Wednesday, August 27. 2008
Keep the spotlight on convention ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Criminal Defense at
00:00
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Keep the spotlight on convention protestors' rights.
Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)
Today's blogpost follows up on yesterday's entry insisting on protecting demonstrators' rights at the Democratic and Republican presidential conventions. Here are some useful links for assessing and responding to the protest issue in Denver:
- Added to my blogroll is this admittedly biased blog devoted to coverage of demonstrations and the police at the major party presidential conventions. Thanks to TalkLeft for bringing it to my attention.
- Here is a gruesome place set up for police to process arrested demonstrators. The ACLU blog discusses the detention center here.
- This YouTube page claims to show dozens of clips of recent demonstration activity and police response in Denver.
- Police public relations Groupthink gaffes often comes when they arrest reporters covering the action. Thanks to TalkLeft for covering this story.
- See Wolf Blitzer editorialize in favor of strong security while saying little to nothing about demonstrators' First Amendment and criminal defense rights, offset by his colleagues somewhat counterbalancing Blitzer, and including ominous footage from the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention. Did 1968 failed Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey lift even a finger or a word to stop the police abuse inside and outside the Chicago convention site? If not, would he have reversed his narrow loss to Nixon had he stood up firmly, vocally, and effectively against the police abuse, thus perhaps obtaining more support from those who favored Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy for president? Then again, the Vietnam War was then raging, which presented a huge challenge for him to obtain more than grudging support from strongly antiwar Democrats, while he served as Vice President under Johnson who kept the Big bloody Muddy going. Jon Katz
ADDENDUM: Scott Greenfield weighed in on the protestor matter on August 28. Tuesday, August 26. 2008
Obama and McCain: Protect the ... Posted by Jon Katz
in First Amendment at
08:00
Comments (0) Trackback (1) Obama and McCain: Protect the convention demonstrators' rights.An August 26, 2008, video of demonstrators in
In recent years, no matter who runs for the Tweedledum/Tweedledee Democratic/Republican tickets, the presidential nomination conventions, campaign stops, and inaugural coronations are surrounded by assaults on the First Amendment right to demonstrate. (If you disagree with the brothers Tweedledum/Tweedledee reference, are Obama and McCain more materially the same than they are different? Yes, I am voting for Obama to have a less oppressive and less militaristic government than McCain would bring and maintain, but Obama will heavily support business as usual with the military-industrial-government complex; the failed and oppressive drug war that runs roughshod on the Constitution; the legalized murder of the capital punishment system; the oppressiveness of the PATRIOT Act, and countless other government assaults on civil liberties and democracy. Does the two-party-dominated system sufficiently support a truly democratic and just society? I think not.)
Typically, and currently in
Certainly official clampdowns on and intimidation of demonstrators in the
On July 14, 2008, I wrote about the public indifference -- but likely complicity if not downright participation -- ordinarily shown by presidential candidates and other high-profile politicians towards First Amendment violations against demonstrators protesting those politicians. Do McCain and Obama approve of such clampdowns? Will they voice their opinion on this matter, whatever are their opinions? Will they speak out for greater protection of demonstrators at their conventions, campaign stops, inauguration, and beyond? I am not holding my breath, including because their very discussion of the issue acknowledges the severe problem, and, in their silence, perhaps they hope the issue will stay off most voters' radars. Do not let them do it. Jon Katz.
ADDENDUM: Thanks to a fellow listserv member for posting the above-displayed video. Monday, August 25. 2008
When the prosecution indicts, and ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Criminal Defense at
00:00
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) When the prosecution indicts, and then indicts again.
Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)
What should a criminal defense lawyer do when his or her client is caught with a bunch of drugs, unlawful weapons, and other contraband, but the prosecutor only files criminal charges on the drugs? On the one hand, resolving the drug case might make the other potential charges go away by keeping attention away from the other possible charges. On the other hand, the defendant might become the victim of successive indictments. A crystal ball would come in handy here.
