tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84341085380292047092024-03-05T23:37:25.586-08:00Advocate for MercyElizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-26581797802164717402018-02-04T14:51:00.000-08:002018-02-04T14:51:03.055-08:00<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b>When is a defense lawyer not a defense lawyer?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A disturbing drama has been playing out, largely behind the
scenes, in connection with the prisoners still held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I
will not take the time to set out the whole history of the placement of U.S.
prisoners at the U.S. military base in Cuba. A brief summary can be found here. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/world/guantanamo-bay-naval-station-fast-facts/index.html" target="_blank">History</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The short version of this story is that the lawyers for a
man whom the United States Government seeks to execute have resigned because
they discovered that the prosecution has been eavesdropping on interactions
between defense counsel and their client, and has been seizing confidential
documents. So, when is a defense lawyer not a defense lawyer? When he or she
represents a client before a military commission.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Since 2002, the United States has been holding prisoners
from the middle east conflict at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanomo Bay. The
peak population was 684 in June of 2003. Today, there are 41 detainees there.
Seven of them have been charged with offenses in the military commission system.
One of them is Adb al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who has been charged in the 2000 bombing
of the USS Cole. The bombing killed 17 US sailors and injured 39 others.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype
id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t"
path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75"
style='width:467.65pt;height:321pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\ELIZAB~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNdqS2u81iDwlUyZB7iV9-UoqL6DxIuYfL8XuHSivNERRE0J-Ly3VypJ2MVJqPbab0ye1-nPFUXN4whjoAynYFM4xoCKTsoZ1Wyak5yiVGhoWt3hhUd42gbIj_b3S4ayTZZ-v8hVzocQw/s1600/USS_Cole_%2528DDG-67%2529_Departs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="865" data-original-width="1260" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNdqS2u81iDwlUyZB7iV9-UoqL6DxIuYfL8XuHSivNERRE0J-Ly3VypJ2MVJqPbab0ye1-nPFUXN4whjoAynYFM4xoCKTsoZ1Wyak5yiVGhoWt3hhUd42gbIj_b3S4ayTZZ-v8hVzocQw/s320/USS_Cole_%2528DDG-67%2529_Departs.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The government is seeking the death penalty against Mr.
al-Nashiri. In October, General John Baker, the supervising attorney for Mr.
al-Nashiri’s counsel, agreed to a request from his civilian defense team to
resign from the case. The lawyers who resigned included Indiana lawyer Rick
Kammen, who had been under contract with the Marine Corps as “learned counsel.”
That term refers to a lawyer experienced in federal death penalty proceedings. The
other lawyers who resigned are civilian employees of the Justice Department. The
law requires “learned counsel” in any federal death penalty case. (18 U.S.C.
§3005.) But Mr. al-Nashiri is not being prosecuted in a federal court. Instead,
he is being tried before a military commission. This tribunal was authorized by
Congress after the prisoners were placed at Guantanamo Bay. The military
commission process is much less rigorous than a federal trial. It includes more
relaxed restrictions on hearsay evidence, and less availability to the defense
of evidence to be used by the government.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The issue which prompted the resignation of Mr. Kammen and
the two civilian defense department lawyers was their discovery that the
government had been eavesdropping on their conversations with Mr. al-Nashiri. This
was not the first time this problem had emerged in the military commission
process. In March of 2017, during pretrial hearings for defendants alleged to
have planned the September 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers for those defendants asked
for information about the surveillance of defense work by government intelligence
agencies. They described surveillance devices in rooms where attorneys met with
their clients, the placement of an FBI informant within one defense team, and
the discovery that an individual unrelated to the defense had access to
documents supposedly served on secure servers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
After the al-Nashiri lawyers resigned, the presiding
military commission judge ordered Gen. Baker to rescind the resignations and
require the civilian attorneys to appear before the commission. Gen. Baker
refused to do so, and the judge found him in contempt and sentenced him to 21
days’ confinement. The sentence has since been suspended, but the conviction
remains. The civilian lawyers have not reappeared. The only military lawyer
(Lt. Alaric Piette) in the case has appeared, but he is not qualified to act as
learned counsel and has resisted participating in hearings.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In January, the hearings reconvened. The judge directed Lt.
Piette to engage in “self-help” to prepare for trial. He also instructed the
prosecutors to continue their efforts to obtain the presence of the two
civilian DOJ lawyers. The defense argued that the learned counsel requirement
applies to the military commission process. But the judge ruled that learned
counsel was not required if it was not “practicable” to obtain one. Prelimary
witnesses were presented, but Lt. Piette declined to cross-examine them. More
information about this most recent session can be found here: <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/last-week-military-commissions-more-debate-defense-team-resignations-and-evidence-pre-admission-al" target="_blank">Lawfare</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The United States system of justice is threatened in two
ways by this scenario. First, the right of defense counsel to confidentiality
is central to the adversary system. The government, of course, contends that
Mr. al-Nashiri is so dangerous that even his communications with his defense
lawyers could harm national security. But if he is to have a fair trial, his
right to confidential communications with his lawyers must be preserved. The
issue of recordings of confined defendants’ communications with their counsel
has been discussed here previously, and continues to be a live issue in the
mainland U.S. as well as in Cuba. In fact, the U.S. Tenth Circuit is now
considering a government motion to quash subpoenas of the Kansas U.S.
