You know something strange is going on when one of the jurors shows up with a bodyguard.

In a shocking development inmates in a riot have denied trying to harm guards.

Did you get your bid in on West Virginia?

Seems that there is some confusion in the U.K. about whether cannibis will be legal or not.

My first reaction to this was "Oh, boy! I can bash prosecutors?!?" My second was "Oh, c'mon! You gotta be kidding."

Does this guy actually believe that the poor, put upon prosecutors need a break in dealing with us evil, malicious defense attorneys? I mean, I know when I walk into a courtroom all the power is in my hands and everybody is biased toward believing me and my client instead of the policeman and the prosecutor. But that's just me; I hear that other Defense attorneys maybe don't quite enjoy the same advantages.

Addendum:

Look, the great majority of you prosecutors are decent folks but you really cannot expect me to feel sympathy on the one or two cases out of thousands upon thousands where the worm is turned. Take solace, as soon as you finish the hard case things will return to normal and all the advantages will return to you.

Hmmmm . . . What do you think a prisoner will do if he figures out that he can't be charged with escape if he can get out of the facility?

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."

If you are going to streak make sure your getaway car doesn't get stolen.

Milbarge wieghs in on Lidster and more generally on courts and the 4th Amendment.

You gotts respect someone who knows probate law for the Shire.

Remind me (if I ever decide to break the law) to move to Greenland.

Bryan Gates wins a trial, but he's not too happy about it.

I don't care how upset you are about the verdict, you cannot corner a juror because you couldn't get a conviction.

Rule #1 of living life as a crook:

Don't rob somebody if he's on the phone with the police commissioner.

NYNY is going to flood areas where the crime rate is too high.

No wonder other States send prisoners to Virginia to be warehoused. It costs $100,000 a year to keep prisoners in jail in NYNY. I'd bet you could ship those folks to BFE Virginia (where the primary income producer is the prison) and keep them there for a lot less.

In Virginia, if you're found in contempt you better make sure you shout the reasons for your objection to the contempt as you are being dragged off to jail or you won't have preserved your error.

Actually, this case isn't quite that bad. A lawyer files a motion alleging a lack of jurisdiction the day before a hearing. Then, on the day of the hearing he tries to say that the opposing party has waived any objection to his motion because it has not filed an answer. The court sort of looks at askance and tells him that the motion will be taken up after the hearing (BTW, for those who don't know, that means you lose). He persists in trying to get the court to rule on whether or not it has jurisdiction and eventually:

THE COURT: Have a seat.
[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.

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.

C'mon, just rule on the merits. It's not like this conviction's going to be overturned. What's the worst that can happen? You send it back to the court reversed as to sentence with an instruction to reduce the fines to the maximum allowed by law. I don't think even a lawyer could claim that as a moral victory. Although, I do know some guys who wear their contempt citations as badges won on the battlefield. Of course, these are the same guys who will tell you that you aren't really a defense attorney until a judge has sent you to jail for contempt (in which case I will be one of those individuals who will strive never to become a "real" defense attorney - I'll just try to become the best damn lawyer in the courtroom).

Okay, here's a judge who really, really doesn't trust the media.

The Martha judge is not allowing media to view voir dire because he thinks member will name names and reveal what people said.

More corruption in Richmond.

If you're in prison the constitution says you can get your comicbooks but you can't get porn or D&D stuff.

Wow. If you live in or enter into D.C. you give up your rights as a citizen of the United States. Or at least you can't be part of the militia.

Not sure what class it is that Mike Adams teaches but it sounds pretty interesting and it riles up others on the teaching staff.

Jury:

I think this story indicates there was a slow day in the newsroom.

Further reactions to Lidster:

The case is here. Here is my reaction.

TalkLeft --- Vice Squad --- Crescat Sententia

For what it's worth - I agree that the reason the 4th Amendment has been shattered is that almost every time a case comes before the court it involves a Defendant who is undoubtedly guilty but who cannot be convicted if his constitutional rights are upheld. We all know the old truism that "hard cases make bad law." It takes a confident court, dedicated to long term protection of liberties, to stare down its nose and issue a ruling which will free someone whom everyone knows has committed a crime. Most of the time the judges and justices blink. They will stretch, contort, parse, or expand the law until it is bent so badly out of shape that it bears no resemblance to what it is supposed to mean.

On its face, the 4th Amendment reads as a rule followed immediately by instructions as to how the rule should be applied. I have a right "to be secure in [my] person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" which can only be superceded by a warrant issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It seems pretty clear that you need a warrant to search or seize me and it is supposed to be fairly hard to get that warrant. Of course, at the very least that vitiates everything from Terry onward. It's a very high standard and one which has absolutely no chance of ever being enforced in court.

Why has the federal constitution been the subject of such twists? Because it has been bent to a purpose for which it was never intended. The States are the ones who are supposed to be making the rules as to how criminals are dealt with through their laws and constitutions. The federal constitution is meant to be particularly restrictive; it is meant to check the power of the central government (which was never meant to go into law enforcement). However, the application of these standards to the States and the growth of federal law enforcement have both led to pragmatic departures. Each departure is well reasoned and justified; after all it only goes a little further, it's a matter of common sense, or it's just a minor exception (which quickly becomes the rule). Now we have police crashing down doors - without any reason - if you don't answer quickly enough, we have people getting arrested for "trespassing" on public streets, we have police with the ability to stop cars wherever and whenever they want to - for extremely minor reasons - in order to shake down the driver, and we have police setting up roadblocks so that they can arrest citizens whom the officers don't even have a previous reasonable articulable reason to question. Each decision standing alone might be justifiable somehow but when you stop taking a myopic tree by tree view the forest starts to look pretty dark and foreboding.

