And the Beat Goes on . . .Magruder (Now Briscoe) Granted Certiorari

So, now the US Supreme Court has decided to take a second opportunity to look at Notice/Demand statutes and the confrontation clause.

Melendez-Diaz, Magruder, & Virginia

Having watched the continuing angst over Melendez-Diaz, I started asking around as to why everyone is so worried in light of Virginia's Magruder decision. The answer I got back from several people was "because Magruder is before the Supreme Court too." Of course, nobody seemed to know anything else, so I went looking.

After searching for "Magruder" and not finding anything, I came upon it when I searched for the other parties who had been consolidated in the appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court: Briscoe and Cypress (apparently Magruder must not have appealed his case to the federal supreme court).

Here's the timeline for the case to date:

May 29 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 3, 2008)
Jun 10 2008 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 4, 2008.
Aug 1 2008 Brief of respondent Virginia in opposition filed.
Aug 14 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2008.
Aug 14 2008 Reply of petitioners Mark A. Briscoe, and Sheldon Cypress filed. (Distributed)
Jun 25 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 29, 2009.

This case has not been granted certiorari by the US Supreme Court (otherwise it would have a "Petition GRANTED" entry). It's still up in the air and at this moment the controlling case in Virginia remains Magruder.

Beyond this, I've had a couple of defense attorneys I know swear to me that the language in 19.2-187.1, "The accused . . . shall have the right to call the person performing such analysis . . . and examine him in the same manner as if he had been called as an adverse witness" shifts the burden to the defendant to bring the expert to trial and call him as the defense's witness.

The party which subpoeanaes the expert to trial is a red herring, since even if the defendant was required to subpoena the expert, subpoenaing is different from actually "calling" the witness at trial. We've all seen cases wherein people are subpoenaed yet never testify. Even so, there is nothing in the statute which requires the defendant to subpoena the expert. The last sentence of the statute is instructive here: "Such witness shall be summoned and appear at the cost of the Commonwealth." This appears to be a poorly written requirement that the Commonwealth summon and pay for the appearance of the expert. Even if one is not convinced by an initial reading, and thinks that the General Assembly had to instruct courts that criminal case subpoenaes are paid for by the State, it's commonsense that the way in which the Commonwealth would pay the "cost" would be for it to arrange the subpoena and any required expenses pretrial. Still, as I wrote previously, the statute really needs the General Assembly to go in and make some changes in order to foreclose any arguments.

I still think that, at least as long as Magruder stands, it will be nigh unto impossible for a defendant to even raise the burden shifting argument. I can't figure a way in which the defendant could get to the point at which he could raise the issue without the cooperation of the Commonwealth. Even assuming arguendo that the defense wasn't required to demand the prosecution produce the expert and was somehow able to subpoena the expert without the Commonwealth finding out before trial, he'd have to raise his objection when the prosecution went to introduce the certificate of analysis during the Commonwealth's case in chief. In order to fulfill the requirements of Magruder, the defendant would have to inform the trial court that he was being required to call the witness. Magruder requires the defendant to (1) "avail [himself] of the opportunity to require the presence of a particular forensic analyst at trial", and be (2) "in the position of being forced, over [his] objection, to call a forensic analyst as a witness). Any prosecutor with half a brain cell will then withdraw the certificate and call the expert himself as part of his case in chief, foreclosing the burden shifting argument.

As things stand, the Commonwealth's statutory plan is on solid footing. Now we just have to wait for word from the Mount about the fate of Magruder (Briscoe/Cypress).

Does the Virginia Notice - Demand Scheme Impermissibly Shift the Burden of Proof?

The whole crimlaw world seems to be going mad in Virginia as people have read Melendez-Diaz and reacted with either glee or panic. No one seems to realize that the entire question has already been settled and the Virginia appellate courts have already found the Virginia notice-demand scheme to satisfy the confrontation clause. Calm down. There's nothing new here. For goodness sake, go read Magruder.

The only possible real issue with the statutory scheme is whether it shifts the burden to the defendant to provide evidence. The Virginia Supreme Court also addressed this in Magruder:

The defendants do, however, claim that the statutory procedure, by its terms, shifts the burden of producing evidence and requires a criminal defendant to call the forensic analyst in order to exercise his right to confront that witness. This argument is not cognizable under the Confrontation Clause. Instead, it raises due process concerns that are not properly before us in these appeals. Because the defendants did not avail themselves of the opportunity to require the presence of a particular forensic analyst at trial, they were never in the position of being forced, over their objection, to call a forensic analyst as a witness. In other words, no defendant said to the respective circuit court, "the forensic analyst is here to testify but the Commonwealth must first call the witness." Like the situation in Brooks, "the trial court never had occasion to address the proper order of proof."

In other words, the statute might unconstitutionally burden shift, but only if the prosecutor screws up can a defendant preserve the issue for appeal. In order to give the defendant grounds for an objection, the prosecutor would have to get the demand, bring the witness in, and then refuse to call the witness, thus forcing the defendant to call the witness. I've never seen a prosecutor do that. If the defense has demanded that the expert witness be there, why wouldn't the prosecutor use her as a weapon against the defense? So, while the particular set of circumstances needed for the the objection to even be made could happen, it seems rather unlikely. No objection = no error preserved = no appeal of whether the statute unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.

Melendez-Diaz and Virginia Law

Yesterday, the federal supreme court rejected the use of certificates of analysis in trial, unless the defendant waives his right to have the actual person who did the analysis testify. It is an extension of Scalia's confrontation absolutism and has far reaching implications. Certificates have been used for a number of things: establishing DUI breath &/or blood levels, establishing that a substance is a drug, DNA, fingerprints, etc.

However, the court did allow one semi-exception to its rule: notice and demand regimes. Under these types of procedures, the prosecution gives notice of intent to use a certificate as proof and the defendant then has to demand the presence of the person who did the analysis or the defendant is deemed to have stipulated the content of the certificate as valid (waiving his right to confront). With this in mind, I went looking at the Virginia statutes governing this to see where we stand.

Under 19.2-187, as long as a certificate is filed with the clerk at least 7 days before trial it is admissible as evidence. Furthermore, upon filing the correct paperwork, the defense can require the court to send it a copy of the certificate at least 7 days prior to trial. 19.2-187.01 allows the certificate as proof of proper chain of custody. 19.2-187.02 allows blood reports taken at the hospital as evidence. 19.2-187.1 allows the defendant to demand that the person who did the analysis be present at trial (at prosecutor summons and cost) and gives the defense the right to "examine him in the same manner as if he had been called as an adverse witness."

Statutory Interpretation

NOTICE

One could wish that the statutory scheme was more tightly written, but it does appear that Virginia has a notice and demand structure in place. The notice is the required filing of the certificate of analysis no later than 7 days pretrial. Why else require a piece of the Commonwealth's evidence to be placed in the court file if not to give notice of the Commonwealth's intent to use it?

DEMAND

The demand part of the Virginia scheme is quite clear. The defense has an absolute right to demand the person who performed the analysis be present at trial under 19.2-187.1.

However, the language of 19.2-187.1 needs some serious reworking. It allows the defense "to call the person . . . as a witness therein, and examine him in the same manner as if he had been called as an adverse witness." While this does not impact notice and demand statutory scheme, it could give rise to burden-shifting arguments. The General Assembly needs to change that language to something like "to require the Commonwealth to call the person . . . as a witness therein" and it wouldn't hurt to drop the language after the comma (although it seems to just be a fancy way of saying "cross-examine"). As a practical matter, I've never seen a prosecutor not call the expert witness once the defendant has required the expert's presence and I think this may make any burden-shifting objection moot. Still, the statute needs fixing.