Attorneys’ employees in a case involving prosecution monitoring of jail
conversations. <a href="http://kcur.org/post/appeals-court-stays-hearing-tapings-attorney-client-phone-calls-leavenworth#stream/0" target="_blank">KCUR</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Second, the right of counsel to insist on their client’s
interest is also inviolable. Counsel cannot be forced to violate their ethical
responsibilities to their client. Gen. Baker and Lt. Piette are to be commended
for their devotion to their client and to the rule of law. We can only hope
that their actions will expose the second-class military commission system for
the travesty of justice that it is.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-47701758963869651702018-01-18T10:01:00.001-08:002018-01-18T10:01:34.065-08:00<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<b>Integrity</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
As I have said
before, it’s easy for lawyers to cheat. And very tempting. This is a
consequence of the great power lawyers have. And it is an issue we must
address, both for the sake of the justice system and for the welfare of our
souls. Recent events provide another instance of how cheating by prosecutors
distorts the justice system.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
On December
20, 2017, the United States District Judge for the district of Nevada declared
a mistrial in the then-pending case against Cliven Bundy and three others. The
charges the men faced were conspiracy and assault, arising out of an armed
confrontation with federal agents over control of public lands, which Mr. Bundy
and his cohorts reject. The government indicated it wanted to retry Mr. Bundy
and his co-defendants. But on January 8, 2018, the district judge granted the
defense motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be
retried. Mr. Bundy, who had been in custody, was released.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
"The
court finds that the universal sense of justice has been violated," Judge
Gloria Navarro said. The violation was the failure of the government to fulfill
its obligation to provide information in its possession that was relevant to
the defense. The government admitted it had omitted information; the prosecutor
said that he “culled the database with witness protection in mind” because he
thought leaks of information might lead to threats against witnesses. The trial
judge called this a “reckless disregard for Constitutional obligations.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
The misconduct
came to light when Larry Wooten, an investigator for the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management who had been assigned to investigate the events surrounding the
confrontation between the Bundys and the federal agents. Mr. Wooten says that
he was removed from the investigation after he complained to the U.S. Attorney
about government misconduct. You can read his memo here. <a href="https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Larry-Wooten-Communication_77PI.pdf." target="_blank">Wooten memo</a>.If you don’t want to go through the whole 18 pages, a good summary is here. <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/12/blm_investigator_alleges_misco.html." target="_blank">Oregon Live </a>Among other things, he says, “As the investigation went on, it became clear to
me that my supervisor wasn’t keeping the U.S. Attorney’s Office up to date on
substantive and exculpatory case findings and unacceptable bias indications.”
Of course, one of the responsibilities of a prosecutor is to disclose to the
defense any exculpatory evidence in his or her possession. And the prosecutor
is held accountable for any such information in the possession of anyone on the
prosecution team, whether the prosecutor is aware of the information or not. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
To their credit,
the prosecutors disclosed Mr. Wooten’s memo to the defense. The motion to
dismiss followed. The government has 60 days from the date of dismissal to
appeal; it has taken no action as of the posting of this article. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
But the damage
to the justice system has been done. Here’s the way the National Review sees
it: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
In April 2014, America was transfixed by an armed standoff in
the Nevada desert. On one side was a collection of dangerous, out-of-control
armed men who were deliberately provocative, prone to saying unhinged things in
a single-minded quest to destroy their enemies, and who lied time and again to
cover their misdeeds. On the other side was Cliven Bundy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455263/cliven-bundy-case-dismissed-judge-gloria-navarro-cites-flagrant-federal-misconduct-bureau-land-management" target="_blank">National Reviewl</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
Mr. Wooten
points out that he is no fan of the Bundys. Nor is the National Review: “He
broke the law. He defied the government without any legal justification, and
his own conduct helped precipitate a crisis that could have led to a horrible
tragedy. Bundy was wrong.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
Why does this
happen? As a former prosecutor, I can attest that prosecutors do not all have
horns and pitchforks; they are not, simply, evil. Two causes come to mind. The
first is ego. The prosecutor wants to win his or her case, and if skirting the
rules can safely be done to make it easier, then the prosecutor will do it. In
a case I read recently that was reversed for a Missouri discovery violation,
the prosecutor explained his failure to disclose jailhouse statements by the
defendant until just before trial by saying, “If we disclose [the jailhouse
recordings] to the defense, they’ll tell their client. And I’m not impugning
anyone’s integrity, I’d do the same thing: Hey, they’re listening to your
conversations, shut up. So we don’t disclose them until towards the end.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Elizabeth/Documents/My%20Documents/Writings/blog/Integrity.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "century" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: .5in;">
The second
reason arises from the desire to fulfill the prosecutor’s obligation to enforce
the law, to protect the public from the likes of the Bundys. The prosecutor in
the Bundy said that he wanted to protect witnesses, and therefore limited his
disclosures. Protection of witnesses is certainly a legitimate concern, but it
cannot be used to justify flaunting rules intended to insure that the defendant
receives a fair trial. The government is held to a higher standard. When the
justice system itself cheats, it loses its status as a protector of justice.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div>
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Elizabeth/Documents/My%20Documents/Writings/blog/Integrity.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "century" , serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> <i>State v. Johnson</i>, 513 S.W.3d 360, 365
