us that he committed another crime. My post was exploring one possibility why. Obviously, you chose to ignore that. Thanks for furthering the conversation.

Way to also ignore the last paragraph of my post.

Re: Monday Morning Jumpstart | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:32:23 -0000

I take it you're referring to yourself?

Re: Burglarizing your mother’s house? | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:36:43 -0000

I just remembered that the correct verb is "burglarizing". I like "burgling" too, though.

Re: Eyewitness ID reform bill introduced in judiciary committee | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:38:33 -0000

No, no, no.

75% of wrongful convictions are because of bad ID.

15% are because of snitches.

Re: One by one they steal my sanity | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:43:29 -0000

Geez, if I drank every time I thought I "needed" to, I'd be drinking all day. Not that there aren't times when I do.

Norm: Tell us about your part-time gig as a judge ;)

Donzell: Sometimes laughing at what we deal with is the only thing to do. And sometimes, as Anouilh said, there's nothing left to do but scream.

Re: Eyewitness ID reform bill introduced in judiciary committee | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:16:34 -0000

What is the enforcement problem you see?

Re: TMYK: Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:58:54 -0000

Yeah. I know I've gotten the story on Littlejohn before, but I'll ask again. It does seem result oriented.

Re: TMYK: Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 06:42:31 -0000

Tolling is a whole 'nother issue. It seems really counterintuitive.

SOL should be a bar to prosecution and hence a jurisdictional constraint.

Re: TMYK: Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:36:56 -0000

Yes it does. If you run away, etc. Also, a warrant tolls the SOL, but it must be served with due diligence and without unreasonable delay.

Re: TMYK: Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:04:29 -0000

There's no explicit prospective provision in the new SOL?

Re: TMYK: Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:03:50 -0000

BigLaw! Heh.

Re: TMYK: Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:12:10 -0000

I meant to ask: Who are you and what have you done with SPO?

Re: What’s on your mind? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:42:09 -0000

I think it's a chicken or egg thing. Are we becoming more violent as a society and thus need to be locked up more or is it because we are being locked up more that we are becoming more violent?

I don't think "soft on crime" and "tough on crime" work. What works is being "smart on crime". Recognizing those that can be rehabilitated and providing the tools to do so. Recognizing the ones that can't and finding appropriate punishment (and trying anyway).

Re: The uselessness of crossing an eyewitness | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:58:03 -0000

It would, wouldn't it? Short of that, I think we're just going to have to keep plugging away pre-trial. The more this is repeated, the more it will begin to sink it.

Re: The uselessness of crossing an eyewitness | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:11:31 -0000

I think they call it a "retreat".

Re: The uselessness of crossing an eyewitness | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:58:40 -0000

Sorry. When I typed the post I couldn't remember where I'd seen the story and then I went through the RSS feeds and found it in your post. I was too lazy to change the text. My bad.

Re: The uselessness of crossing an eyewitness | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:05:50 -0000

Yeah, it has been spotty. Sometimes I get the feed and sometimes I don't.

I changed the post to be more accurate :)

Re: The uselessness of crossing an eyewitness | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:38:34 -0000

It really is very instructive. I just hope enough people are paying attention.

Re: Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:00:37 -0000

It would be the right time to do that. Maybe he got lonely at home, who knows? Everyone needs some lovin'.

Re: Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:12:44 -0000

NolleQueen: Savor it. Won't happen again for a while. Profundity is not my cup of tea :)

Re: Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:36:03 -0000

Had no idea so many people didn't like him so viciously.

Re: The long arm of the law (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:50:17 -0000

Oh I'm glad you brought that up. I meant to include that in my original post but I forgot. (I'm serious - I'm not just saying that.) Isn't it odd that this is what is written about in the NYT? I mean, it's a legal column, but still, there have go to be standards!

Re: Sex in the stationhouse: What’s the relevance? | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:31:30 -0000

I guess it's better to be safe than sorry. If there are going to be appeals stemming from this trial, then it's better to create a record, but this isn't some complicated fourth amendment issue. This is a relevancy objection.

But you're right. In the greater scheme of things, asking for briefs on the matter isn't a huge deal. I don't think it was necessary, but that's just my opinion.

Re: Sex in the stationhouse: What’s the relevance? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:54:10 -0000

I wonder how it is pronounced.

Re: Sex in the stationhouse: What’s the relevance? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:43:30 -0000

Oh that's so lame.

Re: Death penalty on our minds | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:45:26 -0000

How many people do you have working on capital appeals? Are those 42 days enough? Would you recommend that?

Re: Probation reform considered | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:00:25 -0000

Really? That's ridiculous.

They have longer probationary periods for some specific felonies - like sex assaults, but generally, the max is 5.

Re: Death penalty on our minds | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:48:30 -0000

It is a civility policy and yes, I'd prefer it if people refrained from using that word or words like that. I'm not going to delete it, though, just like I didn't delete your characterization of Judge Fuger.

Re: Woman stuck to boyfriend’s toilet | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:32:17 -0000

What's your threshold? One day? Two? I think after 24 hours I might think something's wrong.

Re: Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:11:46 -0000

The point is: so were they, until they committed their crime.

You may try to live your life the best you can in a law-abiding manner, but you don't know what's going to happen in the future and you don't know how certain events may impact you.

Re: Death penalty on our minds | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:15:59 -0000

Done. Thanks for commenting!

Re: Your medicine tastes a bit bitter, no? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:26:02 -0000

of course we wouldn't. It's just the irony that gets me.

Re: Your medicine tastes a bit bitter, no? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:26:13 -0000

Sites like that already exist. There's one for judges too.