----------
OFF POINT
----------

I must say that this strikes me more as culture shock than an actual analysis of the reality. It reads like he got there and was shocked that he got the tourist treatment during his week in Egypt and (I assume) short time in Mecca on a haj. What can you expect?

Did he learn to shop at the stores in the neighborhoods rather than the suq (where they charge Arabs 5 times more and jack the price for gullible Americans even higher) or even to have the mandatory argument over prices (something Americans seem genetically predisposed not to do)? Did he get to know any of the Egyptians well? Yes, they are living poor but they have an amazing "we're all in this together" sort of attitude. Many are amazingly well educated. They have a pride in their history and a dedication to their country.

Mind you, I would not want to live in Egypt permanently myself. It is a semi-democratic, semi-open country. While it is the only country in the Middle East where I saw an opposition party member making a televised speech against some presidential policy, I have no delusions that there is any chance that the President will ever be "voted" out of office. Likewise, while the London Arabic papers were available the vast majority of citizens probably only saw the local papers which were subject to heavy government influence (mind you, the large number of Egyptian papers/magazines is a testimony to the literacy rate).

And there is an ongoing conflict with various radical Muslim groups posing a continuous threat to the very existence of a modern Egypt.

However, I am enough of a realist to realize that the primary reason I, and other Americans, couldn't take living there is the lack of wealth. While the people and government seem capable of providing necessities and some simple luxuries it is a far more austere world than ours. There are no opulent, overstocked malls. Few families, much less individuals, can afford a car. No 200 channel cable or 36" TV. No grocery stores with so much food that spoilage is a problem. Yes, I know this is petty but in the real world these are things people miss the most - Americans absolutely go into culture shock when they enter a society where such things are not available.

It took me at least 3 months to start becoming significantly acclimated to a culture which is so radically different and I spoke the language.

Personally, I always thought that Egypt was the best hope for the Middle East. I guess I always held out hope it could go through a transformation much as Mexico has done allowing other political parties to actually rise to power. In my opinion, it was the horse to back in the region. Realpolitik has rendered that opinion moot now that we have Kuwait and Iraq as client states of the American Empire. I don't disagree with the steps that we have taken in Iraq; I merely view the option of making efforts to bring ourselves into a closer relationship with an Egypt as an alternate path not taken.

Wow, the rule of thumb is still extant in some circles.

The continuing weirdness of DUI's:

In New Hampshire a person is charged with DUI for riding his bike. And here's a discussion over at Curmudgeonly Clerk about a DUI for being in a mechanized wheel chair.

Scamming $78,000 from 9-11 charities.

I particularly like this:

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.

What exactly is meant by "concealed his ties to terrorist causes when applying for citizenship to the United States a decade ago?"

I assume it means some sort of active participation took place - not that Uncle abu Milak was someone the Israelis suspected he was in a PLO cell.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Professor Roger Groot bobblehead doll. Apparently Washington and Lee Law is selling these to raise funds. Scary.

For those of you who don't know, Professor Groot splits his time between running the Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse and terrifying 1L's in criminal law and procedure classes. I ain't never seen so many kids scared of one man in my life as the 1L's in his first semester, first year, 8 a.m. Criminal Law class were of this man (well, with the possible exception of the Drill Sergeant in basic training). On the other hand, once he teaches you you stay teached. Heck, I can still recite the common law elements of burglary by heart and he wasn't even my criminal law professor. My roommate (who was in his class) repeated them (and the elements of many a crime) so many times that eventually they even stuck with me.

The Supreme Court has decided that police can seize you without a warrant and without suspicion that you have any involvement or knowledge in anything criminal in order to perform a investigation of something that happened a week ago.

There's always something that happened a week ago: a bank robbery, a murder, a stolen car, a mugging, somebody jaywalked, etc. And gee, wouldn't the police like to get information about the [fill in the convenient excuse].

I really can't say I'm shocked. I wish I could, but I no longer believe that you have rights if you choose to drive your car. The courts allow pretext stops on the most transparent of technicalities. The courts are the only place where anyone thinks that a citizen has a choice when an officer "asks" him to exit the vehicle. The courts tell us that if an officer hands you your license back and immediately starts to question you - you can just drive off and leave him standing on the side of the road. And since Reittinger, the courts I practice in have been of the belief that there have to be two law enforcement officers or my client could not possibly have been intimidated by a single officer with a badge, gun, uniform, and flashing neon lights (at 3 a.m. on a dark, lonely stretch of road).¹

The courts allow officers to set up road blocks to shake down citizens about whom the officers have no information (not even reasonable articulable suspicion). First these were allowed under the pretext that they involved traffic safety. Now they are allowed because something happened a week ago.

Not that this will often affect me or thee. I daresay that most of the people reading this don't live in low rent trailer parks or motels in the bad part of town. So police will not be setting up roadblocks outside the one road leading to our subdivisions or apartment complexes. And since the great majority of the effect will fall on lower economic classes it must be valid, right? After all:

"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.


¹ Mind you, the officer's ability to intimidate someone both as an individual and a representative of a powerful organization is one of his most necessary tools in keeping himself alive at 3 a.m. on that lonely stretch of road when he pulls over a group of young males with a couple sawed off shotguns (actual case). I want the officer to have this at his disposal. I just get plain tired of courts ignoring the fact that it exists when the officer uses it in order to coerce car occupants into allowing a shakedown search without any indication of wrongdoing.