1) I begin to suspect something has been done about nominating a new Supreme Court Justice.
2) If we have to start making arguments in Latin Tom is going to start trouncing me.
3) In an era when it is considered cool to be acerbic and display cutting wit in opinions, it is impressive that the Supremes praised the appellate judge for putting it all thouroughly on the record.
4) Consent to search is not consent to search and destroy.
5) SoCal Law's favorite podcasts. (Hmmmm . . . I wonder why I would point this out).
31 October 2005
Does It Happen?
Candy which is poisoned or has razor blades is an urban myth from as far back as I can remember. Is there anything to it? "Well, it's mainly bunk."
Halloweenies...
Hundreds of people were arrested over the weekend in Madison, Wisconsin during Halloween celebrations. Police used pepper spray to disperse the crowds in attendance. The mayor suggested canceling the festivities next year.
Man admits killing 3, entombing bodies in concrete A Chicago man plead guilty to killing three teenagers in 2003 to avoid the death penalty. He says that he buried their bodies in freshly poured concrete in his apartment building's basement.
Officials Cancel Halloween Celebrations in Massachusetts Elementary School amid protests from some parents. School officials sent out a notice Friday that Halloween activities were being canceled because some parents found them offensive to religious beliefs.
30 October 2005
Around the Web
1) Orin asks how long the government should be able to hold a seized computer before it violates the 4th Amendment.
2) Either somebody is really dumb or doesn't like his on-probation friend.
3) Yeah they tried to do away with local rules in Viginia too, but it didn't take. I think the General Assembly even passed a law.
4) A State PD trying to get evidence. Federal PD's for the same defendant don't want it. Their rationale? It might be accidently released and upset the victims' family.
5) Somebody stole the Weasley's car.
6) If you bought your winning ticket with a stolen credit card you don't win.
7) Your cell phone is not an FBI tracking device.
8) What's the difference between a false declaration and prejury?
9) Mike makes the case for my elevation to the Supreme Court.
10) Did all the police who failed to do their duty in New Orleans actually work for the police department?
11) Lawyer fish?
12) From Lex Communis:
At least this gentleman tried.
Tagged: SoCal Law, Have Opinion, Will Travel, Arbitrary and Capricious, Seeking Justice, SW Va Law.
2) Either somebody is really dumb or doesn't like his on-probation friend.
3) Yeah they tried to do away with local rules in Viginia too, but it didn't take. I think the General Assembly even passed a law.
4) A State PD trying to get evidence. Federal PD's for the same defendant don't want it. Their rationale? It might be accidently released and upset the victims' family.
5) Somebody stole the Weasley's car.
6) If you bought your winning ticket with a stolen credit card you don't win.
7) Your cell phone is not an FBI tracking device.
8) What's the difference between a false declaration and prejury?
9) Mike makes the case for my elevation to the Supreme Court.
10) Did all the police who failed to do their duty in New Orleans actually work for the police department?
11) Lawyer fish?
12) From Lex Communis:
Mayor Jay at Pro Ecclesia is spreading a meme, the rules of which are:Ok here it is:
1.Go into your archives.
2. Find your 23rd post.
3. Post the fifth sentence (or closest to it).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
5. Tag five other people to do the same thing.
At least this gentleman tried.
Tagged: SoCal Law, Have Opinion, Will Travel, Arbitrary and Capricious, Seeking Justice, SW Va Law.
29 October 2005
Is a State's Tax on Porn Constitutional?
Kansas lawmakers will look at a special state tax on adult entertainment businesses to study before the next legislative session. If the state can impose taxes on tobacco and alcohol, why not on pornography?
Judge and DUI Unconstitutionality
You'll recall that I discussed this in my last full length lawcast.
A judge in Fairfax general district court is not allowing the presumption of guilt from the DUI statute. When I commented upon this I was reacting what I had seen published and RUMINT. I said the judge is right in ruling this unconstitutional but wrong in dismissing cases solely because of it. Well, it appears that he's not dismissing cases out of hand. According to this WaPo article, he's just making the prosecutors prove their case without the presumption of guilt. Of course that's a terrible thing if you're MADD or don't believe in the constitution.
Reactions here, here, here, here, & here.
A judge in Fairfax general district court is not allowing the presumption of guilt from the DUI statute. When I commented upon this I was reacting what I had seen published and RUMINT. I said the judge is right in ruling this unconstitutional but wrong in dismissing cases solely because of it. Well, it appears that he's not dismissing cases out of hand. According to this WaPo article, he's just making the prosecutors prove their case without the presumption of guilt. Of course that's a terrible thing if you're MADD or don't believe in the constitution.