Re: Oh Georgia: Dubious conviction of Troy Davis to stand | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:42:18 -0000

SPO: I agree that that there might be a general concern on the Court's part that opening this door wide might lead to foul play. However, there needs to be an evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses recantations.

Which is why the dissent (and the rest of us) argue that there should have at least been an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

Re: Oh Georgia: Dubious conviction of Troy Davis to stand | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:11:05 -0000

That may be so, but when the evidence is overwhelming that an innocent man in on death row and there are 5 witness who are "recanting" the least you can do for "justice" is to hear them out.

Re: Happy Birthday to me… | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:59:29 -0000

Thank you, SHG :)

Re: Happy Birthday to me… | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:50:47 -0000

No idea it was your bday! Happy Birthday!

PS: Not my real birthday. Click on the link.

Re: Happy Birthday to me… | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:49:45 -0000

Well folks, thank you all for these kind wishes. Since I will never post about "my" birthday on this blog, I will take this as birthday wishes for that occasion.

Miss Conduct - that is indeed true that I neglected to observe the 18th as a holy day. That does not diminish the fact, however, that no one else noticed it too.

Re: Legal fictions and the standard of proof | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:53:51 -0000

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying this result is okay?

Re: Legal fictions and the standard of proof | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:35:40 -0000

Well, let's think that out. Assuming that this is only an ID case, the jury either believes her or not, right?

If they think she was probably telling the truth, then what is the doubt?

I just can't get past the underlying assumption that they believed her, but didn't believe her enough.

I could be completely wrong, but I don't think people work that way when asked to make judgments about the truth or falsity of a statement.

Re: Sunday Stupidity: All for a taco edition | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:13:28 -0000

3 years' probation seems a tad excessive for this, I think. 100 hours working at the taco store would have sufficed.

Re: Eyewitness reform bill fails; DNA on arrest bill passes | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:58:17 -0000

theeble - thanks for the info. If you are indeed correct, then that is good news. I'll be on the lookout for the amended bill.

Re: The courtroom as assembly line | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:45:43 -0000

Fair enough Donzell. However, I don't see drifting in and out and ignoring pleas and sentencings while thinking about the upcoming weekend as doing your best.

Re: The courtroom as assembly line | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:55:07 -0000

For me, the phrase that would induce the same result would probably be: "Do you want some coffee?"

Re: A time for change | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:27:59 -0000

Windy: You tryin' to get me fired? Then I'll really be out of a job :(

Re: A time for change | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:42:43 -0000

I know! I saw that early this morning. He's got too much time on his hands. All I did was photoshop a new banner.

Re: A time for change | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:33:56 -0000

I agree. But not too many would get the reference, I think.

Re: Judge reverses conviction after polling jurors | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:07:16 -0000

So you're firmly in favor of having juries know of or decide the punishment?

Re: Judge reverses conviction after polling jurors | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:20:22 -0000

What is your stance on prior convictions? Do you think that juries should be aware of that too?

Re: Texas polygamist raid based on defective warrant? | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:38:39 -0000

To a point, though, right? What if state law permitted consensual sex between anyone above the age of 14. Then this sect moved into town and the legislators didn't like their other practices (albeit legal). So to "get" them, they changed the age of consent to 16, knowing that people of this sect got married at 15. Would that still be legal? Should it?

Re: Every law school class had one of these guys | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:51:57 -0000

I think that's standard. Too many graduates, not enough jobs.

Re: Every law school class had one of these guys | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:51:36 -0000

I think a lot of people distracted themselves from really enjoying law school. A lot of them ended up at BigLaw. Somehow, I don't think you were one to be too worried.

Re: Every law school class had one of these guys | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:52:20 -0000

I went to a barely Tier 1 school and the only thing I liked was the criminal clinic (and law & literature).

Re: Every law school class had one of these guys | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:00:54 -0000

Yeah, Evidence was okay, I guess. I didn't understand a damn thing in Conn. Law (only recently did I actually get Marbury). In Advanced Conn Law: Individual Rights we watched G.I. Jane...

Re: Every law school class had one of these guys | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:02:35 -0000

So are you going to translate your externship at the Federal P.D.'s office into a full-time gig? I interned at one during my second summer - I had a blast!

Re: Every law school class had one of these guys | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:48:06 -0000

Well that sucks. Sorry to hear that the FPD won't take newbies. Wasn't like that where I interned. They were hiring out of law school. Alas, I did not make the cut. Worked out, though :)

Good luck with the future! I'm pretty sure you'll find something suitable.

Re: Unemployable | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:28:53 -0000

Good question. I knew someone who wanted to do Mergers & Acquisitions law. I know someone else who loves employment law.

Re: Unemployable | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:29:48 -0000

Well, I intentionally did not look at the "first year associate" postings.

Re: Unemployable | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:16:26 -0000

I know of one large firm in CT that does criminal work - mostly pro bono - and two attorneys that do the work for them.

Re: Removing prosecutorial immunity | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:52:01 -0000

John,

You raise a very good point. If it is determined that a wrongful conviction was obtained because of prosecutorial misconduct (heck, even in cases where a conviction is reversed by an appellate court because of prosecutorial misconduct), does anyone have an obligation to file a grievance?

Is there a difference between prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel? If not, what about a grievance when there is a finding of IAC?

Look at RPC Rule 3.8 (4) for instance:

(4) Make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.

Or Rule 4.1:

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
(2) Fail to disclose a material fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

And 8.3 and 8.4:

Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

Rule 8.4. Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(1) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(3) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(4) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

I think it's a tough decision to make, but the answer may not be that unclear.