A prosecutor is not automatically required by the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause to indict all at once for crimes discovered on the same date against the same defendant arising from the same operative facts. Maryland's highest court made this clear today in reversing a trial judge's dismissal of a felony prosecution where the defendant had already been convicted on a drug charge relating to the same search that turned up the weapons that were later prosecuted in court and which became the subject of the trial court's reversal. Colonel Preston Long v. Maryland, __ Md. _ (Aug. 25, 2008).
This situation underlines the importance for criminal defense lawyers to decide whether to include or exclude uncharged criminal conduct in plea negotiations. On the one hand the uncharged conduct may go out of sight and out of mind if not mentioned. On the other hand, because the uncharged criminal conduct may not go away, the client needs to be involved in the decision whether to stay silent on the uncharged conduct in any guilty plea negotiations. Why, though, would a prosecutor remain silent about uncharged criminal conduct during guilty plea negotiations, as opposed to dangling them in front of the defense lawyer in an effort to try to persuade the defendant to enter a guilty plea? Jon Katz
ADDENDUM: Guilty plea negotiations are part of the harsh reality of criminal defense. One side of me dislikes guilty pleas very much. However, a criminal defense lawyer is obligated to do as much good and as little harm for a client as possible, always coming from a position of strength. For instance, if I can get a misdemeanor disorderly conduct guilty plea agreement from a client caught redhanded setting a building on fire, that might just be a big defense victory. Sunday, August 24. 2008
From protecting drug addicts to ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Drugs at
00:00
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) From protecting drug addicts to sealing criminal records.
Image from Library of Congress's website.
Here are some useful links that are destined for addition to my links page.
- British Columbia's Supreme Court gives protections against drug laws to drug-addicted people. PHS Community Services Society v.
- An excellent sample Freedom of Information Act request letter, from the American Civil Liberties Union.
- The District of Columbia's Criminal Record Sealing Act of 2006. The D.C. Public Defender Service has a free information packet with sample motions for those wishing to file pro se, by calling or visiting PDS. For sealing in jurisdictions bordering D.C., Maryland's expungement application process is the simplest, generally requiring the completion of two triplicate one page forms. Virginia's sealing procedure requires filing an entirely new lawsuit for such relief. An attorney should be consulted before applying to seal or expunge criminal records, particularly by people who are not United States citizens and who need to have their criminal records reviewed periodically for such matters as security clearances. Jon Katz. Friday, August 22. 2008
Why travel a thousand miles to learn ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Persuasion at
00:10
Comment (1) Trackbacks (0) Why travel a thousand miles to learn to be more real?
In the middle of the then-four week Trial Lawyers College in its second year, I asked myself: "I have come all the way to a ranch in Wyoming miles from the nearest paved road to learn that the essence to being a great trial lawyer is being my same real self in all situations, loving myself and others, not giving up my power to others, and crawling under the hide of those I am trying to persuade, represent, and battle? Could I not have just had that written in pamphlet or book form for me to read?" My doubts continued: "Why are we cross-examining nursery rhyme characters? If I am taking a month of my life here, can we not at least have good pre-printed fact patterns to work from?"
By comparison, I immediately was taken the previous summer by the two-week National Criminal Defense College in
Still on the high of the well-organized
And there I was, waiting a very long time to reveal my warts and being careful whom I revealed them to. I did not much like the possibility of being miserable among a bunch of strangers thinking down on me if I revealed my true self. The opposite took hold, though. I recognized that my problems were pretty small compared to many others, that others would share their feces and pearls of experience with me if I shared mine with them, and that I had found a group of people with whom I could bond and enjoy eliminating the veneers and the cocktail party talk. The more we opened up to each other, the more we bonded, to the point that I can call just about any
Did I really need to travel a thousand miles away to learn all this? Yes. The lessons learned there are easy to understand but take long, concerted, and often painful effort to internalize, realize and follow. By learning and applying these lessons full-time in the middle of nowhere among supportive people, I "got it" by the end of the four weeks, and still am getting it.
