The Uncivil Litigator
Uncivil Litigator wrote an absolutely heartwarming post about getting his wife permanent residency in the US. It is one of those cases where the resolution was quick, and it had a huge personal impact on an individual's life. As far as I can tell, this doesn't usually happen in the practice of civil law, which is one of the reasons I love criminal law so much, because nearly every case has that kind of an effect. His story is far more dramatic than just about any case I've handled, though, and it is so well written it could very well bring tears to your eyes.
Great post UCL, I'll be checking back on your site frequently.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
All Peterson, All the Time
This weekend I was at a dinner party, and a news show producer from one of the big 4 networks was there. This person is inside the courtroom in the Peterson trial every day. Her take: Peterson may be guilty as sin, but the prosecution has done a piss-poor job, Geragos has done a great job, and if things keep going the way they are (including with Amber Frey), Peterson's going to walk.
I tried to explain to her that she doesn't understand the dynamic of being in a trial where the defendant has been found guilty by the press long before the case ever got to trial. In cases like this (the David Westerfield case in San Diego a couple of years ago included), you can have very weak facts, but if they have been convicted in the press already, weak facts don't matter. Juries will find someone guilty on a sniff of guilt, even without compelling reasons. So many of these cases that have been reversed for late findings of DNA exonerating the defendant have been cases where the facts were really weak, but the case was high profile (at least in the area where the trial took place) and a rabid press convicted the defendant long before trial. The result, juries figure where there's smoke there's fire, and there would never be a case pending unless the police and press were really sure. Also, jurors have heard so much one-sided evidence in cases like that that they have formed a predisposition against the defendant, no matter what comes out at trial (and this is subliminal, so they may not even recognize it in order that it can be rooted out during voir dire).
What do I think the result will be? I think Peterson's going down. The contrast with his case and someone like OJ's is important - he is not a celebrity. I don't think he has a prayer.
I tried to explain to her that she doesn't understand the dynamic of being in a trial where the defendant has been found guilty by the press long before the case ever got to trial. In cases like this (the David Westerfield case in San Diego a couple of years ago included), you can have very weak facts, but if they have been convicted in the press already, weak facts don't matter. Juries will find someone guilty on a sniff of guilt, even without compelling reasons. So many of these cases that have been reversed for late findings of DNA exonerating the defendant have been cases where the facts were really weak, but the case was high profile (at least in the area where the trial took place) and a rabid press convicted the defendant long before trial. The result, juries figure where there's smoke there's fire, and there would never be a case pending unless the police and press were really sure. Also, jurors have heard so much one-sided evidence in cases like that that they have formed a predisposition against the defendant, no matter what comes out at trial (and this is subliminal, so they may not even recognize it in order that it can be rooted out during voir dire).
What do I think the result will be? I think Peterson's going down. The contrast with his case and someone like OJ's is important - he is not a celebrity. I don't think he has a prayer.
Friday, August 13, 2004
Anger
Boy, I was really pissed off during that last post, wasn't I? I could delete it, or amend it, but hey, that's how I was feeling when I read that article, so that's how I'll leave it. If I offend, oh well. It's not personal.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
CNN.com - FDA fears drugs a terror target - Aug 12, 2004
CNN.com - FDA fears drugs a terror target - Aug 12, 2004
I found this one on Washington Monthly, formerly CalPundit.
This may be the key to the whole presidential election, right here in this article.
I sincerely believe that we have been lied to by the Bush administration about terrorism for political purposes. We know for a fact that Bush used Iraq and false issues of the Department of Homeland Security in the Congressional midterm elections in 2002. By linking Senators like Vietnam war-hero Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein for his opposition to stripping government workers in the new DHS of unionization rights, Bush signaled that he was ready to play politics with national security. He claimed that Democrats who opposed his vision of the DHS weren't interested in defending America. Never mind, of course, that he had opposed the creation of the DHS despite strong Democratic support for it in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, only to jump on the bandwagon when he realized political hay could be made of it by inserting the political poison pill of slashing worker's rights in the legislation.