----------

This statutory scheme was originally developed as a hearsay work around. It also presents the type of notice and demand regime required by the court to satisfy the Constitution's confrontation clause.

CrimLaw Live

Topic: An outline of the Virginia Criminal Trial Process, from Magistrate thru Sentencing

A Primer from the Virginia Supreme Court on the Invocation of Counsel

Every so often the Supreme Court of Virginia seems to adopt a theme across a couple of cases. An example of this was in 2007 when the Court took a couple cases on Obstruction of Justice and significantly altered what the crime of Obstruction is. This time the Court, in two decisions authored by Justice Lemons, has outlined the parameters of the assertion of the right to counsel under Miranda.

I've not had a recent argument which involved assertion of the right to counsel, so I can't claim to be up on the nuances of this area. However, my general impression has been that up to a couple years ago Virginia appellate courts were very hostile to Miranda and required a very clear, unequivocal invocation of the right to have counsel present during questioning. Then things seem to have begun to get mixed up and I recall reading a case or two that seemed to start backing away from the courts' prior position. This month's decisions seem to be the Supreme Court's attempt to remove as much ambiguity as possible.

The question in Zektaw v. Commonwealth (No. 081738), the Court was to decide whether "Right, and I’d really like to talk to a lawyer because this – oh my God, oh, my Jesus, why?" during a custodial interrogation is a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel recognizable as such to a reasonable police officer. The crux of the matter is whether "I'd really like to" expresses a preference or is an attempt to assert the right. Both the trial court and the court of appeals ruled that it was not an assertion. The Virginia Supreme Court disagreed.

The decision deals quickly with the preliminary matter of whether the defense counsel waived the objection to the introduction of the statement by asking questions about the statement on cross. The Court states that questioning during cross or introducing a rebuttal witness does not waive the objection. Only introducing new evidence of the same character waives the objection.

Then the decision gets to the meat of the matter. The Court goes through an exhaustive list of Virginia cases in which it has ruled upon possible assertions of the right to counsel; it bolsters this discussion with cases from the federal supreme court. Following this, it characterizes the statements which do not assert the right to counsel as follows:

1) An attempt to clarify the right - "Can I have an attorney here?"

2) Asking for someone else to be present, but not specifically asking for an attorney.

3) The defendant stating he might want an attorney.

4) The defendant questioning the wisdom of going forward without an attorney - "Maybe I shouldn't talk to you without my attorney."

After having gone through all of these, the Court decides that "I'd really like to talk to an attorney" doesn't fit under any of these and is an unambiguous assertion of the right.

While the statement may look somewhat ambiguous - after all, it's not an assertion such as "I'm taking the 5th" or "I will not talk to you without my lawyer" - the US supreme court had already set precedent in this when it found "Uh, yeah. I’d like to do that" (in reference to the right to counsel just explained) not to be ambiguous. Smith v. Illinois, (No. 84-5332).In fact, the Virginia Supreme Court could have made this an extremely short opinion: Per Smith v. Illinois this matter is reversed.

In the second case, Commonwealth v. Ferguson (No. 081645), the defendant was more savvy and put his assertion of the right to counsel a little more clearly: "Nah, I want a lawyer, you know what I’m saying?"

Despite the clear invocation of the right to counsel, Officer One continues to interrogate him without getting a response. Eventually, Officer One "concludes the interview", turns off the tape recorder, and leaves the defendant in the room with Officer Two. Officer Two sits in silence with the defendant and, after a few minutes, the defendant begins to talk to Officer Two and eventually, after Officer Two reads the defendant his Miranda rights again, the defendant makes incriminatory statements.

The Commonwealth asserts that these were two separate interviews and that the second one was initiated by the defendant. Thus, while the first interview was unconstitutional, the second was cleared of any tint because it was a conversation by choice of the defendant.

The Supreme Court rejects this interpretation of the situation:

Whatever the significance of Ferguson’s comments that broke the silence, they were the product of the coercive interrogation and environment created by police. Surely, police may not use the product of such techniques as proof of a voluntary reinitiation of communication and subsequent waiver of the right to counsel.
. . .
Under the totality of the circumstances, we hold that this encounter was one continuous custodial interrogation conducted in such a manner as to deliberately disregard a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel and coerce Ferguson to incriminate himself.

No bright line here; all of these cases are to be decided on totality of their facts.

New CrimLaw Live! Tonite

Larceny under Virginia Law

Whitehead v. Commonwealth, No. 080775The Virginia Supreme Court Makes a Major Change in the Law of Appeals

It has been long accepted in Virginia that while the losing party in a criminal case (usually the offender) is limited to arguing the objections made at trial, the party fighting for affirmation could scour the record and argue any issue which would support its position. Not any more.

On 04 June 2009, the Supreme Court of Virginia decided Whitehead v. Commonwealth. Much of the decision is a fairly standard insufficiency of the evidence decision. Then the Court, in a major change which it treats as though it were just following precedent, rejects the ability of the government to raise new arguments during the appeal:

It is true that "[w]e do not hesitate, in a proper case, where the correct conclusion has been reached but the wrong reason given, to sustain the result and assign the right ground." However, cases in which the party seeking affirmance failed to present the argument in the trial court, such that the trial court did not have an opportunity to rule on the argument, are not "proper cases" for the application of the doctrine. This principle applies in criminal as well as civil cases.
. . .
Because this argument was not made at trial, the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the evidence provided this additional rationale to support Whitehead’s convictions.
. . .
The constructive possession theory was not argued in the trial court or the Court of Appeals. Likewise, the “aiding in concealing” argument was not made in the trial court or the Court of Appeals; nonetheless, the Court of Appeals utilized the theory as a basis for its judgment. The concealment argument is made by the Commonwealth for the first time on appeal in this Court.
. . .
We ... will not consider the constructive possession or concealment theories advanced for the first time on appeal.

This is going to make the job of lawyers in the Attorney General's office much harder. Per the nature of the system, defense attorneys know to raise issues (and objections) in order to preserve them for appeals. On the other hand, prosecutors are neither trained nor prepared to do the same thing. Consider if the defense attorney researches and makes an objection to the entry of the axe as evidence in the Pitcairn axe murderer trial. He chooses his best argument and springs it in the middle of the case. Let's say there are 4 possible reasons that the axe should remain in evidence. The strongest is the 4th. When the prosecutor states reason number two the judge agrees and overrules the objection. How many prosecutors have you seen go on to put the other 2 reasons into the record? How many trial judges are going to tolerate such a thing? That's what the Supreme Court has ruled that he must do in order to preserve those rationales for the appeal.

On the other hand, I can remember losing an appeal when I was doing defense work because of something which wasn't raised in the trial court. It looked like a legitimate argument in the appellate court because the appellate court didn't understand the reality of the trial court from which the appeal had been granted. The trial judge, who did understand the realities of that jurisdiction, would have handled the same argument in a manner which I'm certain would have foreclosed the argument which allowed the AG to win the appeal.

It'll be interesting to see if attorneys actually pick up on this change or if they'll keep right on doing it the way they always have, without noticing the law has changed. The language I quoted above isn't prominent at the beginning of the opinion and a head note would probably just state this case is about sufficiency of the evidence in a receiving stolen property case. Sometimes, it's interesting how blind the legal community can be to changes like this when they happen.