(Mo. App. 2016).<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-55146769744791802442017-04-20T09:50:00.001-07:002017-04-20T09:50:56.901-07:00<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b>RUSHING THROUGH EXECUTIONS<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Beginning on the day after Easter, the State of Arkansas
planned to execute eight people in ten days. <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/27/arkansas-governor-sets-execution-dates-for-8-inmates/" target="_blank">Arkansas Plan</a><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/27/arkansas-governor-sets-execution-dates-for-8-inmates/">.</a>
As of Wednesday, April 19, four of the inmates have received stays of
execution. No one was executed Monday night, when Bruce Ward and Don Davis were
scheduled to be executed. Both were granted stays by the Arkansas Supreme
Court. The execution of Stacey Johnson, scheduled for April 20, was also stayed
by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The execution of Jason McGehee, scheduled for
April 27, was stayed by a federal court after the Arkansas Parole Board
recommended clemency for him. The other four executions are now subject to a
stay based on a lawsuit by the provider of one of the execution drugs, who says
the drugs were improperly sold to the state for executions: <span style="font-family: Century, serif; font-size: 12pt;">“The company said it would
suffer harm financially and to its reputation if the executions were carried
out.” </span><a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ARKANSAS_EXECUTIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-19-23-13-10" style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype", serif;" target="_blank">McKesson Lawsuit</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<o:p> </o:p><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Meanwhile, a recent article sheds
light on an aspect of the execution ordeal which is not often examined. Dr.
Allen Ault, a former commissioner of the Georgia, Mississippi and Colorado
Departments of Corrections, has written a piece in Time Magazine explaining the
effect of executions on the people who must carry them out. This is an aspect of
the death penalty that doesn’t get enough attention, and Dr. Ault’s views are
worth considering. Dr. Ault presided over five executions. He was the man who
instructed the executioners to go forward. After five executions, he resigned.
The stress was too much. Interviewed in The Guardian, Dr. Ault expressed
concern for the mental health of the men and women who would have to kill so
many people so quickly. ““As the old saying goes,” he said, “you dig two
graves: one for the condemned, one for the avenger. That’s what will happen to
this execution team – many of them will figuratively have to dig their own
grave too.” </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/29/arkansas-executioners-mental-health-allen-ault." style="text-indent: 0.5in;" target="_blank">The Guardian</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Dr. Ault explained how he felt when
he conducted executions: “For me, unlike the ‘kill or be killed’ mindset of war
or other forms of self-defense, carrying out executions felt very much like
participating in premeditated and rehearsed murder. . . . It exacts severe
mental trauma—even when done under the auspices of state law. As I have written
before; I don’t remember their names, but I still see their faces in my
nightmares.” Allen Ault, “Former Warden: Arkansas Execution Rush is Dangerous
and Risky,” Time Magazine, March 28, 2017.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<u5:p></u5:p><u5:p>
</u5:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Dr. Ault is not alone. Two former
execution workers in South Carolina, Craig Baxley and Terry Bracey, sued the
state for pressuring them to assist in executions with little training or
counseling. The suit was dismissed; the trauma remains. As Mr. Bracey put it,
“Taking that plunger and pushing it in set me on a course I wasn’t prepared
for.” Frank Thompson, the former superintendent of the Oregon State
Penitentiary, told The Guardian, “There is absolutely no way to conduct a
well-run execution without causing at least one person to lose a little bit of
their humanity, or to start at least one person on the cumulative path to
post-traumatic stress.” This is just another example of how the death penalty
creates more victims.<o:p></o:p></div>
Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-49443686003498405342017-02-19T14:06:00.000-08:002017-02-28T18:54:45.506-08:00WHAT DO LAWYERS DO ON FRIDAY NIGHT?<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">On Friday, January 29, 2017, at 4:42 p.m. Eastern Time, President Donald
Trump issued his executive order concerning immigration. I found the timing
interesting. I’m aware of anecdotal evidence that law enforcement officers like
to execute arrest warrants on Friday afternoons because doing so often means
that that the person arrested will be unable to post bond until Monday. That
gives law enforcement time to elicit confessions before the person arrested has
a chance to talk to a lawyer. I suspect that the timing of Mr. Trump’s order
was not coincidental. I suspect that he and his staff hoped that implementing
the order on Friday afternoon would mean that nothing would happen to stop it
until Monday.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Preventing
legal action against questionable executive acts is not a new idea. In fact,
Shakespeare memorialized it in Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, Scene II, when his
character Dick the Butcher suggested that when the rebels overthrew the lawful
government and came to power, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the
lawyers.” If lawyers can be kept from performing their responsibility to uphold
the law, then the rule of law can be defeated.</span><br />
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But
that is not what happened on January 29. Instead, as the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hundreds-of-lawyers-descend-on-airports-to-offer-free-help/2017/01/29/55ef11b2-e64b-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.584d8bb225e0" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">Washington
Post</a> noted, “Hundreds of attorneys descended on U.S. airports all over
the country this weekend to offer free legal help to the travelers and family
members of loved ones detained under President Trump’s executive order.” And by
Saturday night, many of the most oppressive aspects of the order were on hold,
and refugees held at US airports and elsewhere were able to continue their
journeys. I was really proud to be a lawyer that weekend. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In
addition to the willingness of lawyers to mobilize to use their skills to help
people who had virtually no resources to help themselves, other aspects of
modern law practice made this possible. The first is ease of communication.
