Once upon a time I attended Washington & Lee Law School with this gentleman. Now he's making headlines and getting improperly threatened by prosecutors.
Ahhh, the joys of being a criminal defense attorney.
On the other hand, if a juror expresses a willingness to follow the law and consider all options that the law permits, then bouncing the juror would be impermissible. For example, if a prosecutor made it his practice to use his peremptories on Catholic (or Quaker) jurors who had stated their willingness to follow the law, that practice could and would be challenged as a basis for obtaining a new trial. [I'll defer to CrimLaw on this point, though.]Hmmm . . . The first thing which comes to mind is this quote from Darrow on whom to choose during voir dire:
An Irishman is called into the box for examination. There is no reason for asking about his religion; he is Irish; that is enough. We may not agree with his religion, but it matters not; his feelings go deeper than any religion. You should be aware that he is emotional, kindly and sympathetic. If he is chosen as a juror, his imagination will place him in the dock; really, he is trying himself. You would be guilty of malpractice if you got rid of him, except for the strongest reasons.’So, yes, religion has a long and venerable tradition of being called into question during jury selection.
‘An Englishman is not so good as an Irishman, but still, he has come through a long tradition of individual rights, and is not afraid to stand alone; in fact, be is never sure that he is right unless the great majority is against him.
‘The German is not so keen about individual rights except where they concern his own way of life. Liberty is not a theory. It is a way of living. He has not been among us long, his ways are fixed by his race, and his habits are still in the making. We need inquire no further. If he is a Catholic, then be loves music and art; he must be emotional, and will want to help you; give him a chance.
‘If a Presbyterian enters the jury box and carefully rolls up his umbrella, and calmly and critically sits down, let him go. He believes in John Calvin and eternal punishment. Get rid of him with the fewest possible words before he contaminates the others. Unless you and your clients are Presbyterians you probably are a bad lot, and even though you may be a Presbyterian, your client most likely is guilty.
‘If possible, the Baptists are more hopeless than the Presbyterians. They, too, are apt to think that the real home of all outsiders is Sheol and you do not want them on the jury, and the sooner they leave the better.
‘The Methodists are worth considering; they are nearer the soil. Their religious emotions can be transmuted into love and charity. They are not half bad, even though they will not take a drink, they really do not need it so much as some of their competitors for the seat next to the throne. If chance sets you down between a Methodist and a Baptist, you will move toward the Methodist to keep warm.
‘Beware of the Lutherans, especially the Scandinavians; they are almost always sure to convict. Either a Lutheran or Scandinavian is unsafe, but if both—in—one, plead your client guilty and go down the docket. He learns about sinning and punishing from the preacher, and dares not doubt.
‘As to Unitarians, Universalists, Congregationalists, Jews and other agnostics, don’t ask them too many questions; keep them anyhow; especially Jews and agnostics. It is best to inspect a Unitarian, or a Universalist, or a Congregationalist, with some care, for they may be prohibitionists; but never the Jews and the real agnostics! And, do not, please, accept a prohibitionist: he is too solemn and holy and dyspeptic.
‘I have never experimented much with Christian Scientists; they are too serious for me.
“You may defy all the rest of the rules if you can get a man who laughs. Few things in this world are of enough importance to warrant considering them seriously. So, by all means, choose a man who laughs. A juror who laughs hates to find anyone guilty.
Detectives said they were treating the death of the victim, who was described as a local man, as suspicious.Hmmmm . . . I can't imagine why . . .
Shapiro might be bullet-proof from future judgments, according to court documents. In a letter Smith wrote in the Dimon case, he said Shapiro’s firm no longer has malpractice insurance, has $6 million in liens against it, and “ has no other assets” of value in New York.Found via My Shingle.
Black believes 18 years in prison is enough for a series of bank robberies in which no one was injured and no weapon was displayed.The woman had no prior record but was convicted under the three time violent felon law becaue her crimes were spread over two months, enough to count each as a seperate occurence.