What is all this hype about being real? Consider this. Who will you trust more if you are a juror? A lawyer who comes into the courtroom wearing the fanciest suit and tie who is all polished with every spoken word and every choreographed and pre-scripted step, or the lawyer who looks unremarkable but talks to the jury, witnesses and judge the same way s/he would talk to his or her best friends, without a bunch of notes intervening, and with a heart that cares not only about the lawyer's client, but also about everyone else in the courtroom, and who does not try to hide warts -- aside from needing to keep out damaging testimony through evidentiary and procedural rules -- but instead acknowledges them and persuasively puts them into perspective with the rest of the lawyer's case? Jon Katz Thursday, August 21. 2008
Putting the brakes on disorderly ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Criminal Defense at
00:00
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Putting the brakes on disorderly conduct prosecutions.
Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)
Too often, police arrest for disorderly conduct when they cannot think of any other crimes to charge. That is beyond unjust.
Fortunately, the Oregon Supreme Court recently put some strong limits on disorderly conduct prosecutions where a suspect allegedly tailgated another car, and called out some choice words to passersby, all over around a five-minute period. Oregon v. William Johnson, __ P.3d _ (Oregon August 14, 2008). Oregon's Supreme Court relied on Oregon's version of the First Amendment in reaching its decision, so it is not clear about the extent to which a similar victory can be achieved in other states. Jon Katz
ADDENDUM: Thanks to the person who sent me this Oregon v. William Johnson case. Wednesday, August 20. 2008
Red lights, dogs and the Fourth ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Criminal Defense at
00:00
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Red lights, dogs and the Fourth Circuit.
Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)
Police love when suspects drive cars. The driver is bound to violate one traffic law or another, thus justifying a police stop of the car, and an attempt to reveal criminal activity afoot.
Police also love to bring "drug" dogs to attempt a justification to search the vehicle. However, a drug dog sniff is only allowed during the time reasonably needed to issue a moving violation citation. If no dogs are available in such a short time, the cops need to manufacture, I mean try to find, reasonable suspicion to prolong the car stop to get a drug sniffing dog's presence.
What, however, justifies the cops to hold onto a red-light running violation suspect for thirty minutes? Read this Fourth Circuit opinion that allowed such a lengthy detention based on claimed reasonable articulable suspicion that the court said allowed the police to detain the defendant longer than needed to write a moving violation ticket (running a red light). U.S. v. Branch, __ F.3d. _ (Fourth Cir., August 20, 2008).
Fortunately, the dissent in U.S. v. Branch is strongly-worded enough in order to help make headway in getting an en banc reveiw of this case. Meanwhile, if in Virginia, caveat emptor, to say the least. Jon Katz. Tuesday, August 19. 2008
Dissidents suffer as Beijing ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Persuasion at
00:10
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Dissidents suffer as Beijing Olympics dazzle.
Image from NASA's website.
And now we interrupt the Beijing Olympics with this important public service human rights message:
Life is not all fun and games for Chinese dissidents during the Olympics. For instance, within the last few days, blogger Zhou “Zola” Shuguang has been placed under town arrest.
As Reporters Without Borders reported on August 15, 2008: "Zola alerted his contacts via the microblogging service Twitter: '16:02 (Beijing time): They have forced me to get into their car. I want my family to be able to confirm what has happened today (...) I am all right, I am in their car and I have the impression that I am being kidnapped.' '17:31 (Beijing time): They have asked me to stay in Meitanba. If I go to Beijing, they will come and get me.' Aged 27, Zola keeps a blog in which he often writes about matters that have been hushed up by the authorities." More on this story also is at the Committee to Protect Bloggers' site.
Zhou Shuguang is having a cakewalk with the Chinese authorities, when compared to Beijing human rights activist and blogger Zeng Jinyan and her baby daughter, who, according to ABC online "have been missing since August 7th. Zeng has been under house arrest for months." More on this story is at the Committee to Protect Bloggers' site and in the Associated Press online.
That concludes this public service message. Will you now return to the Olympics as if all in China were the Disneyland that the Chinese government so desperately wishes to portray? Jon Katz Tuesday, August 19. 2008
Plame and Wilson lose on appeal ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Constitutional Law at
00:00
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Plame and Wilson lose on appeal against Libby and company.
Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)
For awhile, the Valerie Plame/JoeWilson/Scooter Libby story went on the backburner. Then, in late July 2008, Robert Novak -- whose column blowing Plame's CIA cover led to the prosecution and conviction of Libby -- hit a pedestrian and kept driving, followed by an announcement shortly thereafter of his malignant brain cancer and retirement.
Not long thereafter, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2-1 (Judges Sentelle and Henderson affirming and Judge Rodgers concurring in part and dissenting in part) to uphold the dismissal of Plame's and Wilson's lawsuit against Libby and company over damages allegedly caused by the revelation of Plame's covert CIA status. Wilson, et al., v. Libby, et al., __ F.3d _ (D.C. Cir., Aug. 12, 2008).
Plame and Wilson's suit seeks damages for Constitutional violations under Webster Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which is a case governing private party lawsuits against federal officials for Constitutional violations. In affirming the dismissal of Plame's and Wilson's lawsuit, the Court of Appeals stated: "We have discretion in some circumstances to create a remedy against federal officials for constitutional violations, but we must decline to exercise that discretion where 'special factors counsel[] hesitation' in doing so. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 396; Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223, 226 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc). In Bivens, the Court implied a remedy where there were no '"‘special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress’"' that required 'the judiciary [to] decline to exercise its discretion in favor of creating damages remedies against federal officials." Spagnola, 859 F.2d at 226 (quoting Bivens, 403 U.S. at 396)." Here, the Court of Appeals found that the Privacy Act provided a remedial scheme for Plame and Wilson that precluded a Bivens action.
The D.C. Circuit further declared: "Litigation of the Wilsons’ allegations would inevitably require an inquiry into 'classified information that may undermine ongoing covert operations.' See Tenet, 544 U.S. at 11. The amended complaint alleges that the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity 'impaired . . . her ability to carry out her duties at the CIA,' Am. Compl. ¶ 43, increased therisk of violence to her and her family, id. at ¶ 42, and subjected her to treatment different from that given other similarly situated agents, id. at ¶¶ 51–52. We certainly must hesitate before we allow a judicial inquiry into these allegations that implicate the job risks and responsibilities of covert CIA agents. In cases involving covert espionage agreements, '[t]he state secrets privilege and the more frequent use of in camera judicial proceedings simply cannot provide the absolute protection [the Court] found necessary in enunciating the Totten rule.' Tenet, 544 U.S. at 11. Here, although Totten does not bar the suit, the concerns justifying the Totten doctrine provide further support for our decision that a Bivens cause of action is not warranted."
Responding to the majority, Judge Rogers wrapped it up as follows: "In conclusion, the court’s decision is not the product of the application of the Bivens doctrine to appellants’ claims as Wilkie directs, 127 S. Ct. at 2598. It is rather the result of the refusal to acknowledge precedent that Bivens is a remedial doctrine and absent special factors applies where Congress created statutory protection for some persons in some circumstances but did not address the type of constitutional claims alleged by Mr. Wilson and in part by Ms. Wilson. The disclosure concerns identified by the court as counselling hesitation are either unfounded or premature because there has been no discovery or presentation by the Wilsons to the district court of how they will attempt to prove their claims. Contrary to separation of powers, then, the court effectively cedes to Congress the judiciary’s defined role to decide issues arising under the Constitution, despite the fact that the Privacy Act neither is nor purports to be a universal bar to all constitutional relief related to the release of agency records. Accordingly, I concur in Parts II and III.B of the court’s opinion, and in the judgment regarding Ms. Wilson’s equal protection and due process property claims, but I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of the dismissal of Mr. Wilson’s First and Fifth Amendment claims against each appellee and Ms. Wilson’s due process state-endangerment claims (except against appellee Armitage), and would leave to the district court to address in the first instance appellees’ defenses of immunity, see, e.g., Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001); Davis, 442 U.S. at 249; Butera, 235 F.3d at 646."
Judge Rogers' partial dissent/partial concurrence provides very strong arguments to increase the chances of en banc review by the entire District of Columbia Circuit over the very critical issue of when to permit and not permit a Bivens action to proceed forward. Jon Katz. Monday, August 18. 2008 |