|New Posts over at JuryLaw.|
As with DeathLaw, postings will be more sporadic in this sub-blog and I will post notices here when they are up.
Equally annoying, though perhaps not so ultimately dangerous, is the sham railway porter or messenger. This variety of the predatory race is in the habit of watching the master or mistress clear from the house, and then calls with a bogus parcel, for the carriage of which, and sornetimes for the parcel itself, he, demands such sums of money as lie thinks most likely to be paid without question. In no case should a parcel be taken in under these circumstances. Another well-known parcel dodge is to watch the delverey by some draper's cart of a parcel, and ten minutes afterwards to call and redemand it, on the plea of some mistake having occurred in the delivery.
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the absence of an "interrogation" foreclosed petitioner's claim that the jailhouse statements should have been suppressed as fruits of the statements taken from petitioner at his home. First, there is no question that the officers in this case "deliberately elicited" information from petitioner. Indeed, the officers, upon arriving at petitioner's house, informed him that their purpose in coming was to discuss his involvement in the distribution of methamphetamine and his association with certain charged co-conspirators. 285 F. 3d, at 723; App. 112. Because the ensuing discussion took place after petitioner had been indicted, outside the presence of counsel, and in the absence of any waiver of petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the officers' actions did not violate the Sixth Amendment standards established in Massiah, supra, and its progeny.It's an interesting opinion but doesn't appear all that useful without an answer to the second question. You have to wonder if the appellate court will take the hint.
Second, because of its erroneous determination that petitioner was not questioned in violation of Sixth Amendment standards, the Court of Appeals improperly conducted its "fruits" analysis under the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, it applied Elstad, supra, to hold that the admissibility of the jailhouse statements turns solely on whether the statements were " 'knowingly and voluntarily made.' " 285 F. 3d, at 724 (quoting Elstad, supra, at 309). The Court of Appeals did not reach the question whether the Sixth Amendment requires suppression of petitioner's jailhouse statements on the ground that they were the fruits of previous questioning conducted in violation of the Sixth Amendment deliberate-elicitation standard. We have not had occasion to decide whether the rationale of Elstad applies when a suspect makes incriminating statements after a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel notwithstanding earlier police questioning in violation of Sixth Amendment standards. We therefore remand to the Court of Appeals to address this issue in the first instance.
The three-judge federal panel said the mask was not protected because it does not convey a message independently of the KKK's robe and hood.I find that rationale more than a little disturbing. It's the equivalent of stating: "Mr. Lammers had a 6" St. Benedict crucifix hanging around his neck and a jacket with a large K of C 3d degree symbol on it. This clearly identifies him as a Roman Catholic. Therefore, we can restrict him from wearing a monstrance pin because it is redundant."
. . .
"Since the robe and hood alone clearly serve to identify the American Knights with the Klan, we conclude that the mask does not communicate any message that the robe and hood do not," the appeals court said. "The expressive force of the mask is, therefore, redundant."
Louisa County sheriff’s deputies arrested [Police] Chief John Wilson around 4:30 p.m. after Sgt. Robert Franklin Rigsby filed a criminal complaint against him Wednesday. Rigsby alleges that the chief struck him in the groin Dec. 31 following a scheduling dispute.
When Wilson appeared before the magistrate Thursday, he filed an identical charge against Rigsby, who was then arrested at 6:15 p.m.
I'm curious if you have any advice for your blog readers on the correct way to request a lawyer during an interview. If "I would like a lawyer here so I don't get in trouble" doesn't count as a request for council being present during interrogations, what does? Is there a catch phrase that must be repeated a certain way? Do you have to click your heels together three times as you say it?Well, I tell my clients that they have to say exactly this phrase: "I will not talk to you without my attorney, Mr. Lammers." Anything less will be deflected by the officer: "Can't I have my attorney here?" Officer: "Sure you can but I just want to ask you a couple of questions. First . . ." While reasonable people would realize this is an attempt to ask for an attorney that's not the standard. The standard is that the Defendant must have made an undeniable assertion of his rights. If there least little equivocality Virginia courts will not recognize the assertion.