This, however, is the worst. There is no doubt that the Bush administration opposes allowing people bringing prescription drugs into the country from Canada and Mexico for one reason and one reason only: it will diminish the profits of the pharmecutical companies that give so generously to the Republicans. But now, the head of the FDA, the people who are supposed to protect us from bad drugs and food, are trying to claim that this opposition is due to national security. Imagine that, they will lie about anything to make a political point. When people claim that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened (something I don't believe), they need merely point to the truly venal manner in which Bush has used the threat of terrorism to ram through his political agenda - things he would have supported in the absence of 9/11, but that now justifies with 9/11. Why, if Bush will claim that something as morally indefensible as banning people from buying the same drugs in Canada that they can buy here at half the cost is due to terrorism, what won't he lie about and claim that he is doing it to deter terrorism.
Is there a person alive who really believes that Al Qaeda is sitting around planning major attacks on the US with Lipitor to attack the high cholestoral of Americans who try to buy their drugs in Canada? Oh, I'm sure, they are just chomping at the bit, perhaps they're setting up their own terrorist front organizations as cross border pharmacies, just to ensure that only Americans die. This has been such a threat over the years, I mean, we've done so much to try and warn Canada about the imminent danger they face.
The public needs to understand, Bush will do ANYTHING to win, he will lie, he will cheat, and most importantly, he will claim that everything he does is to prevent terrorism, no matter how unrelated. This is because, ultimately, the only reason he is still in the race today is because 19 evil people flew planes into 3 buildings and into the ground and he managed to use the subsequent fear of a nation as a whip to keep us in line. You want to see the real George Bush in the face of threats? Watch the 7 minutes of reading "My Pet Goat" when informed that the 2nd plane had smashed into the WTC and America was under attack, 7 minutes without Karl Rove to tell him how to use that to his advantage. Watch fratboy Bush land on the aircraft carrier with the large sign "Mission Accomplished" behind him as the ultimate photo op, 700 dead bodies ago. Watch high school Bush invite the terrorists to "bring it on" 600 dead bodies ago.
Please, please, please, whatever you do, let's save this country and get him out of office.
UPDATE - Holden of Public Opinion Blog is with me on this one. Thanks Holden!
I found this one on Washington Monthly, formerly CalPundit.
This may be the key to the whole presidential election, right here in this article.
I sincerely believe that we have been lied to by the Bush administration about terrorism for political purposes. We know for a fact that Bush used Iraq and false issues of the Department of Homeland Security in the Congressional midterm elections in 2002. By linking Senators like Vietnam war-hero Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein for his opposition to stripping government workers in the new DHS of unionization rights, Bush signaled that he was ready to play politics with national security. He claimed that Democrats who opposed his vision of the DHS weren't interested in defending America. Never mind, of course, that he had opposed the creation of the DHS despite strong Democratic support for it in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, only to jump on the bandwagon when he realized political hay could be made of it by inserting the political poison pill of slashing worker's rights in the legislation.
This, however, is the worst. There is no doubt that the Bush administration opposes allowing people bringing prescription drugs into the country from Canada and Mexico for one reason and one reason only: it will diminish the profits of the pharmecutical companies that give so generously to the Republicans. But now, the head of the FDA, the people who are supposed to protect us from bad drugs and food, are trying to claim that this opposition is due to national security. Imagine that, they will lie about anything to make a political point. When people claim that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened (something I don't believe), they need merely point to the truly venal manner in which Bush has used the threat of terrorism to ram through his political agenda - things he would have supported in the absence of 9/11, but that now justifies with 9/11. Why, if Bush will claim that something as morally indefensible as banning people from buying the same drugs in Canada that they can buy here at half the cost is due to terrorism, what won't he lie about and claim that he is doing it to deter terrorism.
Is there a person alive who really believes that Al Qaeda is sitting around planning major attacks on the US with Lipitor to attack the high cholestoral of Americans who try to buy their drugs in Canada? Oh, I'm sure, they are just chomping at the bit, perhaps they're setting up their own terrorist front organizations as cross border pharmacies, just to ensure that only Americans die. This has been such a threat over the years, I mean, we've done so much to try and warn Canada about the imminent danger they face.
The public needs to understand, Bush will do ANYTHING to win, he will lie, he will cheat, and most importantly, he will claim that everything he does is to prevent terrorism, no matter how unrelated. This is because, ultimately, the only reason he is still in the race today is because 19 evil people flew planes into 3 buildings and into the ground and he managed to use the subsequent fear of a nation as a whip to keep us in line. You want to see the real George Bush in the face of threats? Watch the 7 minutes of reading "My Pet Goat" when informed that the 2nd plane had smashed into the WTC and America was under attack, 7 minutes without Karl Rove to tell him how to use that to his advantage. Watch fratboy Bush land on the aircraft carrier with the large sign "Mission Accomplished" behind him as the ultimate photo op, 700 dead bodies ago. Watch high school Bush invite the terrorists to "bring it on" 600 dead bodies ago.