Justice officials are notably upset about new advertisements from the American Civil Liberties Union that include the assertion the law "allows government agents to secretly search your house and not even tell you."That's because the truth hurts. Do I think Justice currently intends to seriously abuse this law? No. Do I think that if this becomes settled law it will fall into the "give an inch take a mile" syndrome which is so common in law enforcement? Yes. They'll stretch it just a little bit to get that member of Ga'amiat Islamia, then just a little further to get that 3d generation Irish-American mob boss who's supporting the IRA, then just a little further to get that pharmacist who hasn't been reporting income from selling drugs to the mob boss' underling which ended up in a deal for guns that went to the IRA, then just a little further . . .
LuAnn Kingston said Jeremy Kingston had three wives and 17 children when he married her [at the ripe old age of 15]. She told investigators that her father-in-law, Joseph Ortell Kingston, is her half brother, making her ex-husband a nephew as well as a cousin. Authorities have said blood tests previously proved that the mothers of Jeremy and LuAnn Kingston were sisters.You know, I grew up in Kentucky and people made fun of us for our familial relations but I never met anyone with a family that screwed up.
[The prosecutor] said the DNA test results do not exonerate McKinley because of two factors explained to him by the 11-year-old girl. She said she had engaged in consensual sex the night before and that McKinley did not ejaculate when he raped her. Thus, the semen was from someone other than her attacker, Kastrenakes said.
But Scheck, known for helping to successfully defend O.J. Simpson against murder charges, challenged Kastrenakes' argument. "He took the position at trial that the semen came from McKinley and was the result of recent intercourse," Scheck said. "He can't turn around now and say otherwise."
Scheck said that if the girl had consensual sex the day before the rape, the state needs to get a DNA sample from him to see whether his DNA matches the semen recovered by investigators. He said there was no testimony at trial about whether the girl had sex the day before the alleged rape.
"Blaming the victim is reprehensible, no matter how many legs the victim has.".
"It's a drop in the bucket," Berg said. "The state needs to get rid of this antiquated, Jim Crow system."Amen. I understand not letting felons have a firearm (or at least violent felons) but not allowing them to vote? We have the same system set up in Virginia and it disturbs me; it doesn't bother many of my clients1 but it disturbs me.
"This is great for us," said Jim Collins, attorney for [the acting police chief's son]. "They spent months with a grand jury for nothing. It shows this grand jury was so flawed they had to go back to step one."
"The real purpose of the law is to define a fetus at any stage of development as a person," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. "That undermines Roe v. Wade."(4) In the NC Peterson case the prosecution has gone to the tried and true tactic of showing the jury a disgusting crime scene video (twice). Score on for the prosecution. However, the prosecutor's crime scene technician's testimony seemed to be a draw. He minimized the actions of Peterson when he ran over to his wife on the floor but then testified about how Peterson's son had to pull him over to a couch. He also apparently contradicted other police officers who testified that the reason they were suspicious was that the blood on Peterson's clothes was dry (he said they were moist). It feels like this day probably came out slightly in the prosecution's favor (because you cannot underestimate the emotional impact of seeing that video twice).
"In effect, the defendant is being prosecuted by both the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia," wrote lawyers Michael Arif and Craig Cooley. "Therefore, fundamental fairness and due process would require that the defendant be allowed access to federal funding for his defense," including the use of mental health experts, other expert witnesses and the costs of transporting and housing defense witnesses.Very interesting. If they win it holds all sorts of implications for indigent Defendants because of all those law enforcement and prosecution programs which are backed by federal funds. Of course, being of necessity a realist and of the opinion that judges can foresee implications as well as I can, I very much doubt the motion will be granted.
Three other students, including one from Roanoke, were wounded before Odighizuwa ran out of ammunition and was tackled by students.I've seen this called a fallacy more than once and been told that students went to their cars got their firearms and backed him down. Can anyone point me to an actual article clarifying this?