Re: Sunday Stupidity: Top Gear edition | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:24:03 -0000

I would love to have their job. Just drive cars all the time and engage in funny contests and stunts. Awesome :D

Re: CT odds and ends | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:32:02 -0000

What gets me is that they did next to nothing to prepare for this. No contingency, nothing. Now they expect to get their way because they're the State. It's going to suck at the end of the month, but they really should have been ready for it.

Re: Ethical violations: A reluctance to report | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:54:31 -0000

That's just awful. What is the point of this grievance committee, then? No wonder you'd be very hesitant to report someone.

The profession protecting its own, once again. Forget about justice and professionalism - the brotherhood comes first at all costs!

Sounds like a bunch of cops to me.

Re: Ethical violations: A reluctance to report | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:58:04 -0000

Sure, but should that stand in your way? Now if, as Scott points out below, there's no point to it, then maybe you put up your hands and say "forget it". However, if the grievance process has some teeth, must we turn a blind eye?

Re: Ethical violations: A reluctance to report | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:58:25 -0000

No, I'm not saying that anyone is at "fault" or that I think any lesser of them (Lord knows I'm in no position to judge), but that it is a difficult question that needs an answer.

On one hand, you're right. There's an individual's "livelihood" at stake. But on the other, you have an unethical prosecutor that may endanger the liberty of several others.

The same goes for a judge. There needs to be a system for anonymous reporting - but as Scott demonstrates, even that might not work.

Re: CT odds and ends | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:42:05 -0000

I doubt it. It may even be worse in the smaller towns. It's just a little remarkable that Tom went off like this. I guess he'd had enough. I love his last quote: "We got lucky with Pagan."

Re: The right to choose what (or who) you photograph | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:04:01 -0000

I think it is a business incorporated in NM (or conducting business there), thus it falls within the jurisdiction of the HRC for the purposes of discrimination claims.

Re: Ethical violations: A reluctance to report | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:25:15 -0000

I think if you don't have "balls", you're in the wrong field.

Being a criminal defense lawyer is about standing up to the State on behalf of an individual. You cannot throw the current client under the bus for a hypothetical future client who may, or may not, bear the brunt of some hypothetical vengeance.

It's not like prosecutors are "lenient" in serious cases anyway.

Re: Ethical violations: A reluctance to report | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0000

Well, but how much "nicer" are they now anyway? And just because we fear that all of a sudden they'll start being "mean" to our clients, doesn't mean we should stand by and let them continue to flout ethical rules and hide exculpatory information.

Re: 8 simple rules… | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:18:21 -0000

That would have been a long, long comment. Besides, this way, you get two links from me.

What do you have against sunbathing? Can't think of a better way to spend a Saturday: sunbathing and season finales of Doctor Who and Torchwood. Yum.

Re: 8 simple rules… | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:30:47 -0000

1. Agreed! Sounds like a good idea.

2. Even better! It's more bolstering.

3. I thought two weeks was appropriate. How many prosecutors do you know that you'd want handling your cases for more than 2 weeks?

Re: The right to choose what (or who) you photograph | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:55:04 -0000

I agree that on a practical level, this whole ordeal is stupid. Find someone else, if the person doesn't want to photograph (or officiate) your ceremony.

I really think it was a bit of "Gotcha!".

But then again, the law, practicality and reality rarely go hand in hand.

Re: Monday Evening Sunbathing | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:23:34 -0000

David, somehow I missed that post, despite subscribing to your blog via my RSS reader. In any event, I left a comment there.

Re: Monday Evening Sunbathing | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:30:33 -0000

I thought it was a nice touch.

Re: Monday Evening Sunbathing | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:33:01 -0000

Haha. No, it is not. Wrong sex.

Re: Preempting habeas | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:03:32 -0000

That analogy doesn't apply. There's a significant difference between the role of the client and the role of the defense attorney.

For one, a competency eval can be sought. Also, a client's actions rarely ever cast doubt as to the fairness of a trial. There is a reason for Gideon. Defendants are entitled to have someone trained and experienced speak on their behalf in the complicated world of litigation.

Re: Preempting habeas | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:04:37 -0000

That's really interesting. Has there been a noticeable difference or impact?

Re: Preempting habeas | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:06:31 -0000

K, I agree with most of your post. Do you know of any caselaw that would back up your first paragraph? (I'd like to read it)

Re: 8 simple rules… | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:13:17 -0000

LJS, thanks for the comment.

Did you see that there's a very interesting case scheduled for argument in the CT Supreme Court next month on suggestive IDs? I might go watch it.

Re: Monday Evening Sunbathing | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:26:00 -0000

That's true. No one truly knows. I like to keep people guessing. I could be the girl in the picture. I could be the dragonfly on the girl in the picture. I could be you!

Re: Monday Evening Sunbathing | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:13:56 -0000

I like it! I can post as several different people at once!

Re: Monday Evening Sunbathing | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:15:56 -0000

Can't argue with that! :)

Re: Judge for a day (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:10:50 -0000

Pshaw. That's not what I meant. There's no violence or anything. She says she did not feel free to leave and he "forced" her to have sex. No injuries, no bruising, no violence.

So what's your answer?

Re: Judge for a day (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:18:34 -0000

Geebus man. You know the statute! It's a Sex 1 (B felony - 2 year min/man). Now stop being difficult and tell me what you think it's worth. :D

Re: Cops coming round on videotaped interrogations | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:29:23 -0000

Of course we do. But this is a good start.

Re: Judge for a day (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:59:02 -0000

Well, assume he was convicted by a judge or a jury. No judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict.

What's your sentence as sentencing judge?

Re: Cops coming round on videotaped interrogations | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:05:35 -0000

Why don't you support suppression? What's the alternative?

Re: Cops coming round on videotaped interrogations | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:36:18 -0000

This is not law school.