What Would Be the Ideal Way to Choose a Judge?

Monday, on CrimLaw Live, I went over the different ways in which judges are selected: the federal method, the direct election method, the legislative election method, and (quite possibly the worst of all worlds) the Missouri method. I've been mulling it over and I think I've come up with what I think would be the perfect system for initial selection of trial judges: ability testing. What do I mean by ability testing? Well, I mean that we actually set up a testing system with three components - a written test, peer evaluation, and a board - all of which add up to 1000 points and rank candidates.

Initially, the possibility of becoming a judge must be an opt in choice. If an attorney is interested in becoming a judge he should be required to have taken a test similar to a Bar exam within a set period of time prior to the judicial position becoming open (3 to 5 years probably being the best time frame). Tests should be specific to the type of court the candidate wishes to be a judge in; for instance, a candidate in Virginia would have to choose whether to test for Juvenile and Domestic Court, General District Court, or Circuit Court. However, they should cover the breadth of those matters covered under the jurisdiction of the specific court. The test should not be a test for the ability to advocate; it should be an ability to restate the black letter law. This test should max out at 500 points.

Next should be peer evaluation. Members of the Bar who practice in the jurisdiction wherein the candidate would be eligible to become a judge should be confidentially polled as to their perception of the candidate's demeanor, perceived knowledge, and ability to communicate. A series of questions should be asked on something like a 5 point scale per question: 0=absolutely unfit, 1=unfit, 2=do not have enough information to make informed decision about this candidate, 3=average, 4=above average, 5=excellent. These replies should be tallied and averaged and make up a maximum of 250 points.

Finally should come an examination by a group of judges. These judges should not be from the area of the State wherein the attorney practices - preferably not not even from the same half of the State - and should not know the lawyer. This board should probably only take place after it has been determined that there will be a judicial opening. The candidates with the top 5 combined scores should be interviewed and the judges should score the candidate on his demeanor, ability to communicate his ideas, and apparent ability to apply legal knowledge. This should be scored at a maximum of 250 points.

At the end of this process there is a list of attorneys vetted for the judicial position and their levels of qualification: John Smith-874, Kerry Jones-810, Mike Greene-753; Paul Perry-735; & Mary Madre-710. The top scorer could automatically be made the judge or the names of the top 3 could be forwarded to either the Legislature or Governor with a mandate that one of the three be chosen within 30 days or the position defaults to the top scorer.

What's the advantage of all this? First of all, it has the best chance of any system I've seen of guaranteeing that the person elevated to a judicial position is actually qualified for it, both in terms of actual knowledge and the social abilities needed to be an effective trial judge. Second, it actually allows the judiciary to be an independent third branch of government. Every part of this system can and should be operated by the State Supreme Court. The politics involved in local good-ole-boy committee choosing, or a governor choosing or a legislature choosing or a party boss choosing who will be the judge will be pruned away by this system.

Of course, there needs to be some sort of reappointment system. This could be the Missouri "life tenure lite" system wherein the citizens vote "yes" or "no" every so often as to whether to retain a judge. Personally, I think this is a terrible system unlikely to remove the few bad judges who get through the selection process above or who develop a god-complex over the years. I prefer some sort of legislative check. When time comes for reappointment have the House do a simple up or down vote on Juvenile and domestic judges. Have the Senate do up or down votes for general district court judges. For the superior trial court the barrier to removal should be higher, perhaps a down vote by both houses. In any case, should a judge be poor enough that he is removed, he would be barred from the position and the judicial branch would provide a replacement as spelled out above. I think that this would eliminate much of the politics since the legislators would not be able to remove judges to replace them with their buddies or members of the legislators' party. It would give those who have issues with a particular judge a place to go for redress and allow the legislators some input as to how the laws they have promulgated are being enforced (for instance, the Legislature could remove a judge who refuses to enforce the anti-snipe hunting laws).

All-in-all, I think it's a better system for selecting judges than I've seen anywhere. However, I doubt we shall ever see its like.

Reviewing My CrimLaw Live Broadcast Last Night

Well, Ustream worked perfectly and streamed like a champ. I had some issues with keeping the broadcast concise and on point (yes, I rambled some) and I think it hurt the points I was trying to make. On the other hand, unlike when I filmed and edited offline it took a lot longer for me because I would reshoot (and reshoot and reshoot) trying to make things perfect and then spend even more time editing it. Livecasting meant it was one and done.

Yes, I am broadcasting in black and white. The reason for this is that I have the curly, energy-saving lights and they make color filming look yellow. I may switch back to folament style lights in the future if I keep doing this.

As of now, I plan to try and do this every Monday at 8 p.m. See ya'll next time.

CrimLaw Live Tonight 8 p.m.

Topic: Choosing a Judge

Things Learned Doing Ride Alongs

As a prosecutor, every so often I go along with a law enforcement officer on a "ride along." It's an interesting experience and I suggest it to anyone who has the opportunity because it gives you a look at what things are really like before they become sanitized in the courtroom. There are a few things that I've noticed on these rides:

1. People do not react well when a police car is coming down the road at high speed with lights flashing and sirens blaring. Some people just don't seem to feel they need to get out of the way. BTW, even if there are two lanes, and the passing lane is empty, pull over. A car traveling at a high rate of speed has a good chance of coming partially into your lane on that curve ahead. Worse is when people turn on their left turn signals and then pull off to the right. I've seen this twice, both times on two lane highways with little room for the officer react.

2. People drive poorly - even without alcohol. Cell phones, arguing with others in the car, eating that burger, &cetera all seem to be more important to people than staying in their lane and not swerving over into oncoming traffic.

3. Every time I've done a ride along there's been at least one mental or physical health call. Most of the time the mental health call involves keeping a scene as calm as possible until the ambulance arrives and is able to take the distressed person to the hospital. The physical health calls are usually things like someone slumped over the wheel of car by the side of the road. Not much can be done but to get there and get the lady to the hospital. Interestingly, civilians at the scene of mental health problems usually seem calmer than people at the scene of physical health problems.

4. No matter how many officers respond to a house/trailer/apartment complex they are almost always outnumbered. I'm not sure how this happens, but it seems that no matter how many officers arrive at the scene more neighbors, kin, or just plain troublemakers will simply appear. Much of the time the officers who respond to these kind of situations are peacemakers, calming everyone down and separating the two sides rather than arresting anyone.

5. The law requiring drivers passing police cars at a stop to pull over to the passing lane or (if unable) to slow down is an extremely good idea. It's amazing that more officers aren't hit as they walk back and forth between their cars and the cars they've pulled over. The side of the highway can be extremely narrow (at least here in mountain country).

6. Eating at a restaurant with a group of officers usually has this part in the conversation (regarding the restaurant's staff): "We've arrested him and him and her and, hmmm, when did Peter get back out of jail?"

7. The officers want to know how to do things right. Almost every time I've done a ride along there's been a discussion of 4th and 5th Amendment requirements brought up by the officer because he's heard that there's been some change (things like Gant and Montejo) or he's seen a defense attorney argue something in court or because he's had some tricky situation come up which he's unsure of.

8. People will admit the most amazing things to officers: "How do you know MaryBeth stole your transistor radio?" "Well, she and I were in my apartment last night doing some shrooms and the radio was there. When I woke up in the morning MaryBeth was gone and so was the radio."