Various networks of lawyers communicated quickly and efficiently on Twitter,
e-mail lists, and other social media. Getting the word out got the bodies
there. Here are some of them at JFK airport:</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYUEBJOh4NdUXUdIRkpeT88eF0KLQU4uNQ0qCUufb43MHQ31WODvVkluJANrKwi31WT5qtON3DOhMVZxt9v8V8HMpO95yD1lgKw_A3l2WG2akLyGAIz0emxEIxmclzl-SAd2Azaa5tBwY/s1600/2017-01-29T221737Z_627587131_RC13B8858140_RTRMADP_3_USA-TRUMP-IMMIGRATION-4686+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYUEBJOh4NdUXUdIRkpeT88eF0KLQU4uNQ0qCUufb43MHQ31WODvVkluJANrKwi31WT5qtON3DOhMVZxt9v8V8HMpO95yD1lgKw_A3l2WG2akLyGAIz0emxEIxmclzl-SAd2Azaa5tBwY/s400/2017-01-29T221737Z_627587131_RC13B8858140_RTRMADP_3_USA-TRUMP-IMMIGRATION-4686+%25281%2529.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-small; text-indent: 0.5in;">Photo: Washington Post, January 29, 2017</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">The next reason this worked is the
availability of online research and writing tools. When I began practicing law,
most lawyers had a library full of books in their offices. The books mainly
contained printed legal opinions in court cases, the backbone of the common law
system. But there were also books called “digests,” which allowed the lawyer to
look up a topic (“executive order”) and see what cases had been decided on that
topic. The digest would give a sentence or two about the case and a citation
which allowed the lawyer to find the right book and page to read the whole
opinion. If the lawyer didn’t have the book with the right case, she would go
to a local law library to read it. Maybe the library had good hours on Saturday
night. Maybe it didn’t. And the process took a while.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHJtFMpTSNe_gZF7ZXuOPEzrUGKySZsQ_GNekrnvIjmqNqnww1y8ihiPsypLbHJksmxpcNWLcJmJ6QwJu7loLahjYeqbke0Vh9ZP7bgKZiKPDLxGkHcGA_KwNn9jEVFPD1U6uzLppuck4/s1600/maxresdefault+cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHJtFMpTSNe_gZF7ZXuOPEzrUGKySZsQ_GNekrnvIjmqNqnww1y8ihiPsypLbHJksmxpcNWLcJmJ6QwJu7loLahjYeqbke0Vh9ZP7bgKZiKPDLxGkHcGA_KwNn9jEVFPD1U6uzLppuck4/s400/maxresdefault+cropped.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small;">Photo: New York Times, January 29, 2017</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small;"></span></span>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">The others are probably sharing
drafts of pleadings. Word processing means that documents, legal and otherwise, can be
produced much more quickly and efficiently than in the typewriter era, or the
handwritten era that preceded that. So those petitions that were filed in
courts around the country could be written and edited very quickly.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">Finally, electronic filing was
indispensable. The cases could be filed in court from the airport. (There were
likely people on the phone with the clerk’s office to make sure someone was
watching the online filings.) But the availability of that technology meant
that instead of having to wait until Monday morning to descend on the
courthouse, the filing process could proceed with relative ease.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">Lawyers tend to get a bad rap these
days. Maybe that’s because they are perceived as having a lot of power and
misusing it. But the weekend of January 29 demonstrated that when the
government is out to get you, a lawyer with the right tools to act fast is the
person you need.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-12409562693447814472017-01-24T15:03:00.004-08:002017-02-28T18:37:21.982-08:00PROTECTING THE GUILTY: DYLANN ROOF<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">On January 10, 2017, a jury in Charleston, South Carolina
sentenced twenty-two year old Dylann Storm Roof to death for shooting nine
people in an African-American church. At his sentencing hearing, Mr. Roof
represented himself, rejecting the efforts of lawyers appointed for him to
present mitigating evidence on his behalf. In his closing argument, Mr. Roof
said that it would not do any good for him to ask the jurors to give him a life
sentence.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Mr. Roof was undeniably guilty, and quickly confessed.