Re: Judge for a day (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:12:52 -0000

Okay. Here's the real sentence:

15 years, execution suspended after 12 years and 10 years probation.

Re: Wesley Snipes | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:56:41 -0000

Cheesy as it was, it was a good movie!

Re: Cops coming round on videotaped interrogations | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:34:57 -0000

It'll be another 10 years before that idea begins to be debated here.

There are some minor problems with that approach that need to be determined and ironed out first: such as what is "first contact"? What if the contact is made on the field?

Not insurmountable, but surely questions that need to be answered and ironed out.

Re: Kool-Aid drinker | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:41:57 -0000

Or put another way, just because the client says it happened so doesn't mean the State has proven (or can prove) that it did.

Re: Kool-Aid drinker | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:52:11 -0000

Well, let's take this very simple scenario:

I am pulled over for speeding. I know I am speeding. The cop tickets me, but the ticket is too high and I don't want points on my license. So I contest the ticket.

I have a hearing at which I ask the cop about the calibration of the radar gun and can successfully prove that the gun was not properly calibrated and its numbers would have been off by about 15 mph, which would have put me within the speed limit.

Is that wrong?

Re: Hump day is link dump day | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:00:54 -0000

Oh God. Please don't do that again.

I loved her first album - absolutely loved it. After that..I don't know what happened.

This was an abomination.

Re: Kool-Aid drinker | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:42:09 -0000

Mark,

Thanks for the comment. Taking what you say at face value, will you acknowledge that your view is in the minority?

Re: Ethical violations: A reluctance to report | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:44:09 -0000

No, I understand that. I just have a problem with not doing anything because it might have an adverse effect on the outcomes of future cases.

That's adding an ethical violation onto another.

Re: Hump day is link dump day | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:58:47 -0000

Oh boy. I'm going to get into trouble here if I'm not careful :D

Re: Forced confession results in acquittal | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 03 May 2008 12:43:32 -0000

I bet they do. Why wouldn't they? It's a pretty gripping story.

Except I bet in the L & O episode, the result is reversed and he's convicted.

Re: Hump day is link dump day | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 04 May 2008 12:10:31 -0000

I don't disagree with you at all. I think there are some problems with the situation - such as the 50 bullets, but other than that, I think they did what they had to do and should do.

Re: Youngest lifer back in jail: (why) are(n’t) you surprised? | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 04 May 2008 12:15:31 -0000

Thanks for your thoughts.

On one hand you said you want to save funds and invest them in DNA testing, and on the other you say there is no point to keeping lifers alive.

I'm pretty sure you have at least been marginally exposed to the news coverage of exonerations of inmates either on death row or serving life sentences (or even other sentences). The problem with the death penalty is finality. We better be absolutely damn sure that the man (or woman) being executed is actually guilty of the crime.

The DNA exonerations over the past so many years have completely destroyed any confidence in that proposition.

Additionally, if you look at studies that have compared costs, housing a death row inmate is far more expensive than housing a lifer.

Re: Judge gets award for upholding the law | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 04 May 2008 17:41:16 -0000

Blumenthal declined comment. That made me smile.

Re: Kool-Aid drinker | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 04 May 2008 21:15:32 -0000

Re: Dallas DA wants to punish Brady violators | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 04 May 2008 21:48:04 -0000

I think he's concerned with a bit of both, but he really seems to have the right idea viz. the role of a prosecutor. He's done some impressive things in his tenure. Besides, whatever the motivation may be, if he succeeds in getting prosecutors afraid of the consequences of ethical violations, then we all benefit.

Re: Judge for a day - II: Escapee edition | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 05 May 2008 15:27:58 -0000

That's interesting. The article stated that the co-d got out about a year after she escaped - essentially serving 2 years total. Would she not have served the same amount if she had stayed in? If so, then she should do about a year.

Re: Pop quiz: Reasonable expectation of privacy | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:08:51 -0000

Yes, it is legally parked.

What if the door was ajar? Would that make a difference?

Oh, you're not missing anything :) I was just wondering why there is a legit expectation of privacy in an unlocked vehicle while there would be none if you left your suitcase unlocked in the driveway.

Re: Pop quiz: Reasonable expectation of privacy | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:15:51 -0000

Maybe I'm missing something. It was my understanding of Federal case law that items left by the driveway (or sidewalk) can be deemed abandoned - or is that rule limited to garbage?

If it is deemed abandoned, then there is no REOP.

Re: Pop quiz: Reasonable expectation of privacy | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:21:36 -0000

Does the equation change if the car is parked on the street (street-parking) and left unlocked?

Re: Pop quiz: Reasonable expectation of privacy | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:37:43 -0000

What if the car is left there for a week - unlocked. Is it abandoned then?

Clearly if I leave my car locked in a parking lot for a week, I don't expect people to get it, but if I leave it unlocked...do I really have a REOP?

Re: Monday Evening Margarita | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:40:43 -0000

But in the context of the burden of proof and the criminal justice system, isn't "exonerated" correct? There wasn't enough evidence to convict. The criminal justice system isn't concerned with innocence - it is concerned with guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re: Pop quiz: Reasonable expectation of privacy | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:42:28 -0000

Nutmeggers, I believe is the correct nickname.

I'm glad you're drinking it up for Cinco. I advocated as much in my previous post (obviously don't drive now).

Yeah, abandoned stuff. At what point does it become "abandoned", even in a parking lot.

I think if the car is locked, then it the period of time before it can be deemed abandoned is longer than if the car is unlocked.

Re: Pop quiz: Reasonable expectation of privacy | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 05 May 2008 23:03:15 -0000

Haha. I wouldn't have noticed the little switcheroo if you hadn't mentioned it.