Montejo: The Defendant Must Assert His Rights Directly to the Officers' Face

Important Cases Involved: Montejo v. Louisiana, Michigan v. Jackson (overruled), Miranda v. Arizona, Edwards v. Arizona

Tuesday the Supreme Court went out of its way to squash the 1986 decision Jackson. In Jackson the Supreme Court had, under the 6th Amendment, expanded the protections against constitutional violations by stating that as soon as an indigent defendant asked for an attorney to be appointed he had asserted his right to have an attorney present at all important parts of a trial, including any subsequent police interviews. Louisiana played games with the Jackson decision. Its supreme court ruled that because a defendant didn't actually request counsel when he went to court and had an attorney appointed, he didn't get the protection of Jackson.

Reviewing this, the US Supreme Court decided that because in some States indigents have attorneys appointed upon a showing of lack of funds rather than a request Jackson had to go. It backed this by stating that the 5th Amendment provided redundant protections, via Miranda and Edwards which are not being removed by the revocation of Jackson. It then sent the case back down to have a 5th Amendment analysis done.

Before I discussed this, I wanted to take an opportunity to review Edwards because the Court seemed to both say that it provided redundant protections to Jackson and less protections (the reason the case was returned to the State courts for another analysis). In Edwards a defendant claimed his right to have an attorney present during questioning. The questioning stopped, but the next day the defendant was read Miranda again, waived his attorney and made incriminating statements. The court held

[W]e now hold that, when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation, even if he has been advised of his rights. We further hold that an accused, such as Edwards, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.

Practical Application

As a practical matter, Motejo and Ventris render 6th Amendment protections during an interrogation non-existent. Combined with the basic reality that law enforcement plays by the rules we give them, this fundamentally changes the reality of police interrogation.

Law enforcement officers can interview the defendant at any point up to the time of his actual trial and are only required to stop if he unambiguously asserts his 5th Amendment rights. LEO's are not required to inform the defendant's attorney of this or have her present during the interrogation. Furthermore, non-coercive subterfuge tactics, such as placing an informant in the cell with the defendant, even after an assertion that the defendant wants his attorney present during interviews, would only be barred under the 6th Amendment from use in the prosecutor's case in chief, but could still be used in rebuttal.

Croson, Diversity, & the Virginia State Bar

"Diversity" has a long history of being used to mask lowered standards and quotas for subsets of the human race. In US history this can be traced back to when Harvard's president was unable to use quotas to limit the admission of Jewish students (who scored well on the competitive entry exam), but the use of "diversity" reduced Jewish admissions to the desired 15% anyway.

In the modern era, the goal of "diversity" is something which we all should look at with suspicion. In particular, as lawyers we should look very closely at any such claim. A requirement that all people, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or creed, shall be equal under the law and that equals receive the same opportunities is laudable. However, the second "diversity" steps an inch over into the zone of set asides it becomes not just morally wrong, it becomes unconstitutional.

Anyone who has gone to law school post 1989 should know this. In 1989 City of Richmond v. Croson struck down governmental set asides for anyone in a specific zone unless in remedy of a specific past discrimination in that field and the set aside was the most narrow method of curing the discrimination. "Reverse discrimination" is just as much discrimination as any other under the constitution.

Of course, since Croson those who want set asides have learned not to say so out loud. "Diversity" has become the flag behind which they now gather. Those of us who would be excluded have become wary of this.

Comes now the Virginia State Bar, an administrative agency of the Virginia Supreme Court created by the General Assembly, and decides that it no longer needs to be the organization which patrols the activities of lawyers. It needs to be an organization engaged in social engineering. Through the last president and the current occupant of that office, we are having set asides pressed upon the Bar. The president wants to change the mission of the Bar, create a Diversity Conference, and create a seat on the VSB Council and Bar Executive Council for the Chair of that conference. Mind you, this is creating a seat based not upon expertise in any area of the law or judicial circuit representation or acclaim and recognition by the Bar in general, it's a seat solely because the person occupying it is "diverse."

With this in mind, it becomes extremely important to know what the president means by "diverse." However, the president of the Bar, being a lawyer, knows better than to do that because it would make his initiative unconstitutional on its face.

IT HAS BEEN SAID that we need to precisely define diversity to create such a structure. I disagree.While diversity by necessity must not neglect consideration of race, heritage, and gender, for example, I believe that the term must be allowed to evolve.

I'm surprised he actually went so far as to admit race, heritage, and gender must be considered (be the admission ever so backhanded). Nevertheless, without defining it he has declared it extremely important in the pursuit of the law.

Via the Virgina Lawyer (our Bar magazine), members have raised strong, well-reasoned objections to this as outside the scope of the Bar's function, a controversial social issue which the Bar should not get involved in, and an obvious beard for quotas. "'Diversity' Ends in a Racial Headcount", "Disband Task Force,Withdraw Proposal", "Rule of Law Not Linked to Diversity", "Focus on Individuals, Not Groups", "Disband Diversity Task Force".

Will these letters stop the Bar president? Probably not. Let's be honest, most lawyers couldn't give a hoot as to what the Bar is doing (right or wrong) unless it impacts their life or they need its protection. No one I've talked to even knew this initiative is pending. It'll get through without the notice of the vast majority of the Bar.

Next comes the possibility of legal challenge. After all, the Bar is created by one branch of Virginia's government and serves another; it's a government agent. Can it create these set asides? In particular, can it set aside a position on the VSB Council and VSB Executive Council based upon "diversity?" It's a question which might require some data before the question can be decided. After all, by opening the diversity committee to individual lawyers the Bar allows all Bar members to join. In other words, there won't be a sign at the door saying "White Male Christians need not apply." It's theoretically possible that this committee might actually be diverse. If the membership distribution of the conference is roughly equivalent to the membership distribution of the Bar and its leadership reflects such the conference would be constitutional. Want to take bets on whether that will be the case?

In Memory of Those Who Chose to Serve

Because Even a Defense Attorney Might Want a Badge

If you're suffering from a serious case of badge envy, you too can pay $120 and get an "Officer of the Court" badge made. It won't give you any real powers, or actually mean anything, but I'm sure it will impress someone.

"Holier Than Thou" / "There But For the Grace of God"

Sherry Colb has an article about what I think most of us who practice criminal law would recognize as the "those people" attitude. She gives it her own spin, calling it the "holier-than-thou effect." Basically, it is the inability of people see themselves as a person who would fail in situations where they were tempted - through chance, fate, or desperation - to break the societal compact as embodied in the law.

Ms. Colb goes further identifying 4 purposes to criminal law: retribution, deterrence, incapacitating offenders, and rehabilitation. She identifies retribution as the primary focus of the American system based upon the lack of rehabilitation programs in prisons in combination with rapes and gangs. Then she concludes that locking someone away in this situation, away from law-abiding citizens is a bad thing, so that shorter sentences are most likely preferable.

Indeed, the situation-dependent nature of behavior counsels against surrounding a person convicted of wrongdoing with other criminals for long stretches of time, during which he will be almost entirely cut off from what lawful behavior in civilized society looks like. Shorter and less brutal sentences, coupled with humane and educational transition opportunities for former prisoners, could yield better results for everyone.

To take into account the holier-than-thou effect might also facilitate the forgiveness necessary to our ability to think logically about the problem of crime. If we are filled with rage and hatred, it will be more difficult for us to imagine, and thus to allow, that someone who committed a bad act in the past might soon become (or might even have already been) a contributing member of society.

This article struck me as wrong in many ways, but I'm just going to concentrate on one here: Ms. Colb badly overestimates the effect of "holier than thou" on the system. Our system is far more dominated by the "there but for the Grace of God" thought process.