During the guilt phase of his trial (a trial involving the death penalty has
separate phases concerning guilt and punishment), his lawyers referred to him
as “abnormal,” “delusional,” and “suicidal.” Evidence was presented that his
crime was motivated by hostility and fear of African-Americans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Mr. Roof’s victims had varying opinions about what should
happen to him. Some of them said they forgave him and asked that he be spared.
Others thought the death sentence was appropriate, since Mr. Roof had killed
others without justification. The Rev. Sharon Risher, daughter of one of the
victims, expressed a poignant ambivalence. She was quoted in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/dylann-roof-trial-charleston.html?_r=0">New York Times</a>:
“I don’t believe in the death penalty, but I’m my mother’s child and with
everything that’s happened sometimes I want him to die. . . . It’s like, you
know what, this fool continues to just be evil. I’m just glad that they didn’t
leave that decision to me.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">At the end of the guilt phase of his trial, Mr. Roof fired
his lawyers and elected to proceed as his own counsel. The U.S. Supreme Court
has held that the right to counsel enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the
Constitution includes the right to waive counsel, provided that the defendant
is found competent to proceed and is informed of the disadvantages of
representing himself. Mr. Roof’s lawyers argued that he was not competent, but
the judge found otherwise and allowed the waiver of counsel. Mr. Roof then
elected not to present evidence at the sentencing hearing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Police officers sometimes speak of “suicide by cop,” a
description of a situation where a person places himself in a position where
officers will be forced to kill him. Mr. Roof’s actions could be described as
“suicide by jury.” Since it is not possible, under our laws, for a defendant to
agree to a death sentence without the action of a jury, Mr. Roof tried to make
it easy for the jury to give him what he apparently wants—to be executed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">But by placing jurors in the position of having to carry out
Mr. Roof’s will, we do them injury. The policeman who kill suspects who are
committing “suicide by cop” do not emerge unscathed. As one <a href="https://www.policeone.com/police-products/communications/crisis-communications/articles/1228463-Suicide-by-cop-Prevention-response-and-recovery/">expert puts it</a>, “Officers
involved in SBC incidents often feel a sense of powerlessness and manipulation,
and this is typically reported to be an especially stressful and demoralizing
form of shooting trauma.” Not surprisingly, jurors in capital trials also <a href="http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Publications/Justice%20System%20Journal/Stress%20and%20the%20Capital%20Jury.ashx">suffer emotionally</a>, and those
who impose death sentences suffer greater PTSD symptoms than those who impose
life sentences.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">If Mr. Roof doesn’t want to live, why should we care if he
is executed? The answer, in my view, is that the justice system is the
conscience of the community. Just as the victims, while entitled to express
their opinion, cannot determine the sentence, so the defendant should not do so
either. Both of them are too close to the issue to be appropriately objective
and appropriately merciful. And if we are a nation of laws, we must make
certain that even in horrible cases, we do not disregard our most fundamental
principles, including the principal that human life is valuable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-14026525437250459602017-01-05T10:57:00.001-08:002017-02-28T18:38:01.369-08:00PROTECTING THE GUILTY<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Most people who enter the criminal
justice system are guilty. And that is how it should be; our law enforcement
system would not be worth much if it only arrested guilty people half the time,
and the remainder of arrestees were innocent. When I was in law school, one of
my professors opined that only half of the people who enter the criminal
justice system were guilty of anything. I thought that was a low estimate of
the number of innocent people in the justice system then, and still do. It is
true that the advent of DNA testing revealed that there are more innocent
people convicted than was previously thought. Conviction of the innocent is a serious
problem. But so is oppression of the guilty. The question is, who are those
guilty people, and how should we treat them?</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I’ve learned a lot about who they
are from dealing with them for almost 40 years of legal practice. The main
thing I’ve learned is that most of the time, there but for the grace of God go
I. They are just people. It is easy to think that someone who has killed
another person, or robbed a bank, or burglarized a home, or sold drugs, or
snatched a purse, must be a different species from me. But she is not. She is
just someone who made a wrong choice or a mistake. He likes hot chocolate in
the winter and swimming in the summer. He looks out the window of his cell and
enjoys watching the farmer let out his cows. My clients worry about their
families, their loved ones, even about me. “Drive safe!” they say as I leave
the prison—and they mean it! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Prisons these days do little to
rehabilitate those who inhabit them. But the one gift they can give is
unstructured time, which can allow those who are so inclined to rehabilitate
themselves through prayer, study, and consideration of those they have hurt.