Please, please, please, whatever you do, let's save this country and get him out of office.
UPDATE - Holden of Public Opinion Blog is with me on this one. Thanks Holden!
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
MSNBC - Bryant prosecutors seek indefinite delay of trial
MSNBC - Bryant prosecutors seek indefinite delay of trial
I never thought that Kobe would be convicted, I just couldn't imagine that a star would get convicted on the weak facts this case presented, and I always wondered why the case was filed in the first place. My theory was that the DA was forced to file due to the Police's arresting Kobe. By filing the case and having it proceed at least past preliminary hearing (and a finding that there is probable cause), the county would be pretty much immune from a wrongful arrest charge which would be much more valid if they never filed a case. At the very least, I think that the DA had to file just to back up the Police and not leave him hanging after he arrested Kobe.
I always wondered how they would back out of the case, and this appears to be the way. It looks like they are going to announce that the victim doesn't want to proceed due to the publicity and anguish she's going through. Does she really think that what she's going through right now can even compare to what it will be like to be on trial? Does she really think that she will be able to keep her identity secret against one of the most well known stars in the world? And, if she's so interested in that anonymity and doesn't want to have this terrible publicity, coupled with the rulings that rape shield will not apply to her sexual conduct within 72 hours of her contact with Kobe, does she really think that filing a civil lawsuit will make it all go away?
Clearly, this civil lawsuit has given the defense more than it could ever ask for in their case, and I just can't imagine that the case will ever proceed at this point.
Of course, this blows my "dream" scenario. My scenario involves something akin to human sacrifice. I started practicing criminal law (and law in general) around the time of OJ Simpson trial, and for years, probably to this day and beyond, defending people accused of crimes has been made much more difficult as a result of that case. The perception of most people in society is that a guilty man went free on a misreading of reasonable doubt, bad rulings by the judge, poor prosecution, etc.... This is a perception I've been having to deal with for years, with jurors, the public, and equally important, with lawmakers and the electorate. The number of idiotic "tough on crime" laws that have passed due to OJ has skyrocketed. In California, they tried to get rid of the hearsay rule for domestic violence cases (this appears to have been overturned by the new Supreme Court case Crawford v. Washington), plea bargaining discretion, and other things. Judges are more afraid of crossing DAs than ever. In other words, the prospect of a man everyone knows is guilty sitting on the golf courses of America has screwed up my profession, and hurt other people who are not as guilty as OJ was.
Thus, I figured Kobe could be the anti-OJ. I thought that if the judge kept out all of the victim's clear mental problems (like her suicide attempts and other cries for attention) and her sexual activities around the time of the rape (how many guys did she have sex with in those days? Did she actually have sex with someone AFTER she was raped? Hardly the actions one would associate with a rape victim), and if Kobe was convicted as a result, then we would have a clear case where much of society figured there may be an innocent man sitting in prison for a rape he didn't do. If Kobe got life, and actually began serving it, imagine what I could argue in future cases. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you don't think that an innocent man can be convicted of a crime he didn't commit? Just consider Kobe Bryant, who IS STILL IN PRISON FOR THAT RAPE WE ALL KNOW HE DIDN'T DO."
Well, it appears that, luckily for Kobe, this will not be happening.
I never thought that Kobe would be convicted, I just couldn't imagine that a star would get convicted on the weak facts this case presented, and I always wondered why the case was filed in the first place. My theory was that the DA was forced to file due to the Police's arresting Kobe. By filing the case and having it proceed at least past preliminary hearing (and a finding that there is probable cause), the county would be pretty much immune from a wrongful arrest charge which would be much more valid if they never filed a case. At the very least, I think that the DA had to file just to back up the Police and not leave him hanging after he arrested Kobe.