Here's a graphic of how I've observed the punishment of offenders in the time I've been practicing.



I've tried to be a little conservative in my estimates for this chart. In reality I think that the downward slope is more severe. However, I don't have actual figures, so I adjusted by assuming higher numbers of more severe punishments. In any event, it gives a true view of how offenders are actually punished.¹

Why is there such a severe downslope? Because the greatest number of offenses are treated with mercy. People just don't get thrown in jail for reckless driving, DUI, writing a bad check, or most misdemeanors the first time they are convicted (without aggravating circumstances). There's a good chance they won't go to jail for a second or even third misdemeanor conviction, particularly if they are different types (driving suspended, bad check, assault and battery). Furthermore, there's a whole slew of felonies wherein the first conviction will only get an offender probation.

Next come the convictions which should lead to incarceration, but do not because they are somehow diverted. Sometimes this is just having a case continued to be dismissed if there are no problems for a year. In other cases there are drug courts, shoplifting classes, anger management programs, and/or community service given in lieu of incarceration.

Then come the minor incarcerations. I don't know how many offenders get a couple days in jail or 10 days or 3 months, but I lay odds that by far the largest number of incarcerations fall within that range. Misdemeanor courts hand out punishments such as this daily and any misdemeanor court which has significant numbers of defendants appearing before it probably hands out several a day. Felony courts hand out incarcerations in the "up to 6 month" range all the time to offenders with prior misdemeanor records or their second or third felony conviction.

Even for those who actually have incarceration imposed there are mitigations against its effect. Most commonly these mitigations include serving time on days off of work (weekend time) and getting work release. However, it can also include things such as delayed reporting to jail, furloughs while in jail, or home incarceration. Even failing all of this, most every incarceration system has some sort of "good time" so that if the offender behaves he is not required to serve a certain amount of his sentence.

In my experience, to get more than a year an offender has to have a prior record, have committed multiple offenses, have committed a violent felony, or violated a particular law (firearm with drugs, 4th DUI, use firearm in felony). To get more than two years incarceration an offender usually has to combine two or more of these elements; 3 to 5 years usually requires even more of a combination of these elements. To get above 5 years the offender usually has to do something significant: armed robbery, rape, murder, etc. It may not be impossible to get above five years without having committed a major violent felony, but it'd be mighty hard (unless in a State with a very strict 3 strikes law). The most I've seen an offender convicted of larceny or the like get in Virginia is 5 years and even then it was a departure above guidelines.

Somewhere between 1 to 3 years of potential actual sentence comes the point at which mercy stops being an option. Even at 3 years a judge in Virginia can order the Department of Corrections to have an offender entered into a specific drug treatment program run in the prison. Still, there must come a point at which the tendency toward mercy must be overcome by obligations to the citizenry at large.

In these more serious offenses retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation are all tied together. A robber whom a jury sentences to 10 years in retribution is incapacitated for those 10 years and serves as a deterrence for those who consider following in his footsteps. However, when we consider the system as a whole, we must conclude that the system serves more of the purpose of deterrence and incapacitation. After all, no one really gets recompense (outside of restitution) in a criminal case. Retribution is at heart a distributive justice theory and no victim can have that which is taken in a rape or shooting actually returned by putting the other person in prison. At best, if one thinks that recompense can be made by putting someone in prison, the only person(s) brought back to equilibrium is the victim. For the rest of us it matters not whether the victim is made whole. For the vast majority of people the only effects are the protection of society through the incapacitation and deterrence.


----------
¹ Please note that most of this is modeled on Virginia's judicial system and the sentencing guidelines in place in Virginia.

Movie: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Y'know, life at my office isn't anywhere near this exciting:

More on Flores-Figueroa

I got a couple interesting comments on my last post. Donald first raised the Rule of Lenity because the statute is poorly written. I couldn't quite get there, but it did start me thinking. What if you ignored the way the Court did its analysis and looked at the statute as a whole, considering "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person" as a verbal phrase, thus rendering "transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person" into a multi-part verb all of which is modified by knowingly. However, while the thought was still nascent in the slow-grinding gears in my head, Neal Goldfarb stepped up and pointed to a blog post and his amicus brief. Both put forth strong arguments for that position. Both are better than the Supreme Court's "'cuz it looks right" explanation.

However, as textual interpretation is not strictly the same as grammar, I must say that I am not entirely persuaded by their arguments. The language of the statute is sloppy, but it does leave 2 separate occurrences which the defendant could have knowledge of: (1) the transfer, possession, or use & (2) the actual state of the identification. Knowing of a transfer does not require knowledge of the state of the identification. Knowing the state of an identification does not require knowledge of its transfer.

Still, the verbal phrase argument carries enough weight to make the phrase ambiguous and thus brings the Rule of Ambiguity into play. This then requires that a knowledge requirement be added to a means of identification of another person, because ambiguous statutes are to be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

Disclosure: I think the above to be a correct reading of the statute in its entirety. However, as I have previously stated on this blawg, I find strict liability in criminal statutes to be an anathema. I may be straining to get away from a reading which requires a strict liability if the identification happens to be that of another person, whether the defendant knows it to be or not.

Flores-Figueroa: Forgiving Sloppy Statutese

[1] The USSC decided a case yesterday contrary to the actual language of the statute - using the language of statutory interpretation. In Flores-Figueroa, the Court had to decides "knowingly" is not an adverb but a substitute for the phrase "knowing it to be." The Court is interpreting this statute:

[2] knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person. 18 U. S. C. §1028A(a)(1)

[3] However, when the Court is finished with it, the statute ends up being this:

[4] transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification knowing it to be of another person.

[5] The Court's rationale is that

As a matter of ordinary English grammar, it seems natural to read the statute’s word "knowingly" as applying to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime. The Government cannot easily claim that the word "knowingly" applies only to the statutes first four words, or even its first seven.

[6] Poppycock. Balderdash. Fiddlesticks.

[7] "Knowingly" does not equal "knowing it to be." To be certain, the statute is poorly written and would make much more sense if it were written in the manner which the Court decided to rewrite it. However, as we all learned somewhen about the 3d grade, "ly" is a suffix indicating an adverb. This confines it to the verbs, "transfers, possesses, or uses." Thus, the government is quite correct in claiming that "knowingly" applies only to those four words. The Court is correct in stating that "without lawful authority" (the next three words-making "its first seven") isn't modified by "knowingly" because they also modify the verbs.

[8] Before anyone argues that certain adjectives can also end in "ly", I concede the point. Words such as "lovely" are clearly adjectives: "the lovely dress." Still, the general rule isn't violated in this case.

[9] In any event, I invite you to diagram that statute. Go on, it's a skill we all learned in seventh grade English class. Okay, now look at that line which separates the verbs from the object. Which side is "knowingly" on? The verbal side. Or, if you don't have the rudimentary English skills to do that, just take "knowingly" and try to fit it anywhere into "a means of identification of another person" without changing the form of "knowingly." It doesn't work.

[10] Justify your decision another way. Tell me that the Constitution, via the common law, requires a defendant to intend every element of a crime. Tell me there's a rule of statutory interpretation requiring intent for every element of a crime. Heck, tell me there's a scriviner's error. Just don't tell me you've reached this conclusion "as a matter of ordinary English grammar."

Announcing My Availabilty to Serve

Kansas v. Ventris:Trimming Protections Against Unconstitutional Interrogations

[1] In Kansas v. Ventris the question presented to the US Supreme Court was whether a confession gained by police instigated interrogation of a defendant after he has an attorney can be used to impeach the defendant's trial testimony.