Reactions here, here, here, here, & here.
Officer Truthfulness
The vast majority of my practice is in State courts. Most of the time the officers and troopers who come to court to testify know they are going to see (and be seen by) the same judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys over and over and over again. As such, it is usually in their best interest not to deviate too far from the truth too often. It just makes sense and all but a small number seem to get it. Nevertheless, some few don't and when an officer gets a reputation for not being truthful he quickly becomes less effective in court.
There are signs. Other officers will not corroborate first officer's version of the events. Officer2 won't say the Officer1 is being untruthful. However, Officer2 "didn't hear the confession because he was out of earshot", "was at the other end of the car with the another suspect during Officer's search of the suspect", or was "calling dispatch when Officer1 got permission to search the car." Prosecutors start trying to call other officers who were at the scene rather than Officer1 and sometimes just stop asking him questions when he's in the middle of his testimony (usually after an amazingly juicy bit of testimony). And you can really tell when a judge catches on. I've seen judges who never doubted an officer before suddenly start asking if there was a recording of the statements against interest and finding people not guilty in swearing matches with a particular officer (around here nobody wins a swearing match with an officer). I've seen judges focus in on incredibly minor errors in the prosecution's case and dismiss (rather than taking judicial notice or reopening for correction). I've seen judges dismiss on minor technicalities for which I'd be laughed at if I argued for dismissal based upon them.
However, much as Mike points to in federal court, I've never actually seen a judge bluntly tell an officer that he is lying. But that doesn't mean that anyone in the courtroom, including the officer, doesn't understand what just happened.
There are signs. Other officers will not corroborate first officer's version of the events. Officer2 won't say the Officer1 is being untruthful. However, Officer2 "didn't hear the confession because he was out of earshot", "was at the other end of the car with the another suspect during Officer's search of the suspect", or was "calling dispatch when Officer1 got permission to search the car." Prosecutors start trying to call other officers who were at the scene rather than Officer1 and sometimes just stop asking him questions when he's in the middle of his testimony (usually after an amazingly juicy bit of testimony). And you can really tell when a judge catches on. I've seen judges who never doubted an officer before suddenly start asking if there was a recording of the statements against interest and finding people not guilty in swearing matches with a particular officer (around here nobody wins a swearing match with an officer). I've seen judges focus in on incredibly minor errors in the prosecution's case and dismiss (rather than taking judicial notice or reopening for correction). I've seen judges dismiss on minor technicalities for which I'd be laughed at if I argued for dismissal based upon them.
However, much as Mike points to in federal court, I've never actually seen a judge bluntly tell an officer that he is lying. But that doesn't mean that anyone in the courtroom, including the officer, doesn't understand what just happened.
I Can't Remember
You know, once upon a time I wouldn't have believed it when I was told that someone could actually assert an "I am so busy I don't remember these little things" defense.
Nowadays, with umpteen dozen cases in the works at any one time and a memory which can't remember three weeks ago if I don't have the file in front of me, I believe.
Nowadays, with umpteen dozen cases in the works at any one time and a memory which can't remember three weeks ago if I don't have the file in front of me, I believe.
When did it happen?
R. Kelly's prosecution moved forward after the prosecution changed the period of time in which it alleges the acts occurred.
More on Restrictive Phrases
Windy Pundit takes up where I left off in the discussion of whether "which" can be used to begin a restrictive phrase. He quotes Strunk and White as basically stating that the rule is "that" should be used to start a restrictive phrase and "which" should not be so used, but that this rule is not followed in the real world.
Then WP moves on to the test which Bryan first talked about in a comment to my post and I posited was probably the better test - the use of commas as markers for descriptive phrases (not present in restrictive phrases). He agrees that this is a better test than the judge's offered that/which test. He quoted Strunk and White (and I may have to go out and buy the book because the example is dead on for my purpose), however, since I've yet to travel to my local brick and mortar, I'll quote from my 1896 Higher Lessons in English:
The puppy, which is a beagle, is cute.
The puppy which is a beagle is cute.
In the first sentence you are describing the only puppy in the room to someone. In the second sentence you are at a pet store staring through a window at 20 puppies and are describing the specific puppy you are talking about. The first doesn't modify the meaning of the sentence; whether you include ", which is a beagle," or not you are talking about the same dog. The second does modify the meaning; "which is a beagle" defines which - of 20 puppies - you are talking about.