From the State Library:

According to Webster's New International Dictionary, 1993, a person who is a native or resident of Connecticut is a "Connecticuter".

There are numerous other terms in print, but not in use, such as:

"Connecticotian" - Cotton Mather in 1702.

"Connecticutensian" - Samuel Peters in 1781.

"Nutmegger" is sometimes used. It is derived from the nickname, the Nutmeg State, based on the practice of the Connecticut peddlers who traveled about selling nutmegs.

There is not, however, any nickname that has been officially adopted by the State for its residents.

Re: Pop quiz: Reasonable expectation of privacy | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:17:31 -0000

That's the problem, though, isn't it? Intent of the owner means squat. It's what a reasonable person would think. A reasonable person might well think that if you left your car unlocked in the parking lot of your place of work for a week, you have no expectation of privacy.

I mean, think about it. If you left your car at work - door unlocked for the whole weekend, do you really think no one is going to go into it and that your belongings are secure?

Re: Pop quiz: Reasonable expectation of privacy | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:22:54 -0000

So this would not be a problem in your neck of the woods?

I'm not saying I'm right... I'm just exploring the line.

Re: A request to bloggers | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:25:25 -0000

Yep, that's my view too. However, not everyone is right. For them, there's the checkbox on the top-left.

Re: Pop quiz: Reasonable expectation of privacy | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:30:48 -0000

Well, what if it was in your home? You invite 20 people over and leave all the doors in your home open. Do you have an expectation of privacy, then, in the contents of those rooms?

Re: A request to bloggers | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:54:21 -0000

Gimme the code and I'll implement it.

Re: Pop quiz: Reasonable expectation of privacy | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:57:40 -0000

From a common sense point of view, I'm having a hard time figuring out why anyone would leave the door to their car open for a full day in a parking lot and yet expect that no one will look inside.

Re: Pop quiz: Reasonable expectation of privacy | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:12:50 -0000

True...I'm just trying to find the line...

Re: Headline of the day | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:01:51 -0000

I wasn't going to :D

Re: Headline of the day | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 10 May 2008 10:28:44 -0000

MILF stands for something "R" rated. I don't know if I can spell it out here without bringing the "family" nature of this blog into serious doubt.

But a google search for Milf (or even a search at urbandictionary.com) should suffice.

Re: Asides fixed | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:38:16 -0000

Asides are posts like this one, with just a few words and a link in the body. I use them to point out interesting, off-topic articles. The asides were not formatted prior to yesterday, so they looked like orphaned text. Now I've been able to put a background and border on them, making them stand out.

Re: The problem with voir dire | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:37:49 -0000

Again, I think that's the legal system with blinders on. I find it difficult to believe that someone can "put the State to its burden" and yet state that "the defendant is guilty".

Re: The problem with voir dire | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:39:30 -0000

See, that seems to make more sense. The problem with questions like "But can you follow the law as the judge explains it to you?" and "Will you be able to put aside any preconceived notions and apply the law to the evidence introduced at trial" is that they suggest the answers to the venireperson. The venire person, not wanting to look obtuse in court, follows along and gives everyone what they want to hear.

Re: Gay marriage legal in CA; what will CT do? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:06:36 -0000

What's the difference between a voter proposition and legislation passed by legislature? Why can Judges rule on the Constitutionality of one and not the other?

What if the voter proposition was to return to segregation era policies? Does the judiciary not have the authority to state that such a "proposition" violates the State Constitution?

There's also no real comparison between Mugabe and the CA Supreme Court.

Re: Gay marriage legal in CA; what will CT do? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:16:07 -0000

Read this from Slate about "activism" in this case:

Slate piece

Re: Gay marriage legal in CA; what will CT do? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:18:06 -0000

I completely disagree. The central issue was whether creating two classes of people violated California's Constitution. The California supreme Court answered that question, which is its job to do, in a manner that you do not like. Hence, they are "activist" or whatever other moniker you want to give them.

Say you don't agree with their decision - that's fine. Don't say they did something they had no right to do, which is absurd, since they are the highest court of the land, charged with interpreting laws and ruling on their Constitutionality.

Re: Gay marriage legal in CA; what will CT do? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:29:55 -0000

Come on SPO. Where does it state in the California Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman? It does not. Which is why there are people seeking a Constitutional amendment to provide that.

What it does state is that the state shall provide equal protection of its laws.

That's interpretation of the Constitution, not activism.

Re: Gay marriage legal in CA; what will CT do? | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:15:54 -0000

You still haven't pointed to a provision of the California Constitution that limits marriage to men and women. That's because there isn't one.

Re: Accidents no more: Everything’s a crime | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:27:07 -0000

Well, I still hold out hope that the prosecutor's office will not prosecute.

Re: Lori Drew indicted in Myspace hoax suicide (updated) | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 17 May 2008 06:35:26 -0000

No doubt there's something very wrong with what she did, but the problem is that the use of this law opens several dangerous doors. I mean, how many times have we provided false information while registering? There's a website dedicated to that.

I think the Meier's best remedy might lie in a civil suit.

It also goes to show that laws of some states are woefully inadequate in dealing with the internet revolution and problems associated with interaction over the web.

Re: Accidents no more: Everything’s a crime | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 17 May 2008 13:09:36 -0000

So the two options are a nolle (heh) or commitment to DCF?

What are the chances this will actually be prosecuted?

Re: Gay marriage legal in CA; what will CT do? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:21:10 -0000

The same legislature that twice voted to legalize same-sex marriage, only to have it vetoed by the Governor, saying he'd like the court to decide?

Re: Sex offenders on probation: setting them up to fail | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 18 May 2008 20:52:47 -0000

Yeah, but you know we have a fundamental disagreement about this sort of thing.