Facts

[2] After Ventris had an attorney, police sent an informant into his cell to get information. The informant reported that Ventris confessed the crime to him. At trial, the defendant testified that he did not commit the crime. The prosecution then used the informant in rebuttal to impeach the defendant. After conviction defendant appealed the planting of the informant in his cell as unconstitutional questioning without the defendant's attorney present (or waiver of his presence).

6th Amendment Right to Counsel

[3] Scope of the Right: The Court makes it extremely clear that the right to counsel is not limited merely to the actual trial. The defendant is definitely entitled to his 6th Amendment right to have his counsel present at any pretrial interrogation.

[4] Scope of the Remedy: Unconstitutionally obtained statements shall be allowed in rebuttal. They are still banned from the prosecutor's case in chief.

~~~~~ Lammers ~~~~~

[5] The entire basis of this decision is the Court devaluing the constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel in favor of the a non-constitutional mandate that courts should be protected against possible perjury and disruption of "the integrity of the trial process." This is poorly reasoned, favoring the discouraging of illegal acts over the forbidding of unconstitutional ones. It is badly out of kilter with modern constitutional cases such a Virginia v. Moore which proclaim that illegalities are irrelevant as long as the constitution is followed.

[7] Not every illegal act is unconstitutional. Perjury started out as a common law crime (Blackstone, Book IV Chapter 10 sec. 16), but has long since been a statutory crime. See 18 USC 1621, Kentucky Revised Statute 523.020, Rhode Island General Law 11-33-1, Michigan Penal Code 750.422, and Alaska Statute 11.56.200. Even Virginia, with its fondness for the common law, has made perjury a statutory offense. In either event, perjury is a criminal offense against the orderly pursuit of justice and the constitution is silent upon whether the government has a right to unperjured testimony. This does not mean it approves of it; it just means that it was a matter left to the legislatures to sort out and thus became a matter of law rather than constitution (as demonstrated by the statues enacted).

[8] As well, perjury as a criminal charge is not within the bosom of the courts. As an initial matter, the decision of whether someone has committed perjury is prerogative of the prosecutor - not the courts. Should a prosecutor have proof that perjury has been committed the statutes clearly lay out the remedies which the various legislatures have allowed prosecutors to seek. All of these require a trial specifically on the matter of perjury and its proof beyond a reasonable doubt. None of them rise to the level of a constitutional matter.

[9] What the Court is actually talking about here is impeachment. It's a handy way of short stopping the entire issue of perjury. The level of proof for impeachment is far lower than would be required in giving someone their constitutional right to a trial on perjury and its requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Impeachment merely requires some rational quantum of evidence tending to show that the testimony of a witness was not truthful. Of course, impeachment is a valid part of any trial and it's not mutually exclusive of a perjury charge. However, it is instructive about what the court actually decided.

[10] The US Supreme Court decided that presenting evidence which does not rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of perjury - merely tending to show that a defendant's testimony was not truthful - is more important than a clearly violated constitutional right to have counsel present during questioning. As the Court acknowledges that violation of this right precludes the use of the evidence gained in a prosecutor's trial in chief, this evidence couldn't even be used in a perjury trial. Thus, the Court creates an exception, allowing criminal procedure alone to trump a constitutional right.

[11] Ultimately, in a most amazing paragraph the Court simply states that no harm will come from this because it's not likely a defendant will testify in his own defense anyway and that an officer won't violate the right because then the evidence gained will only be usable to impeach the defendant's testimony and the officer can't anticipate that the defendant will get on the stand and tell a story inconsistent with the story he'll tell the officer when his right to counsel is violate.

[12] On the other side of the scale, preventing impeachment use of statements taken in violation of Massiah would add little appreciable deterrence. Officers have significant incentive to ensure that they and their informants comply with the Constitution’s demands, since statements lawfully obtained can be used for all purposes rather than simply for impeachment. And the ex ante probability that evidence gained in violation of Massiah would be of use for impeachment is exceedingly small. An investigator would have to anticipate both that the defendant would choose to testify at trial (an unusual occurrence to begin with) and that he would testify inconsistently despite the admissibility of his prior statement for impeachment. Not likely to happen - or at least not likely enough to risk squandering the opportunity of using a properly obtained statement for the prosecution’s case in chief.

[13] That's correct, a US Supreme Court decision is based on a belief that it is unlikely that the defendant will testify. It's backed up by a statement that shows an amazing lack of understanding of why a statement would be taken by a police officer. The exact purpose that an officer would be taking a statement after the defendant has an attorney is to lock him into a particular version of the facts with the thought that the defendant could tell a different story at trial. After all, if the officer expected the defendant to take the stand and testify exactly in the manner most likely to lead to a conviction, why would he waste time trying to get a statement from the defendant?

Practical Application

[14] As a practical matter, this opens up several tactics to law enforcement. Prior to this decision the further development of the case through human information gathering techniques was severely limited after the defendant had a lawyer. Now the Supreme Court has given its imprimatur to the continued use of human information gathering techniques despite a defense attorney's involvement.

[15] Informants, whether they be planted in jail or sent to approach a defendant on bond, are clearly sanctioned by this opinion. Furthermore, this decision's scope seems to allow police to reinterview the defendant after the appointment of an attorney. Neither of these will produce evidence which can be used in the prosecutor's case in chief. However, the mere fact that a charge has been taken should reflect that the prosecutor already has enough evidence for his case in chief. The purpose of the actions taken after a defendant has an attorney will be to preclude the defendant from testifying or build a crushing case against him should he choose to do so. These are all constitutionally valid tactics per the Ventris decision and if these are the rules we lay down for our law enforcement agencies we should expect they will play by the rules we give them.

Gant: A Sea Change in Car Searches

[1] On 21 April 2009 the US Supreme Court changed decades of law enforcement practice by clamping down on searches of vehicles incident to arrest. Arizona v. Gant is a tour de force by Justice Stevens in which he weaves his way through all the old precedents to change the interpretation most lower courts have given to the ability of officers to search cars after arresting their drivers.

[2] Gant's theory both prunes and widens the circumstances under which an officer may search the car after an offender is arrested. In reality, the effect is a net reduction in the scope of officer searches.

[3] The prior rule was that after any arrest police could search the passenger compartment of a vehicle because of "exigent circumstances." In other words, once the offender was placed under arrest the officer could search the car in order to preclude the possibility that the offender might destroy any evidence or reach a weapon. Of course, any sane officer restrains a person he has placed under arrest before he turns his back on that person in order to search the car. However, this had never seemed to bother lower courts and had even seemingly been given a pass (although never specifically approved) by the US Supreme Court.

[4] The new rule has 2 parts. First, if there are actual exigent circumstances, such that the defendant(s) is not restrained and could actually reach something inside the vehicle, a search can take place; however, "exigent" searches can no longer happen when the offender is handcuffed and properly restrained. Since an arresting officer should always prioritize to his own safety, this situation will be extremely rare.

[5] Second, an officer can search a vehicle if it is reasonable to believe evidence of the crime the offender was arrested for will be found in the car. An example is if an officer arrests someone who has just stolen from Mega^Store and sees two of the stolen items in the car; it'd be reasonable to search the car for the other 4 items the thief stole at the same time.