The tiger python snakes were not poisonous, and the 20-year-old man, whom police declined to identify, did not seek medical treatment for the bite to his groin area.Ouch.
Authorities say the officers, who had not seen the flesh-colored latex before, expressed doubt that the dancers were sufficiently covered. Court papers say police then were confronted by women "who held their breasts up to the officers and argued that they did have material covering their breasts."(6) In Japan they are serious about their law enforcement: Police said they could not let the incidents slide, even though the men are believed to have stolen $0.0094 worth of electricity.
The mayor of this St. Louis suburb fancied a rare $1,000 bill that was seized in a traffic stop, so the town wrote the driver a check and the politician kept the cash.No kidding.
. . .
County police and prosecutors found that Pine Lawn officials broke no laws. But Don Schneider, a spokesman for St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, said "it's a bad idea for a city official or politician to have access to evidence."
No sooner had her county been identified as one of a handful of possible trial sites than Ms. LeClair, a tourism official, was collecting business cards and pulling together promotional materials.Now, that's tacky.
"I FedExed the package the next day to the presiding judge," said Ms. LeClair, president and chief executive of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau. "It said that we understand that we are one of the spots; if you select us, here is some stuff to pass along to the media."
Grand juries . . . are antiquated legal bodies that go contrary to all notions of American law. They operate on the basis of guilty until proven innocent. There is no guarantee of unreasonable search and seizure when it comes to grand juries, and they have an extremely low threshold of evidence required to obtain a subpoena.Don't really agree with the guilty until proven innocent part (although the standard is extremely low) but I must say that proceeding on an information is a far better way to go. Investigative grand juries are pretty much a joke, easily moved in a particular direction by prosecutors and the typical grand jury will indict someone on just about any charge a prosecutor tells it to. Prosecutors and law enforcement should do investigations without this screen to hide behind (or worse, manipulate). And getting someone indicted after his preliminary hearing in general district court is pretty much preordained. I guess what I'm saying is that grand juries are a vestigial remnant of the past. They served a valid function at one time but in the modern era are at best meaningless, at worst . . .
. . .
[G]rand juries should be outlawed like they have in most modern countries. They are contrary to all other notions of justice in this country—no right to the fifth amendment, no standard of evidence for subpoenas, secrecy, investigation of people instead of crimes, based on guilty until proven innocent, etc. Grand juries are solely tools of repression. They rarely come up with any answers when investigating crimes, and almost always operate with the intention to disrupt people’s lives. They are a tool of the political police when they have nothing else to use.
Choosing who should live or die has become an arbitrary decision in the prosecutor's office, argued one of Champion's attorneys, Jackie Walsh. In light of the Ridgway decision, she said, seeking the death penalty violates Champion's rights to due process, equal protection and cruel punishment clauses of the state and federal constitutions.
``The decision is an arbitrary one, and it's done in a capricious manner,'' Walsh said. A four-point set of standards adopted by the state Legislature nearly 30 years ago has failed to ensure the prosecutor makes fair decisions regarding the death penalty, she said.
Like Ridgway, she said, Champion cooperated with police by telling his family to speak truthfully to investigators. And unlike Ridgway, he has shown remorse.
"The restoration of capital punishment, after a suspension which has lasted almost six years, is proof of failure on the part of the state," Nasser Saghiyeh, a leader of Human Dignity, which groups four non-governmental organisations, told AFP.(2) Manchester, England: A doctor killed 215 people before he was caught.
"The president of the republic is placing the responsibility on the legal system, the prime minister on his colleague at the justice ministry, and both of them are saying it's the president who has the final say," Saghiyeh said.
"But in fact each one of them has the power to withhold approval."
Between 1994 and 1999, the rate of execution in Singapore was 13.57 per million population — far higher than second-placed Saudi Arabia (4.65), Belarus (3.20) or China (2.01).(4) Samoa: The death penalty looks like it's on its way out.