I always wondered how they would back out of the case, and this appears to be the way. It looks like they are going to announce that the victim doesn't want to proceed due to the publicity and anguish she's going through. Does she really think that what she's going through right now can even compare to what it will be like to be on trial? Does she really think that she will be able to keep her identity secret against one of the most well known stars in the world? And, if she's so interested in that anonymity and doesn't want to have this terrible publicity, coupled with the rulings that rape shield will not apply to her sexual conduct within 72 hours of her contact with Kobe, does she really think that filing a civil lawsuit will make it all go away?
Clearly, this civil lawsuit has given the defense more than it could ever ask for in their case, and I just can't imagine that the case will ever proceed at this point.
Of course, this blows my "dream" scenario. My scenario involves something akin to human sacrifice. I started practicing criminal law (and law in general) around the time of OJ Simpson trial, and for years, probably to this day and beyond, defending people accused of crimes has been made much more difficult as a result of that case. The perception of most people in society is that a guilty man went free on a misreading of reasonable doubt, bad rulings by the judge, poor prosecution, etc.... This is a perception I've been having to deal with for years, with jurors, the public, and equally important, with lawmakers and the electorate. The number of idiotic "tough on crime" laws that have passed due to OJ has skyrocketed. In California, they tried to get rid of the hearsay rule for domestic violence cases (this appears to have been overturned by the new Supreme Court case Crawford v. Washington), plea bargaining discretion, and other things. Judges are more afraid of crossing DAs than ever. In other words, the prospect of a man everyone knows is guilty sitting on the golf courses of America has screwed up my profession, and hurt other people who are not as guilty as OJ was.
Thus, I figured Kobe could be the anti-OJ. I thought that if the judge kept out all of the victim's clear mental problems (like her suicide attempts and other cries for attention) and her sexual activities around the time of the rape (how many guys did she have sex with in those days? Did she actually have sex with someone AFTER she was raped? Hardly the actions one would associate with a rape victim), and if Kobe was convicted as a result, then we would have a clear case where much of society figured there may be an innocent man sitting in prison for a rape he didn't do. If Kobe got life, and actually began serving it, imagine what I could argue in future cases. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you don't think that an innocent man can be convicted of a crime he didn't commit? Just consider Kobe Bryant, who IS STILL IN PRISON FOR THAT RAPE WE ALL KNOW HE DIDN'T DO."
Well, it appears that, luckily for Kobe, this will not be happening.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Republicans helping Nader
Obviously, there is nothing "wrong" with Republicans helping to put Nader on the ballot in many of the key "swing" states. That being said, there is clearly something unseemly about Nader accepting that help, he has to recognize that he is being used as a pawn by the Republican party to help re-elect Bush.
Here's the question I'd like to know, though. If the Republicans think it's that important for our democracy to get Nader on the ballot, do they also support his right to participate in the presidential debates? I would assume they don't, after all, the last thing they want is 2 people bashing Bush at the debates. Imagine if Bush had to debate against Kerry and Nader, he wouldn't be happy (I suspect he would decline to debate instead).
Here's the question I'd like to know, though. If the Republicans think it's that important for our democracy to get Nader on the ballot, do they also support his right to participate in the presidential debates? I would assume they don't, after all, the last thing they want is 2 people bashing Bush at the debates. Imagine if Bush had to debate against Kerry and Nader, he wouldn't be happy (I suspect he would decline to debate instead).
Friday, July 30, 2004
Blogger Ross at Three Sheets to the Wind has a post about my comments about chickenhawks. Here is part of it, click here for the rest (he has a good blog, it's worth checking out).
Here is my response.
I think that the whole notion of "chickenhawks" came about due to the right. Remember, it was Bush Sr. who made a point about Clinton dodging the draft. The right has consistently used the left's unwillingness to serve, or opposition to the war, as unAmerican.
Now the tables are turned. At least those liberals who failed to serve opposed the war. There is a difference when you support something, but only support other people having to do it.
People like Cheney and Bush, Quayle, Buchanan, Limbaugh, Wolfowitz, Perle, and plenty of other present day hawks, not to mention the hawkish parents of at least some of these people (Bush and Quayle to name just 2) hold hawkish views, support sending people in to die, but are not willing to do so themselves. At the same time, they use (maybe not personally, but their political cohorts) language that assails the patriotism of liberals who protest and do not serve in the war.