Given the lack of foundation many of them experienced in early life, that
happens more often than I, at least, would expect.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">So, why should we protect the
guilty? Here are some important reasons.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">1. If we want to enforce moral and legal imperatives, we should abide
by them.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">2. We are all guilty and all members of the human family.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">3. If we take shortcuts to convict the guilty, we run the risk of
convicting the innocent.</span></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">4. If the guilty feel they have been treated with fairness and
compassion, they are more likely to be rehabilitated.</span></b></span><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In future posts, I will examine
each of these principles individually. But for the present, it is sufficient to
say that the criminal justice system exists, and should function, to protect
the guilty as well as the innocent.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-46954911756411559672014-06-25T15:57:00.005-07:002017-02-28T18:41:18.100-08:00VICTIMS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Who are the victims of capital punishment? Not just the
person executed. Not just his or her family and friends. Read on.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">“Three minutes before <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-news/wellons-files-federal-appeal-to-delay-execution-fo/ngMpK/" target="_blank">Wellons</a> was declared dead a nurse
standing to his left was seen asking one of the corrections officers if he was
ok, just before the officer fainted.” </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">By all accounts, Marcus Wellons’s execution was routine, as
those things go. He went to sleep and stopped breathing. But it was apparently
not routine for the officer who fainted. The list of former prison wardens who,
after retirement, talk about how painful it was to preside over executions,
grows ever longer. For example, Don Cabana, who presided over executions in
several states, eventually left prison work for academic life. “’There is a
part of the warden that dies with his prisoner,” <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/donald-cabana-warden-who-loathed-death-penalty-dies-at-67.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">he often said</a>.’” </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Asked to comment about the “botched” execution of Clayton
Lockett, who died of a heart attack after prison personnel failed to insert an
IV into his femoral vein, the retired <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-execution-town-20140506-story.html" target="_blank">prosecuting attorney said</a>, “Did he get
what he deserved? I don’t know, As I’ve gotten older, I’m a devout Christian,
and I just have more and more trouble, honestly, of the question of ‘get what I
deserve.’” </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Some of those involved in executions, then, admit their
pain. For others, the execution seems to bring out the worst parts of their
nature.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Recently, a Missouri prison employee told the lawyer for a
prisoner facing execution that their client was in the top 1% of prisoners, and
that he always obeyed rules and assisted new or weak prisoners to stay out of
trouble. He would like to support clemency for him, but the prison
administration discouraged him and started an investigation for
“over-familiarity.” As a result, the employee withdrew his support.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Another troubling aspect of capital punishment is the
response of victim families. A family member of the victims killed by <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/john-henry-set-for-execution-tonight-refuses-last-meal/2184971" target="_blank">John Ruthell Henry</a>, recently executed in Florida, commented after watching the
execution, “I actually feel good. I don’t feel sorry for him. . . . I wish it
could've been different. I wish he could’ve died the way he killed them.” </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Or,
as a victim family member who witnessed an Oklahoma execution where the
prisoner, <a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepage3/man-gets-no-answers-while-watching-father-s-killer-die/article_af6bd00e-bf6b-59ef-8415-eafb68ad8807.html" target="_blank">Scott Carpenter</a>, “convulsed, clenched his jaw, made noises and his legs lifted,” put
it, “Who knows whether he felt pain or not, but if he did endure a little pain
again, so what? It’s in no way in comparison to what his victim felt.” </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">These are a perfectly understandable responses, but, I
submit, not particularly healthy ones. Does the fact that a loved one suffered
pain really justify the desire to inflict pain on others?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Many victims long for answers from the person who killed
their loved one; few get them. A man said that he watched the
execution of his father’s killer, <a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepage3/man-gets-no-answers-while-watching-father-s-killer-die/article_af6bd00e-bf6b-59ef-8415-eafb68ad8807.html" target="_blank">Scott Carpenter</a>, “in hopes that he would make some
comments or make some explanation. He robbed me of that as well. He was just
quiet.”</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Why do we persist in imposing a punishment that wounds us,
troubles us, and brings out the worst in us?</span></div>
Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-33194176917068398602010-03-28T14:17:00.000-07:002017-02-28T18:47:10.794-08:00DO YOU WANT TO BE FREE OR DO YOU WANT TO BE SAFE?<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=197452" target="_blank">Reginald Clemons</a>, a Missouri death row inmate, awaits a hearing on whether there is new evidence of his innocence. A recent news story, which can read at the link below, reveals that the Missouri Attorney General recently told the court handling Mr. Clemons’s appeal that physical evidence, some of which may contain DNA, has been discovered in law enforcement files. This evidence may not have been available to Mr. Clemons’s trial attorneys. Like most online news stories, this one drew many comments, some welcoming the inquiry into Mr. Clemons’s evidence, and some condemning it. One comment (not on the website listed below) was, “Why is this murderer breathing my air?”