With that, I'm off to my local brick & mortar to purchase an English text published more recently than 1894.
Then WP moves on to the test which Bryan first talked about in a comment to my post and I posited was probably the better test - the use of commas as markers for descriptive phrases (not present in restrictive phrases). He agrees that this is a better test than the judge's offered that/which test. He quoted Strunk and White (and I may have to go out and buy the book because the example is dead on for my purpose), however, since I've yet to travel to my local brick and mortar, I'll quote from my 1896 Higher Lessons in English:
The adjective clause, when not restrictive, is set off by a comma.In plain language I think the difference is this:
The puppy, which is a beagle, is cute.
The puppy which is a beagle is cute.
In the first sentence you are describing the only puppy in the room to someone. In the second sentence you are at a pet store staring through a window at 20 puppies and are describing the specific puppy you are talking about. The first doesn't modify the meaning of the sentence; whether you include ", which is a beagle," or not you are talking about the same dog. The second does modify the meaning; "which is a beagle" defines which - of 20 puppies - you are talking about.
With that, I'm off to my local brick & mortar to purchase an English text published more recently than 1894.
Former bar owner sentenced for patron's death after allowing "drinking game".
The former owner of a Kansas bar has been sentenced in the death of a customer following a reported drinking contest. The victim had a .430 blood alcohol content.
The drinking game was called "Stoplight Challenge" where those participating consume three drinks: one red, one yellow and one green. If the patron can remain coherent for thirty minutes afterward, they were refunded the $15 cost of the drinks - and awarded a free T-shirt.
The bar owner was charged with involuntary manslaughter.
The drinking game was called "Stoplight Challenge" where those participating consume three drinks: one red, one yellow and one green. If the patron can remain coherent for thirty minutes afterward, they were refunded the $15 cost of the drinks - and awarded a free T-shirt.
The bar owner was charged with involuntary manslaughter.
28 October 2005
New Orleans Police Fire 51 Employees for Desertion
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police Department has fired 51 members of the force for abandoning their duty and their city.
If You're in Kentucky . . .
At my undergrad, Centre, they are having a covocation about criminal justice reform (02 November 2005).
Attorney Jailed After Appearing In Court Drunk
An Arkansas attorney was jailed for contempt when he appeared in court intoxicated. What business did the attorney have in court that day? He was appealing his second DUI conviction!
27 October 2005
I thnk the Judge is Wrong
I read this eagerly because I am trying to put together a petition for the Virginia court of appeals wherein I point out (as politely as possible) that a former decision of the court makes no sense under the plain reading of the statute because of a restrictive dependent conjunctive clause. The judge is spot on in his definition of a restrictive clause:
There are three words which hold the grammatical position which the judge describes. "Who" is for people. "Which" is for things and creatures. "That" is for people, animals, and things. As far back as 1896 (and probably as far back as the 1877 first printing) Higher Lessons in English and Word Building states:
lv SW Va Law
A restrictive clause identifies a subset of the object described and directs the meaning of the sentence to that subset.However, he then goes forward with the idea that "that" introduces restrictive clauses but "which" should not. In this I think he is wrong.
There are three words which hold the grammatical position which the judge describes. "Who" is for people. "Which" is for things and creatures. "That" is for people, animals, and things. As far back as 1896 (and probably as far back as the 1877 first printing) Higher Lessons in English and Word Building states:
That is almost always restrictive. However valuable it may seem to confine who and which to unrestrictive clauses, they are not confined to them in actual practice.For a more modern confirmation, here is the pertinent definition of "which" from Webster Online:
The wide use of who and which in restrictive clauses is not accounted for by saying that they occur after this, these, those, and that, and hence are used to avoid disagreeable repetitive sounds. This may frequently be the reason for employing who and which in restrictive clauses; but usages authorizes us to confirm (1) that who and which stand in such clauses oftener without, than with, this, these, those, or that preceding them, and (2) that they so stand oftener than that itself does. Especially may this be said of which.
Pages 176-178
2whichThe pertinent section of "that" referred to is the one describing "that" as introducing restrictive clauses:
3 -- used as a function word to introduce a relative clause; used in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive; used especially in reference to animals, inanimate objects, groups, or ideas
usage see THAT4
4thatWhich can be restrictive or not. If the judge were to state that the usage of "which" to introduce a restrictive clause is an unfortunate choice because it might lead to ambiguity he would be correct. However, using "which" and "that" to determine whether a clause is restrictive is an incorrect usage of the words and has been for at least 100 years.