Limbaugh made great hay over the years pointing out that Clinton was protesting and trying to avoid the draft while others were dying. Well, at least Clinton was opposed to the war he dodged, rather than supporting it like Limbaugh and avoiding it. I think that there is a qualitative difference. Regardless, this is a shield that has been turned into a sword by the left after years of being battered by it. It is only through the cruelest of ironies that just about every hawk in the Bush administration managed to avoid serving in the military, or at least avoided combat through personal or family connections. The administration doves (namely Powell and Armitage) both served in combat.
I don't think that you have to have served in order to lead, or even to lead us into combat. However, I think it represents something about a person's character when you are especially willing and anxious to send out troops into combat (as the neo-cons have clearly been), while at the same time you are equally willing and anxious to avoid serving on your own. If something is so important to risk so many lives, then it is important for all American lives, not just poor minority ones, or the lives of people without the connections to avoid the draft, get into the national guard (which during Vietnam was a get out of combat free card) or get college deferments.
Now, if Clinton had previously annuonced that he was a conscientious objector (CO), said that all killing was wrong, and he would not serve for that reason, and then gone on to become a president who bombed Iraq and Serbia and used force in plenty of other situations, then clearly we would have a similar situation. For that reason, I would have to say that anyone who feels that force is never justified is probably not someone able to properly lead this country. I would probably say this regardless of wether or not they served, as we need to use force in many instances. However, if such a person did become president and then used force, after justifying their non-service with a CO type of a claim, that person would have equally suspect character.
I do not consider it an ad homenum attack to point out how a person's lack of service may affect their thinking, and, especially in this administration, where the hawks so overwhelmnigly did not serve while the doves did, a clear pattern appears that cannot escape attention.
- But my point is more about the stupidity of the "chickenhawk" label. A chickhawk is apparently someone who has not served in the military but advocates military action. Now on the face of it is an ad hominem attack and I'd think a lawyer like PD Dude wouldn't engage in fallacious arguing. The appropriateness of military action has nothing to do with the person recommending it. It either is warranted or it is not. Whether the person advocating for the war has been to war or not is irrelevant.And it was irrelevant to the left when Bill Clinton, who didn't even bother to serve in the guard or reserve, was President and bombed Iraq and sent troops to Kosovo (not to mention continuing in Somalia). That, for the current "chickenhawk" name-callers is called hypocrisy.
Here is my response.
I think that the whole notion of "chickenhawks" came about due to the right. Remember, it was Bush Sr. who made a point about Clinton dodging the draft. The right has consistently used the left's unwillingness to serve, or opposition to the war, as unAmerican.
Now the tables are turned. At least those liberals who failed to serve opposed the war. There is a difference when you support something, but only support other people having to do it.
People like Cheney and Bush, Quayle, Buchanan, Limbaugh, Wolfowitz, Perle, and plenty of other present day hawks, not to mention the hawkish parents of at least some of these people (Bush and Quayle to name just 2) hold hawkish views, support sending people in to die, but are not willing to do so themselves. At the same time, they use (maybe not personally, but their political cohorts) language that assails the patriotism of liberals who protest and do not serve in the war.
Limbaugh made great hay over the years pointing out that Clinton was protesting and trying to avoid the draft while others were dying. Well, at least Clinton was opposed to the war he dodged, rather than supporting it like Limbaugh and avoiding it. I think that there is a qualitative difference. Regardless, this is a shield that has been turned into a sword by the left after years of being battered by it. It is only through the cruelest of ironies that just about every hawk in the Bush administration managed to avoid serving in the military, or at least avoided combat through personal or family connections. The administration doves (namely Powell and Armitage) both served in combat.
I don't think that you have to have served in order to lead, or even to lead us into combat. However, I think it represents something about a person's character when you are especially willing and anxious to send out troops into combat (as the neo-cons have clearly been), while at the same time you are equally willing and anxious to avoid serving on your own. If something is so important to risk so many lives, then it is important for all American lives, not just poor minority ones, or the lives of people without the connections to avoid the draft, get into the national guard (which during Vietnam was a get out of combat free card) or get college deferments.
Now, if Clinton had previously annuonced that he was a conscientious objector (CO), said that all killing was wrong, and he would not serve for that reason, and then gone on to become a president who bombed Iraq and Serbia and used force in plenty of other situations, then clearly we would have a similar situation. For that reason, I would have to say that anyone who feels that force is never justified is probably not someone able to properly lead this country. I would probably say this regardless of wether or not they served, as we need to use force in many instances. However, if such a person did become president and then used force, after justifying their non-service with a CO type of a claim, that person would have equally suspect character.