[6] Every lawyer I spoke to seemed to have pretty much the same reaction: they predicted a great upsurge in vehicle impoundment and inventory searches subsequent to the impoundmment. Typical of such reactions was lawscribe's (via Twitter): "You will [see] a massive jump in inventory searches and careful review of dept policies to make cars consistently easier to impound."

Impounding in Virginia

[7] With this in mind I went looking to see what is allowed vis-a-vis the impounding of vehicles. In Virginia the controlling case is King v. Commonwealth from 2002. King lays out a set of rules under which impoundement can take place. The first rule is that there must be a standard police policy under which the vehicle is impounded. However, even a written policy does not, in and of itself, make the impoundment valid.

[8] Beyond the written policy, there are only two justifications for impounding a vehicle. A vehicle must either be a risk to public safety or need to be safeguarded. Although not absolutely exhaustive, the generally approved circumstances for impoundement are when the vehicle is blocking traffic, trespassing on private property, or violating parking ordinances/laws. Neither the fact that a vehicle is parked next to a busy road nor that it may be vandalized is a satisfactory reason to impound a vehicle.

[9] A vehicle also may not be impounded if the offender is able to arrange for the vehicle to be moved. Generally, the mere fact that an offender is under arrest will preclude such an arrangement. However, if there is another citizen present at the scene, who is a legal driver and who will take the car to where the offender wants it, an officer is required, by Virginia Code sec. 19.2-80.1, to allow that citizen to drive the car from the scene.

[10] Finally, a vehicle may not be impounded for the purpose of performing a search upon it.

[11] Personally, I don't see impoundment becoming a major issue in Virginia. King is solid, long-standing precedent rooted in the 4th Amendment so that the rules cannot be changed by the Virginia General Assembly.

Race, Knives, & Fists: More on the Jason Vassell Case

Back in February I wrote a post complaining that I couldn't figure out whether the charges were justified against Jason Vassell, a black student charged with 2 counts of aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon under (I believe) MGL Chapter 265: Section 15A:

(c) Whoever:

(i) by means of a dangerous weapon, commits an assault and battery upon another and by such assault and battery causes serious bodily injury;
. . .
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 15 years or in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(d) For the purposes of this section, "serious bodily injury" shall mean bodily injury which results in a permanent disfigurement, loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb or organ, or a substantial risk of death.

There has been a rather strident campaign launched in support of Mr. Vassell and my former post elicited a response which laid out the factual position claimed for Mr. Vassell and asked me to read the Defense's Motion to Dismiss.

I did. It moved me much further along the line toward belief in Mr. Vassell's guilt of A&B (the gradation of the appropriate final conviction I am still uncertain of). Let me explain.

The Law

Apparently Massachusetts allows for the pretrial dismissal of a case if 3 conditions are met:

In order to obtain a dismissal on the basis of selective enforcement, the defendant must initially offer evidence that reasonably permits an inference of unlawful discrimination by showing that

(1) a broader group of persons than those prosecuted has violated the law;

(2) the failure to prosecute others was either consistent or deliberate; and

(3) the decision not to prosecute others was based on an impermissible classification factor such as race, religion, or sex.

If the defendant satisfies that initial burden, the Commonwealth must then rebut the inference that there has been selective enforcement, or the case will be dismissed.

Commonwealth v. Palacios Docket 05-P-52

Defense counsel does yeoman's work trying to stretch this test to cover the facts of the case at hand. He expends a great amount of effort showing that the "victims" in this case were brutish, aggressive, racist cretins. He shows some strong indications that law enforcement jumped to some improper conclusions. Yet, he never gets past the first test.

The way the defense tries to get past the first test is to conflate the assault by one of the "victims" and the assault and battery by the other "victim" on Mr. Vassell with the assault and battery with a weapon by Mr. Vassell. There are two flaws in this. First, neither of the "victims" used a weapon as required by the statute Mr. Vassell is charged under and thus could not have been part of the same group as Mr. Vassell. Second, it's doubtful that the case from which this test comes is talking about a small group. Palacios is about a claim of selective enforcement of DUI and driving with a suspended license against a driver based upon his ethnic background. The "group" would be all drivers - a rather large group.

Even if a group of 3 people was sufficient, the presence of only one weapon, the knife held by Mr. Vassell, causes the defense's argument to fail the second test. There cannot be a consistent or deliberate failure to prosecute the "victims" because it is impossible to charge them under the same law.

The Tactics

Why would defense counsel put this argument forth? Because Mr. Vassell is in a world of hurt. By the defense's own statement of facts after the initial conflict Mr. Vassell picked up a knife, carried it to the location of the second conflict, and drew it before he was physically attacked.

I don't know Massachusetts case law, but if it is anything like Virginia, the use of fists (as the victims did) carries with it a inference that the intent is not lethal while the use of a knife (as Mr. Vassell did) carries the opposite inference. When Mr. Vassell brought and drew a knife he unilaterally escalated to the use of lethal force. On the facts, it appears that Mr. Vassell is guilty of that which he is charged.

On the other hand, Paracios also states that in Massachusetts

If the defendant's charge of racial profiling is not established prior to trial, it may not subsequently be raised again as a defense. However, we distinguish between racial profiling and racial bias. Denial of the motion to dismiss does not by itself eliminate the right of either party to challenge at trial the testimony of a witness on the ground of racial bias. The right to cross-examine a witness regarding racial bias is not unfettered, however, and the judge may reasonably limit the extent and scope of cross- examination on this, as on any other, subject. Where the defendant makes no plausible showing to support his claim of racial bias, the judge may prohibit reference to a witness's alleged bias altogether.

In other words, the defense might not have the law or facts of the second conflict on its side, but it has all sorts of impeachment evidence which it could use to make the prosecution's "victims" look very bad and damage law enforcement witnesses as well. And it's just demonstrated that to the prosecution.

This motion strikes me as a gambit played as part of negotiating a plea. The defense is showing that it will move forward with self defense bolstered by the ability to impeach the victims to shreds. Still, it has to take into account the fact that Mr. Vassell brought a knife to a fist fight and drew it first. In the end, I'd be surprised if this went to trial because of uncertainty on both sides (unless it has become so blown up that one side or the other won't back down or the facts are even more anti-defendant than the motion lets on).

How Long Can a Judge Keep Someone Under Threat of Imprisonment?

As a comment on another post, Tony asks:

Maybe some one can help me understand something as follows. (1) Can a defendant be placed on probation for a term exceeding what the original sentence would have been,i.e. (2) in a class 1 misdemeanor can the defendant be put on probation for three years when the sentence is 12 months with 11 suspended for three years, with "indefinite" local probation? and (3) how long would the [indefinite] probation be, three years or 12 months?

[1]It's an interesting question and the waters are muddied by the fact that there are two separate things which occur under Virginia law, the period of probation and the period of the suspended sentence. As best I can define the two, the period of a suspended sentence is how long an offender can be hauled back into court to receive time "for any cause the court deems sufficient" (§ 19.2-306) and probation is the period of time the offender has someone specifically assigned to be her caretaker. Unfortunately, in both statutes and judicial decisions, there has been a loose usage of these terms. Sometimes they are used in parralell, sometimes they have separate meanings, and sometimes they seem to be used as synonyms. It confuses things.

[2] A defendant can have his sentence suspended for as long as the judge determines to be "a reasonable time, having due regard to the gravity of the offense." Va Code § 19.2-303.1. In other words, if the judge decides an offender's brandishing a firearm misdemeanor needs to have the sentence suspended for a period of 20 years, the judge can so order.