For every Couey there are hundreds of non-recidivist sex offenders who have successfully rebuilt their lives. Again, we're punishing the many for the acts of the few.

Re: It’s been too long | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 19 May 2008 09:03:29 -0000

Heeheehee :D Pens in 7!

Re: It’s been too long | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 19 May 2008 09:35:05 -0000

:barf:

The Whalers are dead to me. But you gotta see the connection: Ron Francis to the Pens, Pens get 2 cups :D

Now it's time for a third! It would be sweet if the Stars could complete the comeback against the Red Wings and then we'd have a repeat of the '91 finals (sort of).

Re: It’s been too long | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 19 May 2008 09:36:42 -0000

Besides, I never was a Whaler fan. A Pens fan from the beginning. SuperMario baby! Soixante-six!

Re: It’s been too long | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 19 May 2008 09:37:41 -0000

Realist. Always prepare for the worst-case scenario. I really don't think we'll steamroll through like the first three rounds. You have to expect a tougher fight.

Re: Monday Morning Jumpstart: Memorial Day edition | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 26 May 2008 09:25:00 -0000

Precisely! Another word that comes to mind is "engrossing", as in "the rivet en my ear is gross".

Re: How stupid are we? | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 29 May 2008 10:44:50 -0000

Repeating comments from Malkin's blog now? ;)

Re: Much ado about douchebaging? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:37:06 -0000

I'm going off of the 2nd Circuit decision. The facts as found by the Court are that the blog post resulted in further phone calls and e-mails being sent to the administrators and the threat of the sit-in was the day after the post.

I disagree with your assessment that the court made a new rule and that <quote>if any student disseminates school related information that is controversial they have created a foreseeable risk of substantial disruption and lose their rights to first amendment protection.</quote>

It wasn't "controversial". It was disruptive. Encouraging other student to deluge the administration with calls and e-mails over a band show does tend to disrupt the day-to-day functioning of the school and the threat of a sit-in is not a small deal.

I think a student should have the right to criticize administration, but when it gets to a point where there is a risk that it affects the orderly administration of the day-to-day activities, the admin must have options of dealing with it.

I also don't think this subsequent discovery of the blog post is a problem. Obviously, at the time the sit-in was threatened and there was a flood of calls and e-mails, there was disruption. However, the cause of those calls and e-mails and sit-in would have been unknown. To subsequently discover the blog post merely provides a chain in the link of causation. "Ah, so that's what happened!"

I also think it is worth noting that all she was precluded from doing was running for elective office in student government, which is not a right.

Look, I've been in student government myself. I've been head of student organizations. We disagreed with administration a lot; we had to fight for funding and for creative freedom. The way we dealt with it was to talk to the administration and try to come to a resolution. Not encourage other students to piss them off or to flood them with calls or stage a sit-in. There are ways of doing things and her way wasn't the best.

But the punishment here isn't that severe, in my opinion. She was allowed to remain on the council and nothing affected her academics.

As I said elsewhere, I sympathize with her (and I'd probably be pretty pissed too), but I can't fault the school for doing what they did. In their view, her actions belied the skills and qualities required of student leaders. I'm fine with them making that decision, as long as that's what it is based on.

Re: Much ado about douchebaging? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:39:54 -0000

Actually, I relied on the 2nd Circuit, which relies on the District Court decision.

While there may be contradictory facts, the trial court has to make credibility determinations and as any lawyer will tell you, you're bound by them unless they're clearly erroneous.

Maybe the administrators came off as more believable than the Doningers. Who knows why the court made the findings it did. The result is that it did and that's what I have to go on.

Re: Much ado about douchebaging? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:53:03 -0000

Well yeah, it is a lazy approach. This is a hobby for me :)

I'll gladly look at whatever you put up re: the inconsistencies and I'm not above changing my opinion if proven wrong.

Until that happens, I stand by what I said based on what I've read.

Re: Judge for a Day III | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:13:30 -0000

Yes, trial. Yes, his fault.

Re: Judge for a Day III | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:15:00 -0000

Assume: 1) You're presiding over pre-trial negotiations. What offer would make it acceptable for you.

2) You presided over the trial and defendant was found guilty by the jury.

Take into account the trial tax.

Re: Judge for a Day III | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:15:52 -0000

Now that's more like it. This...taste for long sentences in CT puzzles me. See latest post.

Re: Sex offenders on probation: setting them up to fail | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:19:55 -0000

janice chalk replied to the notification e-mail instead of coming here to post, so I'll post her comments below:

well earth, i have a question for you. do we as individuals have rights too? i have a friend , who has been incarcerated for 5 1/2 months he is labeled sex offender there had been an issue at my home that involved the taking of items (which were mine) the police were called, stated it was a civil issue for us to return the items. we did. noone was arrested we thought that was the end of it. well 4 months later my friend is arrested no one else even though there were 3 others involved finally that was presented to state attorney hey dismissed the case he is still in jail, what the deal is they were prejudice in this action . because of all this my friend s' business has dwindled down to nothing not the mention his reputation as business owner his credibility, respect, trust, and reputation if people only knew how how hard it is to obtain such things. tell me is there any action we can take to recover the final loss we have been effected by such prejudice? i'm sure this may be unprecedented in such manner, but could you give some advice on it. there is no one in this state that will assist with any actions thank-you for your time

Re: The criminal justice paradox in Connecticut | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:48:34 -0000

Elected judges bring another set of problems that, frankly, I think we can do without.

The solution is a greater understanding amongst the public and the elected officials of what sentences are really given out and perhaps a comparison to other states.