Homeland Security detective Bill Moore, who made the jailhouse visit to Alayed, told Reuters that Parnham was not contacted because the agency talked to his client about "jail security" issues that had nothing to do with the case.Okay, that's just scary. And what does Homeland Security care about "jail security?" One might suspect that the Defendant could have been questioned about matters involving something like,oh, say, homeland security rather than whether the Defendant thinks that the jail does head count often enough or if the walls could be Shawshanked. Of course, why would you lie about something like that? As long as they don't talk to the prisoner about the charge in which he is represented law enforcement can come to the jail and talk to him. It may be a little slimy but it's perfectly constitutional.
"We routinely go over and interview inmates in the jail about matters not related to the case," he said. And they routinely do not tell the inmates' lawyers, he said.
Four guards were needed to lift Williams from his knees and pry his hand off the edge of a table before carrying him into the death chamber. As he was strapped to the execution table he cried, "I'm not guilty. God, help me."
At least nine guards restrained him as they prepared his arms and inserted needles. One guard standing at his head alternately restrained him and patted his right shoulder to comfort him.
Williams repeatedly shook his head and tried to lift himself off the preparation bed. He yelled several times, then rested his head and spoke, appearing to whisper or chant quietly.
Williams kept pleading even as the warden pulled the microphone away after his final official statement: "God, please help me. God, please hear my cry." He was pronounced dead at 10:15 a.m.
Thomas Ingrassia, 47, said he used the library at the Sexually Violent Predator Unit in Farmington to brush up on the law before he cut through a fence.
"Missouri's so quick to make up laws without researching whether it's proper," Ingrassia said in Friday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "They're idiots."
THE COURT: Have a seat.At this point even the dimmest of bulbs has got to know that he's not going to get to talk anymore. Heck, if there is that much ire directed at him he has to wonder if they might even dust off the old plenary contempt and see if they can send him to jail for longer than the 10 days allowed by statute. There is no way he's going to be allowed to state the reasons for his objection to the contempt. Still, the appellate court refuses to address this on the merits because he has not preserved his reason for the objection.
[APPELLANT]: It's not proper to go forward on anything, Your Honor. I'm noting my objection to that case.
THE COURT: Well, what I'm going to -- listen, let's get something straight. If I want to hear from you, I will ask you to talk. I don't want to hear from you right now. I want you to have a seat, and I want to hear from [opposing counsel]. Sir, if you open your mouth again I'm going to hold you in contempt of court. Do you understand that?
[APPELLANT]: Your Honor --
THE COURT: That's $100.
[APPELLANT]: Your Honor --
THE COURT: That's $300.
[APPELLANT]: Your Honor --
THE COURT: That's $500.
[APPELLANT]: I'm obligated under the --
THE COURT: That's $500. I will do an order later. . . .
[APPELLANT]: Your Honor, I'm obligated under the Constitution of the United States --
THE COURT: Sir, I'm going to have you removed from the courtroom if you don't be quiet.
[APPELLANT]: Your Honor, if I can just --
THE COURT: No, you may not. Be quiet. Sit down. Are you
amused by something?
[APPELLANT]: Well, Your Honor, I believe that it -- I actually find it irregular in this case where someone is trying to put an objection on the record for the Court to tell him he can't do that.
THE COURT: You already put the objection on the record, and all you're doing now is talking when I told you not to.
[APPELLANT]: Your Honor, I've asked you to respond to the record, which I believe -- respond to the objection, which I believe --
THE COURT: You're up to $700. If you want to go for more, that's fine. You can deal with it with the Appellate Court.
The judge told Weissman he would get help in jail. Reminding Weissman, "You are a heroin addict on methadone," Bradley said correction officials had assured him they have several programs that can help Weissman.Well, I don't know about New York but I can vouch for the fact that Virginia has a program that works extremely well. It's called Cold Turkey and boy is it fun meeting with a client who has been put in jail within the last two weeks and is experiencing the joys of the program.
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."At least it will bring more clients to my door. Good to know the Justices are looking out for me.