</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">A recent story on NPR concerned released prison inmate <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124574748&sc=fb&cc=fp" target="_blank">Felix Aponte</a>, who donated his kidney to save the life of another man he met in prison. That link is below, too. Mr. Aponte explained, “I wanted to do something good in my life for the first time. All I've done is like, mischief.” This story generated a vigorous dialogue, with some people concluding that since the “hero” of the story was a convicted felon, his good deed should be discounted.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">These news items and comments reminded me of a story in one of my favorite children’s books, Wayside School is Falling Down, by Louis Sachar. Myron, a student at Wayside School, feels trapped by school rules. After lunch, instead of going back to his classroom, he goes down to the dark, mysterious school basement. There, he meets a man who asks him, “Do you want to be free, or do you want to be safe?” He explains that if Myron wants to be safe, he’ll have to follow all the rules, go to school, brush his teeth. . . Or he can be free. “I want to be free,” says Myron. He signs a paper “written in some kind of foreign language.” Thereafter, Myron doesn’t have to do anything the teacher says, and there is nothing she can do about it.</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Deciding to be free requires us to realize that the world actually does not revolve around us. The air we breathe doesn’t belong to me, or to Reggie Clemons, or to the man who commented on the story. Being free also requires us to realize that the world is uncertain, sometimes apparently written in a foreign language. It is easy to say, “Well, the jury convicted Reggie Clemons, or Felix Aponte, and the appeals court affirmed, so they must be guilty, and we can forget about them.” That is the safe way. But it is not the free way. Freedom requires us to let go of our prejudices and admit the possibility of uncertainty. Of course, even before Myron signed the paper, he didn’t have to sit in his seat and brush his teeth. He just had to accept the consequences if he didn’t. In the same way, if we let go of the notion that everyone convicted by a court is guilty and can never change, we will be faced with uncertainty. Sometimes the results will be good. Sometimes they will be bad. But that’s what freedom entails.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">There are advantages to being safe. Life is predictable, not upsetting. Risks are avoided. And there are advantages to being free. Freedom brings adventure, expanded possibilities, new experiences. So, do you want to be free, or do you want to be safe?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-29852278675267305272010-02-19T15:28:00.000-08:002017-02-28T18:38:38.181-08:00KICKING THE IMPRISONMENT HABIT<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Over two years ago, I wrote a piece for this blog called “Addiction to imprisonment.” Now, with the economy in distress, some government and judicial leaders are looking at kicking the habit. Consider the statements of Judge William Ray Price, Jr., the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri, at his recent “State of the Judiciary” speech:</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">“For years we have waged a “war on drugs,” enacted “three strikes and you’re out” sentencing laws, and “thrown away the key” to be tough on crime. What we did not do was check to see how much it costs, or whether we were winning or losing. In fact, it has cost us billions of dollars and we have just as much crime now as we did when we started. We have created a bottleneck by arresting far more people than we can handle down through the rest of the system. . . . It does no good to commit resources to law enforcement and to arrest criminals if you don’t know what you are going to do with them, or you cannot afford to do what you should with them, after they have been arrested. It does no good.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Judge Price went on to address the crisis in the Missouri Public Defender System and the inequities in the prosecution of offenses in Missouri, both topics that deserve posts of their own. Then he went on,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">“Perhaps the biggest waste of resources in all of state government is the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders and our mishandling of drug and alcohol offenders. It is costing us billions of dollars and it is not making a dent in crime. Listen to these numbers. In 1994, shortly after I came to the Court, the number of nonviolent offenders in Missouri prisons was 7,461. Today it’s 14,204. That’s almost double. . . . In 1994, appropriations to the Department of Corrections totaled $216,753,472. Today, it’s $670,079,452. The amount has tripled. And the recidivism rate for these individuals, who are returned to prison within just two years, is 41.6 percent. . . . [T]he simple fact is, we are spending unbelievable sums of money to incarcerate nonviolent offenders, and our prison population of new offenders is going up, not down -- with a recidivism rate that guarantees this cycle will continue to worsen at a faster and faster pace, eating tens of millions of dollars in the process. Missouri cannot afford to spend this much money without getting results. The problem is that we are following a broken strategy of cramming inmates into prisons and not providing the type of drug treatment and job training that is necessary to break their cycle of crime. Any normal business would have abandoned this failed practice years ago, and it is costing us our shirts.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">And, Judge Price proposed a solution: “We need to move from anger-based sentencing that ignores cost and effectiveness to evidence-based sentencing that focuses on results—sentencing that assesses each offender’s risk and then fits that offender with the cheapest and most effective rehabilitation that he or she needs.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">No one who follows the Supreme Court of Missouri would describe Judge Price as soft on crime. So when he shows signs of having awakened to the imprisonment addiction problem—aptly described as “anger-based sentencing—it gives me real hope that change is possible.