1 -- used as a function word to introduce a restrictive relative clause and to serve as a substitute within that clause for the substantive modified by the clause
usage That, which: Although some handbooks say otherwise, that and which are both regularly used to introduce restrictive clauses in edited prose. Which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses. That was formerly used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses; such use is virtually nonexistent in present-day edited prose, though it may occasionally be found in poetry.
lv SW Va Law
Suicide Mistaken for Halloween Decoration
A little off topic, but I thought I'd post it- in the spirit of the season
Miers Withdraws Supreme Court Nomination
Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination today after a torrent of opposition and vocal criticism about her qualifications to be a justice.
President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw.
President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw.
26 October 2005
WindyPundit acknowledged that my commercial was okay, but challenged me to better this one.
Holy cow! That's hilarious. It almost makes me want to move to Austin and bill 2,500 hours a year. Almost.
Anyway, I can't compete with that. I'm just one guy putting things together himself. Heck, I don't know if that many people have even stepped into my office - much less that many at one time. And I'm surely not going to license the music to Rocky. Still, the gauntlet has been thrown . . .
BTW - Perhaps even more hilarious than the video is the reaction here. Some people just have no sense of humor at all. Here's a hint: if the first thing you do when you view the video is start counting who's in what group - you've had an anti-discrimination practice for too long
Holy cow! That's hilarious. It almost makes me want to move to Austin and bill 2,500 hours a year. Almost.
Anyway, I can't compete with that. I'm just one guy putting things together himself. Heck, I don't know if that many people have even stepped into my office - much less that many at one time. And I'm surely not going to license the music to Rocky. Still, the gauntlet has been thrown . . .
BTW - Perhaps even more hilarious than the video is the reaction here. Some people just have no sense of humor at all. Here's a hint: if the first thing you do when you view the video is start counting who's in what group - you've had an anti-discrimination practice for too long
For Me? You Shouldn't Have!
Well, I got my very first federal habeas today. Joy of Joys.
It's nice and typed, unlike a State habeas, and uses a lot of language which reads like I would have imagined lawyers wrote when I was in the 7th grade: "Therefore the heretofore said fact thusly set forth previously . . ." And apparently I did a lot of things ironically. i.e. "Said counsel ironically chose to be imcompetent" (repeated in multiple variations).
I don't think I should discuss the meat of the accusations but I'll leave you part of an actual quote:
"In the instant case subjudice, Petitioner, while raising various substantive claims of the underlying judgment being imposed without judicial jurisdiction and otherwise subject to collateral attack, also configurates the claims herein upon the ineffective assistance of counsel forum . . ."
For those of you who are wondering, configurate is actually a verb. It means "to give or assign a form to." Subjudice means "before a judge or court." I'd seen subjudice before (although probably not since law school), but until I looked it up I didn't really believe configurate was a word.
Petitioner obviously had a jail-house lawyer do this for him. How do I know this? Because Petitioner (previously Client) is actually quite bright and probably would have written a better document if he'd done it himself.
It's nice and typed, unlike a State habeas, and uses a lot of language which reads like I would have imagined lawyers wrote when I was in the 7th grade: "Therefore the heretofore said fact thusly set forth previously . . ." And apparently I did a lot of things ironically. i.e. "Said counsel ironically chose to be imcompetent" (repeated in multiple variations).
I don't think I should discuss the meat of the accusations but I'll leave you part of an actual quote:
"In the instant case subjudice, Petitioner, while raising various substantive claims of the underlying judgment being imposed without judicial jurisdiction and otherwise subject to collateral attack, also configurates the claims herein upon the ineffective assistance of counsel forum . . ."
For those of you who are wondering, configurate is actually a verb. It means "to give or assign a form to." Subjudice means "before a judge or court." I'd seen subjudice before (although probably not since law school), but until I looked it up I didn't really believe configurate was a word.
Petitioner obviously had a jail-house lawyer do this for him. How do I know this? Because Petitioner (previously Client) is actually quite bright and probably would have written a better document if he'd done it himself.
Off Point: Lessig on TWIT
Just a quick bulletin to let anyone who is interested know that Lawrence Lessig was in this week's TWIT episode.
Download it here.
Download it here.
25 October 2005
Comparing the Nations
Most Murders per capita: By far the most is Colombia. The United States is #24. How other nations fared.
The United States is the nation with the most confidence in its police though none in this list dip below 50%.
Norway, Switzerland, and New Zealand have higher per capita drug offense rates than the U.S.