[3] Indefinite probation usually means that probation shall end at the discretion of the probation officer after certain conditions have been met. I couldn't find any limits to the length of probation, but logic would seem to indicate it could go no longer than the period during which the sentence is suspended.

[4] A common practice in Virginia courts is to usually limit most misdemeanors to a single year period of time suspended and in cases that the judge sees as more egregious three years of time suspended. I cannot find any statutory reason for this and suspect it may be ensconced in Virginia law via Smith v. Underwood, 1985, Va. App. No. 0316-85. In this decision a habeas was rejected because it was based upon new claims, but the court also accepted, without any discussion, 3 years time suspended on a misdemeanor.

[5] Furthermore, we find no ambiguity in the June 3, 1982, sentencing order that would support Smith's claim that the misdemeanor sentence suspension could not be revoked. Its terms are clear. Both the felony and misdemeanor sentences were suspended and Smith was placed on probation for a period of three years.

[6] Nevertheless, nothing in the statutes or any cases I've seen seems to limit the length of time a person can have his sentence suspended if the judge is specific about the length.

[7] If the judge is not specific about the length of time for the suspension it defaults to the length of the maximum potential sentence for the crime (ie: 1 year for petit larceny & 20 years for grand larceny). § 19.2-306. However, a judge can extend both probation and suspension. Under § 19.2-306(C), if a judge "finds good cause to believe that the defendant has violated the terms of suspension" the suspension is revoked and the sentence is imposed. However, the judge can resuspend the sentence - leaving him the option of setting a new length of time for the suspension. Under § 19.2-304, the judge can alter probation upon the convening of a hearing; as the statute states no other conditions, it appears that the judge has complete discretion in this.

Jury Today

Sorry folks, no post today. I'm off living the pilot for a new TV show:

Who Were the Colombine Kids Really?

"They weren't goths or loners.

They . . . weren't in the "Trenchcoat Mafia," disaffected videogamers who wore cowboy dusters. The killings ignited a national debate over bullying, but the record now shows Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold hadn't been bullied — in fact, they had bragged in diaries about picking on freshmen and "fags."

Their rampage put schools on alert for "enemies lists" made by troubled students, but the enemies on their list had graduated from Columbine a year earlier. Contrary to early reports, Harris and Klebold weren't on antidepressant medication and didn't target jocks, blacks or Christians, police now say, citing the killers' journals and witness accounts. That story about a student being shot in the head after she said she believed in God? Never happened, the FBI says now."

<much more>

Stare Decisis:Where Should the First Thought Come From?

As long as statutes are written there will be two truths which require judicial decisions. First, there will be ambiguities written into the statutes/constitutions (textual ambiguity). Second, circumstances will arise which may, or may not, fall under a particular statute or constitutional clause (situational ambiguity). It follows that, if we are to be consistent, once a judicial decision has been made clearing up the difficulty this interpretation of the law should be universal and constant (so long as the decision is appropriate to the language of the pertinent statute/constitution¹).

[1] The best method of interpreting a statute is to use textual interpretation doctrines such as the Rule of Lenity (in criminal cases), expresio unius est exclusio alterius, noscitur a sociis, or ejusdem generis. This type of interpretation gives the most honest reading of a statute.

[2] In the few cases when the meaning of a statute/constitutional provision cannot be determined textually, historical meaning and legislative meaning analyses should be the next step. Historical meaning would look toward dictionaries or writings of a particular time to determine the meaning of the ambiguous word or phrase. Legislative meaning would primarily look toward other statutes with similar phrasing to clear up the ambiguous wording.

[3] If this fails, the next step is historical intent or legislative intent. This is the point at which interpretative tools become shaky. Historical intent is notorious because it's often one sided and/or incomplete. No one knows what every single member of the constitutional convention intended and it's unlikely that any historical analysis has proven what even a majority of them intended. Legislative intent suffers the same flaw; it's near impossible to prove what a majority of Congress thought about a statute passed as part of a two hundred page omnibus bill.

[4] In the very few cases which get through all the above, there's the appeal to other authority. In the past this might have been to the Great Thinkers: The Philosopher, Aquinas, Maimonides, Averroes, Hume, Kant, Locke, Burke &cetera. In modern times this is more likely to take the form of decisions by foreign courts. While both of these can shore up a decision, they are the shakiest form of interpretation. This is primarily because they do not have any anchors in the American legal system. We should always be suspicious that these sources are appealed to because American jurisprudence leans the other way and some source is needed to allow the judge to reach the conclusion he wants to reach. After all, how many people in modern times receive an education to the level that they even know who Averroes was, much less can quote his philosophy? And, why would an American judge know about an opinion published in Australia 7 years ago?²

Personally, I'd like to see a lot less appeal to authority in our courts. Beyond steps [1] and [2] above, it all looks like the judge has come to a decision and is just looking for justification. Assuming a previously unresolved ambiguity, it should be perfectly acceptable to state that ambiguity, state why the ambiguity cannot be cleared up by [1] and [2], and then set out the court's decision. If it is consistent with statute then good precedent has been set.<sup>3



1</sup> The great flaw of deference is when it reaches a near mystical level and is slavishly followed no matter how out of touch a decision may be with the actual language of a statute.

² The Australian Supreme Court could publish the most amazing, insightful, breath-takingly wonderful piece of reasoning on the right to free speech tomorrow and I might, MIGHT, find out about it because I get ABC's feed on my Twitter account. It's not exactly easy to research case law from another country.

³ Yes, I know this will never happen. Lawyers are mistaught from their first day in law school to over-cite, to always have a source. Original, uncopied thought is the bugaboo we are all taught to fear.

Interesting Question

Here's an interesting question which came up in court yesterday.

Under Brady v. Maryland et al, the prosecution is required to to turn over evidence which is exculpatory or impeachment material. However, what if there is no doubt the defendant did the crime (uncontested) and the defendant is trying to get evidence under Brady which would be used solely in an affirmative defense?

I did a quick bit of research yesterday and the cases clearly state that there is no obligation to turn over such evidence prior to a guilty plea. Still, that begs the question, is it constitutionally required at all? I never could find a case which specifed one way or the other.

Anybody know a case on point?

Addendum: For some unknown reason, Blogger isn't allowing me to put comments on this post. So, I thought I'd post them here.

ParatrooperJJ: In general, I agree that if it will not endanger third parties or other investigations (& any other such caveat which is slipping my mind at the moment), the prosecutor should share all evidence possible. However, consider a pro se defendant who is a felon caught with a firearm. He does not deny possession. Rather, he informs the court that he will be raising a duress/society made me do it/it's a dangerous world affirmative defense. In accord with his theory, he files for pretty much every record he thinks the county has related to violent crime over the last ten years (indictments, orders of conviction, copies of plea agreements, etc.). This is clearly outside of allowed discovery in Virginia, but the pro se argues it should be allowed under Brady. Judge won't go that far, but considers ordering 5 years of orders of convictions. (facts are made up out of whole cloth, but similar to case yesterday)

This doesn't impeach anybody or tend to prove he didn't possess the firearm. Should the government be obligated? If so, what is the constitutional basis and where do you draw the line?

-------------

Anon: Yes, an affirmative defense is a defense. However, it's a "Yeah, but . . ." defense; a defense wherein the act the prosecutor is alleging is admitted. If there was anything tending to negate the act the prosecution would clearly be required to turn it over. However, nothing tending to prove an affirmative defense negates the act. Therefore, the question is whether the prosecution is required to turn over evidence which does not tend to disprove the act because the evidence may be consistant with an affirmative defense the defendant may present at trial.

A Shank We Can All Enjoy