If the people electing the people selecting the judges trust the judges, then they will have more freedom and confidence in their discretion.

Re: The invisible “trend”: banned words | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:10:13 -0000

Was there a post on this that you responded to? Was this recent? Link?

Re: Porn is in the eye of the beholder | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:41:53 -0000

Hardly. All I did was use Google. And this is not porn.

Re: Porn is in the eye of the beholder | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:55:08 -0000

I will not be labeled some porn-freak! :D

Re: Boumediene and habeas corpus | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:02:06 -0000

So you're for indefinite detention with no legal process to challenge that detention, eh?

Glad we're a nation that treasures its Constitution and not a nation of men.

Re: What is our job? | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:29:21 -0000

Windy is a good blogger. I'm glad he got you to add your voice to the 'sphere.

Feel free to raid the blogroll - that's what it's there for!

Re: QOTD | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:21:52 -0000

Believe it or not, I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. It's been a busy week; I'll be posting about it later today. I take it you're a fan?

Re: There’s pretext and then there’s pretext | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:41:20 -0000

You make a very good point. The statute doesn't say "any object hung on... the rearview mirror", but rather "No..device..shall be hung on..or affixed in any motor vehicle" in a manner that obstructs the view.

The rear view mirror would seem to qualify under the statute. Heck, even one of those dancing bobblehead dolls that people affix on the dashboard could qualify.

Re: Roth-very narrow | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:20:47 -0000

Well, I think you're making the logical leap that the Court did not make. It simply said "This is when a prosecution commences".

It expressly refused to say what happens afterward and what Texas must do, if anything.

It would be prudent for Texas to provide counsel, but it is pretty clear that the decision does not require it to do so.

Re: Where have you gone, Justice Berdon? | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:21:43 -0000

Damn you. Now I'm singing it too.

Re: It’s an opinionated week! | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:09:43 -0000

Mike, it's a very good question. While the exact forum for doing anything is unclear (motion to correct, habeas), Justice Zarella's dissent makes clear what should happen. From footnote 1 of the dissent in Sanseverino:

The majority observes that "[w]e may apply the rule announced in Salamon to the present case because this court long has stated that a rule enunciated in a case presumptively applies retroactively to pending cases." Footnote 11 of the majority opinion. I agree with the majority that retroactive application of Salamon to this case is appropriate but would elaborate on the majority’s statement by noting that we have recognized that judicial construction of a statute can operate like an ex post facto law and thus violate a criminal defendant’s due process right to fair warning as to what conduct is prohibited. See, e.g., State v. James G., 268 Conn. 382, 409, 844 A.2d 810 (2004); State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 436, 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841, 121 S. Ct. 106, 148 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2000). Because our decision in Salamon purports to narrow the potential conduct encompassed by our kidnapping statutes in situations in which a defendant restrains a victim solely to commit another crime, this new construction does not operate to "disadvantage the offender affected by it . . . by altering the definition of criminal conduct" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. James G., supra, 409. Therefore, retroactive application of this court’s new construction of the crime of kidnapping is not constitutionally barred.

Typically, decisions are not applied retroactively to cases that have been already decided, but that is usually a rule applied when the new decision is disadvantageous to defendants.

Mr. Luurtsma, since his case was overruled, might have redress, I suspect, as might others convicted in that 6 year period.

Re: It’s an opinionated week! | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:18:07 -0000

I will probably elaborate on this when I get around to posting on Salamon and Sanseverino - hopefully sometime this weekend.

Re: It’s an opinionated week! | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:32:50 -0000

As I do a quick Lexis search for this, I think it's clear that there is probably enough discussion to be had that would fill 35 pages of a brief (which is where I suspect any effort by Mr. Luurtsma would end up).

Re: Supreme Court changes course on kidnapping | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:24:56 -0000

I think his best bet at this point is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. I don't see any permissible 43-22 claims covering his situation.

Re: Supreme Court changes course on kidnapping | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:02:37 -0000

The change in the law is definitely retroactive and applies to defendants whose cases are currently pending or on direct appeal. Whether it applies to defendants whose convictions are final (post direct appeal) and who have collateral review pending is a hazier question. I think the caselaw tends to say that this case will not apply to them, but I think it can be litigated.

A petition for new trial has to be brought within 3 years of the conviction, except in cases of DNA (C.G.S 52-582)

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:54:41 -0000

That may be. Let me know if (and how) I'm wrong when you get around to it.

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:36:22 -0000

Because one can be upset and yet take a deliberate action. He clearly knew what he was doing - one might describe it as "itching" to pull the trigger.

Did I engage in some hyperbole? Perhaps :)

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:36:56 -0000

I think I may have found the error. That just furthers my dislike of such statutes, though.

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:12:57 -0000

Dignity? What's the difference between you and the honor killers?

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:04:03 -0000

It's not only for being raped. It's for doing anything "immoral". That offends their "dignity", this offends yours. Both are taking the law into their own hands over perceived slights.

Listen to the 911 tape. Horn says "don't move or I'll shoot" and a second or two later three shots are fired. He didn't even give them the chance to stop.

Also, let's remember that they were not on his property, he wasn't in any danger and there wasn't anyone home next door. No one - no one - was in any physical danger.

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:39:39 -0000

Sure that's your hypo, but those weren't the facts here. Commit, then. Was Horn right or wrong? Is the value of human life not greater than your material possessions?

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:34:55 -0000

LJS,

Fortunately we don't have to deal with that here.

I also understand that the grand jury probably heard more than what the press is reporting - but such are the limitations of blogging from afar.

I could - perhaps - tolerate defense of one's own property with force (and even deadly force is you are facing imminent threat of deadly force yourself), but nothing that has come to light about Mr. Horn's case leads me to believe that his shooting these two men was remotely justified.