The U.S. doesn't even make the top twenty-five list for embezzlement.
Nor is the U.S. among the top 25 in number of police per capita.
The U.S. is - by far - the nation which per capita incarcerates more of its citizens.
In overall crime the U.S. ranks #8 per capita.
The U.S. is 20th in per capita use of the death penalty.
And there's a bunch of other stats which I don't have the time to list.
The United States is the nation with the most confidence in its police though none in this list dip below 50%.
Norway, Switzerland, and New Zealand have higher per capita drug offense rates than the U.S.
The U.S. doesn't even make the top twenty-five list for embezzlement.
Nor is the U.S. among the top 25 in number of police per capita.
The U.S. is - by far - the nation which per capita incarcerates more of its citizens.
In overall crime the U.S. ranks #8 per capita.
The U.S. is 20th in per capita use of the death penalty.
And there's a bunch of other stats which I don't have the time to list.
Its always the lawyer causing trouble...
Law and Order: Criminal Intent star, Vincent D'Onofrio became agitated recently when NBC had a mandatory "workplace harassment" seminar for the show's cast and crew. D'Onofrio got hot under the collar when a lawyer conducting the training started giving hypothetical scenarios about work place sexual harassment.
24 October 2005
Judge Signs Death Warrant for "Crips" Founder
An L.A. judge has signed a death warrant for "Crips" gang co-founder, Stanley "Tookie" Williams. Williams is scheduled to die Dec. 13 at San Quentin prison. In additon to being a co-founder of the "Crips", Williams was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his children's books.
Free Speech?
Does the display of an effigy of a U.S. soldier with a noose around its neck constitute free speech or hate speech?
Supreme Court Justices
Y'know, I've looked people who practice criminal law in the face and told them that their greatest enemy on the Supreme Court is not Scalia. Maybe now they'll believe me:
1 The Virginia version of the Rule of Lenity. Despite being among the oldest canons of statutory construction, it is perhaps the most debased canon in Virginia law. It is often just stated and ignored in favor of some "legislative intent" argument which is usually, ummm, creative and almost never states authority for the legislative intent which the court is assuming to exist.
The only Justice to use the rule of lenity often and distinctively is Justice Scalia, who applied it in ten of the last eleven cases where it was made an issue. This helps explain why Scalia’s votes in statutory cases tend to favor the government less often than his votes in constitutional cases, for there is no rule of lenity in constitutional law.Scalia disappoints us all on occasion. Whren is an abomination for defense attorneys who see the constitution violated day after day after day under its auspices. On the other hand, prosecutors scratch their heads over the Kyllo decision and its curtailing of the emanations argument. In general, you can count on Scalia calling them as he sees them and not engaging in the torturing of statutes that we usually see so that the appellate courts can keep from "construing the statute strictly against the Commonwealth."1
1 The Virginia version of the Rule of Lenity. Despite being among the oldest canons of statutory construction, it is perhaps the most debased canon in Virginia law. It is often just stated and ignored in favor of some "legislative intent" argument which is usually, ummm, creative and almost never states authority for the legislative intent which the court is assuming to exist.
23 October 2005
Torture by Judge
Client comes into court facing a charge of misdemeanor trespass and misdemeanor failure to appear in court. She walks out of lockup and the judge reads the charge and Client pleads not guilty on each.
The evidence goes forward and the prosecutor calls the owner of the house. Owner testifies that Client lived there with his son. Son is currently serving time. Owner states that several times in the past year he told Client that she could no longer live there. However, he admits that she has lived at the house, on-and-off, at times since he told her to leave. He says that about three months ago Client got out of jail and came back to the house drunk; she says "I'm home!" and heads back to "my son's and her room." Owner says he told her to get out that night. Four days later Owner went to the magistrate and swore out a warrant for trespassing. He's the only person who testifies (on either side).
First we take care of the failure to appear charge. I point out to the judge that the underlying trespass warrant does not have the sections checked which indicate that the misdemeanor warrant was served on Client as part of her arrest or that she was served the warrant and told to come back for a pretrial hearing (the FTA is for missing the pretrial hearing). I also point out that the section which she is supposed to sign if the warrant is served and she is released is blank: no signature or indication of refusal to sign. I tell the judge that there is no evidence that client was ever even served the warrant and therefore cannot be held responsible for failing to appear. The judge hems and haws about this for a little bit; it's pretty clear he doesn't want to dismiss. I explain it to him a couple times and he gets it - he's just not happy about it. Finally, the prosecutor asks to see the underlying warrant. She checks to make sure it is as I've described it and then moves to dismiss. At this point the judge is satisfied and dismisses the failure to appear.