I do not consider it an ad homenum attack to point out how a person's lack of service may affect their thinking, and, especially in this administration, where the hawks so overwhelmnigly did not serve while the doves did, a clear pattern appears that cannot escape attention.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
The latest from the right wing media machine has a classic one. Drudge Report has a report about Kerry keeping an 8mm video camera with him while he was in combat, sometimes going back to places where they had fought earlier and reenacting the confrontation for the camera.
I dunno, maybe there's a little "I want to be president someday so I'm going to get this on film now to help my future career" going on here, but here's my thought: I'd prefer a president who reenacts war scenes they took part in on camera for political gain, rather than a president who creates bogus scenes (eg - landing a jet on an aircraft carrier) harking back to an era when he dodged military service in a war he and his ilk happily supported.
I just love chickenhawks going after Kerry on the theory that he really didn't serve honorably.
At least they can find people who actually served with Kerry. I remember probably every famous person I ever went to school with or handled any case with. If they hit it big, I'm remembering every interaction I ever had with them. Don't you think that anyone who actually served with the president 30 years ago would not only be able to remember it, but actually talk about it with everyone they know?
I dunno, maybe there's a little "I want to be president someday so I'm going to get this on film now to help my future career" going on here, but here's my thought: I'd prefer a president who reenacts war scenes they took part in on camera for political gain, rather than a president who creates bogus scenes (eg - landing a jet on an aircraft carrier) harking back to an era when he dodged military service in a war he and his ilk happily supported.
I just love chickenhawks going after Kerry on the theory that he really didn't serve honorably.
At least they can find people who actually served with Kerry. I remember probably every famous person I ever went to school with or handled any case with. If they hit it big, I'm remembering every interaction I ever had with them. Don't you think that anyone who actually served with the president 30 years ago would not only be able to remember it, but actually talk about it with everyone they know?
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Hey everyone, I've found a few new law sites that are pretty cool. Go check them out and let me know what you think.
True Believer is a DUI blog out of Santa Barbara (my alma mater, I'm proud to say). It has some good information you should know about before having "one for the road," or at least how to deal with it if you're pulled over after doing so (I'd just advise you take a cab, but if everyone did that, I may not have my house).
Crime and Federalism is a great blog that is not restricted to those issues alone. Lots of interesting things ranging from federal indictments, a cool little quiz (I may have got a couple of the questions right, but mostly by luck - damn, I thought I would do well on Jeopardy! Check this site out.
Real Lawyers have Blogs has some good information about setting up blogs as a part of your practice (this is something I certainly don't have to worry about in my job - cases come rolling in whether I like them or not). This is more for you civil folk out there, but check it out as well.
Finally, I'm A PD has a good site. A newbie PD starting out in Los Angeles, writes about her fights and frustrations. Don't worry PD, you're doing just fine. It takes a while to get really comfortable in this field, I know you'll be fine.
Sorry I haven't posted more. I have a couple of thoughts percolating, though.
True Believer is a DUI blog out of Santa Barbara (my alma mater, I'm proud to say). It has some good information you should know about before having "one for the road," or at least how to deal with it if you're pulled over after doing so (I'd just advise you take a cab, but if everyone did that, I may not have my house).
Crime and Federalism is a great blog that is not restricted to those issues alone. Lots of interesting things ranging from federal indictments, a cool little quiz (I may have got a couple of the questions right, but mostly by luck - damn, I thought I would do well on Jeopardy! Check this site out.
Real Lawyers have Blogs has some good information about setting up blogs as a part of your practice (this is something I certainly don't have to worry about in my job - cases come rolling in whether I like them or not). This is more for you civil folk out there, but check it out as well.
Finally, I'm A PD has a good site. A newbie PD starting out in Los Angeles, writes about her fights and frustrations. Don't worry PD, you're doing just fine. It takes a while to get really comfortable in this field, I know you'll be fine.
Sorry I haven't posted more. I have a couple of thoughts percolating, though.
Monday, July 19, 2004
First of all, long time no post. No big reason, I just haven't felt it of late.