I'll look up what you asked me to, but my preliminary thoughts are: As the 911 tape reveals, there is almost no gap between him telling the men to stop and the shots being fired. They were both shot in the back. Three shots in quick succession, both men shot in the back leads to the reasonable conclusion that they were facing away from him at the time of the shots.

Is it likely that in a span of a few seconds, two men (one of whose hands were full) started to turn toward him, brandished a weapon, Horn fired, they turned around and ended up being shot in the back? Both of them? Seems like an awful lot to happen in the span of a few seconds...

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:51:27 -0000

As to the NYT article - I don't think it's a big deal at all in terms of the outcome of the case. So 7 jurisdictions instead of 6.

Re: the oversight by all parties and the Court, it's pretty amusing.

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:50:02 -0000

So someone's life is not worth even $5 to you? Shame.

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:52:04 -0000

The problem with this case (and I keep coming back to the facts of this case) is that he knew exactly what they were doing. He even said they're getting away with the stuff. He was watching them the whole time. He had to have known they had no weapon in their hands.

I'll look at the rest. You seem more knowledgeable about this stuff. Have you written about it? I'll be happy to post something you have.

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:02:35 -0000

Oh come on - you're smarter than that.

Re: Sunday stupidity: how not to represent yourself edition | a public defender

Gideon — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:54:13 -0000

I agree with both of you - I can only imagine the scene upon the judge's return. Does he wake up miraculously? Do the proceedings go on with him slumped in his chair?

Re: Cops lie and people die | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:18:58 -0000

Isn't that the remarkable thing? These were supposedly experienced detectives who have had dealings with gangs and gang members in the past. They had to have known. It was irresponsible and reckless.

Re: Heller goes to the airport | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:19:13 -0000

Before I reply to the substantive portion of your comment, I want to say: welcome back! It's been a while since you commented here.

Re: Castle doctrine come home to roost | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:31:18 -0000

Well, hello, imapd. You're new to this blog.

But, anyway, funny story :D

Re: Corpse and (grave)robbers | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:52:28 -0000

As usual, Miranda points out the obvious flaw in my rant.

But on the other hand, one would have thought it pretty damn simple that a person cannot rape a dead person, but look where that ended up...

Re: New Haven ID Card holders identity to remain secret | a public defender

Gideon — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:21:48 -0000

I was using shorthand for illegal entry and re-entry, both of which are Federal offenses.

Re: New Haven ID Card holders identity to remain secret | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:26:02 -0000

Thanks. That really is offensive. My latest post is about this story.

Re: Blogging schedule | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:38:27 -0000

You know, you could have volunteered to fill in during my absence. Then you could have had your jumpstart and wr(ea)ten it too.

Re: A big win for war on drugs | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:39:33 -0000

Yeah, it's been the law in CT for a bit, too. I found case law from the CT Supreme Court on it, stating that distribution is the same as sale.

Doesn't make it right, though.

Re: DNA: Something new and something old | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:45:48 -0000

I got the links from The Windypundit (my RSS reader broke :( ) So when are you going to start a blog?

Re: DNA: Something new and something old | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:16:35 -0000

I think what keeps people coming back is regular posting and not taking yourself too seriously. The rest is eh. Write about stuff that interests you and is generally interesting and you should be all set.

Re: New theme test v. 3.0 | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:17:45 -0000

Not trying to fix anything - just looking for a change. I've had this theme for over a year and a half now. I've grown tired of it.

Re: New theme test v. 3.0 | a public defender

Gideon — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:27:34 -0000

Yeah, that's what I thought too. Now I'm trying out all my plugins to make sure nothing breaks.

Re: Police brutality? | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:10:04 -0000

I agree on all points, actually.

Re: I took the plunge | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:56:47 -0000

What're you looking for?

Re: I took the plunge | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:14:33 -0000

I decided to keep the old banner - to give it some continuity and to blend in with the theme and color scheme. Maybe if I can figure out how to rotate banners, I'll do that.

Re: I took the plunge | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:47:37 -0000

I have a few of those t-shirts. My favorite is the one with Gideon - the grey one.

Now Rachael Ray on the other hand... she was cute for about 5 minutes.

Re: I took the plunge | a public defender

Gideon — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:48:40 -0000

Thanks! Thank you for coming back time and again, too, despite my not having an answer for you on that previous question.

Re: Um yeah | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:23:56 -0000

Ugh. I couldn't test drive the new design on IE 6, because apparently they don't make IE 6 for Vista. IE sucks.

Re: Sunday Stupidity: Externship edition | a public defender

Gideon — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:42:35 -0000

Hah! I wonder what area of law he'll practice now.

Re: The secret to winning: Gideon-style (updated with links!) | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:41:02 -0000

MJI (sounds like a secret agent, btw), what is "winning" is a great question. I've always viewed it as doing the best for your client and getting the best possible disposition. It doesn't always mean an acquittal. Winning could also be interpreted as protecting the Constitution and holding the State to its burden of proof. If the State can legally and fairly prove that the client is guilty, then so be it, but it is our job to make sure that they do so.

Your take on "winning" is also interesting and I think I like it. Doing the best you can, which would include thorough preparation and informed advice would be a win for the client, because it would give the client all the information he/she needs to make a life-altering decision. We owe it to them.

Re: Judge for a day - part next | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:42:29 -0000

Someone needs to venture a guess here...

Re: Judge for a day - part next | a public defender

Gideon — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:22:39 -0000

Eight years is the answer :)

Re: More macho police moments | a public defender

Gideon — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:29:47 -0000

One would think. There have been so many of these that you'd have figured they'd have learned by now.