Then we move on to the argument about the trespassing. My argument basically boils down to one thing: if Owner had gotten the warrant on the first day Client would be guilty of trespass. However, Owner waited four days to swear out the warrant and swore it out for the fourth day. In the meantime he has acquiesced to her presence and waived his right to pursue a criminal charge of trespass; he should have pursued a civil eviction. It's a weak argument and the judge and I engage in this conversation:
It was the end of the docket and he could see I was grasping at anything to argue my client's contention that she was not trespassing. I think the first round of argument he was listening; after that I think he was having a little fun with me - seeing how many times he could turn me on the spit before I would say, "Enough!" At the time I was a little exasperated but even I could see the humor of it. I went back into the lockup with my client to explain and when I came out the court personnel were smiling because they knew what had just happened.
Well, at least he didn't have the power to make me faint mid-argument.
The evidence goes forward and the prosecutor calls the owner of the house. Owner testifies that Client lived there with his son. Son is currently serving time. Owner states that several times in the past year he told Client that she could no longer live there. However, he admits that she has lived at the house, on-and-off, at times since he told her to leave. He says that about three months ago Client got out of jail and came back to the house drunk; she says "I'm home!" and heads back to "my son's and her room." Owner says he told her to get out that night. Four days later Owner went to the magistrate and swore out a warrant for trespassing. He's the only person who testifies (on either side).
First we take care of the failure to appear charge. I point out to the judge that the underlying trespass warrant does not have the sections checked which indicate that the misdemeanor warrant was served on Client as part of her arrest or that she was served the warrant and told to come back for a pretrial hearing (the FTA is for missing the pretrial hearing). I also point out that the section which she is supposed to sign if the warrant is served and she is released is blank: no signature or indication of refusal to sign. I tell the judge that there is no evidence that client was ever even served the warrant and therefore cannot be held responsible for failing to appear. The judge hems and haws about this for a little bit; it's pretty clear he doesn't want to dismiss. I explain it to him a couple times and he gets it - he's just not happy about it. Finally, the prosecutor asks to see the underlying warrant. She checks to make sure it is as I've described it and then moves to dismiss. At this point the judge is satisfied and dismisses the failure to appear.
Then we move on to the argument about the trespassing. My argument basically boils down to one thing: if Owner had gotten the warrant on the first day Client would be guilty of trespass. However, Owner waited four days to swear out the warrant and swore it out for the fourth day. In the meantime he has acquiesced to her presence and waived his right to pursue a criminal charge of trespass; he should have pursued a civil eviction. It's a weak argument and the judge and I engage in this conversation:
Judge: "Mr. Lammers, he told her she couldn't be there."This argument circle repeats for several minutes. It's crystal clear how he's going to rule. Finally, I answer the question one last time and finish saying something like this: " . . . and, sir, if that's not persuasive I fear we are not going to have a meeting of the minds." He grins at me again and finds my client guilty. He then gives Client a sentence which is basically time served.
Me: "Yes sir. On the first day. However, when he left her on the property and did not pursue a remedy he waived that claim."
Judge: "Mr. Lammers, as soon as she came on the first night he told her to leave. He never told her she could stay - she imposed herself."
Me: "On the first day that's correct. However, he let her stay there for four days. At some point allowing her to stay becomes approval for her to stay. When he did not act on the first day he approved her remaining at the residence in the room he himself called 'his son's and her room.'"
Judge (grinning): "Mr. Lammers, I just don't see how your argument makes sense. He told her she couldn't stay. Trespass is a continuing offense."
It was the end of the docket and he could see I was grasping at anything to argue my client's contention that she was not trespassing. I think the first round of argument he was listening; after that I think he was having a little fun with me - seeing how many times he could turn me on the spit before I would say, "Enough!" At the time I was a little exasperated but even I could see the humor of it. I went back into the lockup with my client to explain and when I came out the court personnel were smiling because they knew what had just happened.
Well, at least he didn't have the power to make me faint mid-argument.
FBI Pushing for Spy Efficient Internet
The government wants to force internet providers to put all information through choke points so that it can spy on us easier. And it wants the providers to pay the billions which this will cost (via judicial mandate).
Welcome to China.
Welcome to China.
22 October 2005
Miers' answers lead to more questions...
Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers submitted her answers to a questionnaire to the Senate. Some on both sides of the aisle say she had little to say- especially on Constitutional issues.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)