Martha Stewart
My prediction. She could easily get her conviction reversed. But, I have little sympathy for the big time white collar defendants. The only reason I have any sympathy for her is that I think she was the victim of a Republican House of Rep inspired witch hunt done primarily to divert attention from Enron (remember, that's when they started going after her and Wachsel, another big-time Democrat, at the time when the heat was turning on to the folks at Enron, who are big-time Republicans).
To begin with, how can the prosecution come up with a case for perjury against the ink specialist (who testified that there was a different ink on the page that said "sell at 60" or something to that effect), requiring him to have told a lie that was MATERIAL at the same time as they say his lie did not affect the litigation enough to warrant a new trial?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I just don't see it. If his lie is material enough to the prosecution that they file on him, then it must have affected the litigation. This smacks of working out of both sides of their mouth.
Next, it seems wrong that she and Bokanavic were tried together. I didn't follow the trial all that much, but statements that one of them made to the investigators were used in the joint trial, even though neither took the stand and neither had the opportunity to cross-examine them while the statements were being used against them. This is a classic example of Aranda/Bruton, where your co-defendant's statement is admitted even though it implicates you and you don't have a chance to cross-examine that person on the stand. I don't remember the example exactly from the case, but there were a couple of examples of where one person's statement hurt the co-D. Such situations require severance.
Lastly, anyone who wants to go and criticise public defenders remember this, her high priced lawyers let her speak with the investigators, and it was these lies that resulted in her conviction. Not because she lied to them and it made her look dishonest over a larger issue, but the lies were the crime. I know of very few public defenders who would let their clients speak to the government when there is a chance of being filed on. To put it in the context we can relate to more, if the police want to come and talk to you about your claiming too high a deduction for donating your car on your taxes (you claimed retail and only should've, in light of your car's condition, claimed high wholesale, or $500 more), would you go and try and talk your way out of this one knowing that talking your way out could get you in prison for a few years? Any lawyer who let you talk is crazy.
Who knows, perhaps she insisted, this is not unusual in cases where you have high profile defendants who are used to getting their way and wowing the public. If that's the case, then she certainly got what she deserves just for defying her lawyers when they suggested she act otherwise. It's about time our advice turns out to be correct.
Martha Stewart
My prediction. She could easily get her conviction reversed. But, I have little sympathy for the big time white collar defendants. The only reason I have any sympathy for her is that I think she was the victim of a Republican House of Rep inspired witch hunt done primarily to divert attention from Enron (remember, that's when they started going after her and Wachsel, another big-time Democrat, at the time when the heat was turning on to the folks at Enron, who are big-time Republicans).
To begin with, how can the prosecution come up with a case for perjury against the ink specialist (who testified that there was a different ink on the page that said "sell at 60" or something to that effect), requiring him to have told a lie that was MATERIAL at the same time as they say his lie did not affect the litigation enough to warrant a new trial?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I just don't see it. If his lie is material enough to the prosecution that they file on him, then it must have affected the litigation. This smacks of working out of both sides of their mouth.
Next, it seems wrong that she and Bokanavic were tried together. I didn't follow the trial all that much, but statements that one of them made to the investigators were used in the joint trial, even though neither took the stand and neither had the opportunity to cross-examine them while the statements were being used against them. This is a classic example of Aranda/Bruton, where your co-defendant's statement is admitted even though it implicates you and you don't have a chance to cross-examine that person on the stand. I don't remember the example exactly from the case, but there were a couple of examples of where one person's statement hurt the co-D. Such situations require severance.
Lastly, anyone who wants to go and criticise public defenders remember this, her high priced lawyers let her speak with the investigators, and it was these lies that resulted in her conviction. Not because she lied to them and it made her look dishonest over a larger issue, but the lies were the crime. I know of very few public defenders who would let their clients speak to the government when there is a chance of being filed on. To put it in the context we can relate to more, if the police want to come and talk to you about your claiming too high a deduction for donating your car on your taxes (you claimed retail and only should've, in light of your car's condition, claimed high wholesale, or $500 more), would you go and try and talk your way out of this one knowing that talking your way out could get you in prison for a few years? Any lawyer who let you talk is crazy.
Who knows, perhaps she insisted, this is not unusual in cases where you have high profile defendants who are used to getting their way and wowing the public. If that's the case, then she certainly got what she deserves just for defying her lawyers when they suggested she act otherwise. It's about time our advice turns out to be correct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)