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Judge Price’s proposals, although they suggest a major change in direction, are not radical enough. He seems to think that whatever we do to persons convicted of violent offenses is still all right. (“Violent offenders need to be separated from us so they cannot hurt innocent men, women or children, regardless of the cost.”) Actually, there have been recent advances in the treatment of violent offenders that show significant promise. In an Australian study of the effects of restorative justice programs, which allow crime victims to interact with the offenders, “In the first two years after arrest, violent offenders who participated in conferences had about 50 percent less reoffending than those who went to court.” (<a href="http://www.realjustice.org/library/jerryleeresearch.html" target="_blank">The study</a> also noted positive effects for victims. For example, “Almost half of the court-assigned victims said they would harm their offenders if they had the chance, compared to only 9 percent of conference participants.”) Interestingly, restorative justice techniques seem to reduce recidivism more among violent offenders than non-violent offenders. That’s not an argument for locking up more non-violent offenders; it just means that other techniques may be needed for rehabilitation for them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">But the major good news here is the suggestion of a shift in focus back to rehabilitation from “anger-based sentencing.” That will have several salutary effects, if it occurs. It will bring marginalized persons back into the work force and into full participation in their communities. It will save money. And it will fulfill the admonition of Jesus that: “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Matt. 25:40, NIV.</span>Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-91666193328180710022010-01-01T10:43:00.000-08:002017-02-28T18:46:22.287-08:00KEEPING THE COURTS' EYES ON THE PRIZE<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">First, an update to an earlier post,
“The Statute of Limitations is Not a Technicality.” At the time that post was
written, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
had overturned the conviction of James Ford Seale for violating the civil
rights of Charles Moore and Henry Dee, who were kidnapped and murdered by the
Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi in 1964. The reversal was based on a ruling that
the statute of limitations for the offense charged had expired before the
charge was filed. However, the en banc Fifth Circuit (a group made up of all of
the judges of the Fifth Circuit in active service), voted to grant rehearing.
After argument, the vote of the en banc judges on whether the conviction should
be affirmed or reversed was evenly divided. Under court rules, this had the
effect of reinstating the judgment of conviction, although the decision to do
so is not precedent for further decisions on the issue.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">One way to look at this development would be to say, “Well, I
guess the statute of limitations is a technicality after all!” Another way to
respond would be to say, “Hard cases make bad law.” A quick Google search of
this old saying shows that it may have originated, at least in print, in W. S.
Holdsworth’s History of English Law, published in 1926. (Other references
suggest it was first said by Oliver Wendell Holmes.) What this saying means is
that when a case presents facts which seem to call for one resolution, while
the law is on the other side, the facts generally win. I am reminded of a drug
case I lost several years ago despite what appeared to be a meritorious search
and seizure violation. I asked the lawyer for my client’s co-defendant why he
thought this had happened. “Oh,” he said, “It’s the too much dope rule.” That
is, the judges decided there was too much dope in the case for the defendants
to win. In Mr. Seale’s case, apparently half of the judges on the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals were unwilling to allow him to go free, despite the fact that
the law would seem to require that result.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">There is a certain satisfaction in seeing a case come out the way
the facts seem to dictate. I’m sure NPR Commentator Juan Williams, whose
criticism of the earlier Seale opinion spurred me to write the earlier post,
was gratified when Mr. Seale’s conviction was ultimately upheld. But there is a
danger in allowing this satisfaction to go too far. Recently, I was reading a
Texas case in which a conviction for murder was reversed because of grand jury
error. The prosecutor in that case admitted that, in violation of long-standing
and clearly stated Texas statutes, he routinely allowed police officers to
enter the grand jury room and cross-examine witnesses. The court reversed the
conviction, finding that absent this violation, it was unlikely that the
defendant would have been indicted. The court then took the opportunity to
explain the decision of public officers to follow the letter of the law was aptly described as follows:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No
officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers
of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law,
and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of
government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions
is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the
limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives."<br />
</span></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><em>United States v. Lee</em>, 106 U.S. 196,
220. . . (1882). . . .</span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">We are mindful that a finding of harmful error here may mean this case
will be tried again. Regretfully, witnesses will be inconvenienced and the
finality of justice sought by those who were touched by this child’s death will
be disturbed. Any benefit that society will derive from rendering the just
result in this appeal cannot, and will not, assuage the suffering that a
second trial may cause those close to the victim. Nevertheless, we are duty
bound to uphold the law and follow the old adage that “two wrongs do not
make a right.” If the State is able to avoid a just result in this case, its
prosecutors will be able to violate these statutes with impunity and visit an
injustice upon every citizen who comes under scrutiny by a Potter County Grand
Jury. The statutory protections, adopted by the Legislature to level the field
for an accused, will be substantially eroded and we will be at risk of losing
the benefit of statutory procedures intended to protect our constitutional
right to indictment if these violations are simply swept aside.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Regarding the cost of a second trial, if one follows, unfortunately this
cost would be borne by taxpayers who had no hand in the State’s error. This is
particularly unfortunate because the State’s error, as well as this possible
cost, could have been avoided if the State had simply obeyed the law. Something
the State requires of its citizens on a daily basis.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">We cannot countenance the State's purposeful violation of the law. The
duty <em style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Mason v. State</em>, 290 S.W.3d 498, 511
(Tex. App. – Amarillo 2009, pet. granted). It should be noted that this Court’s
opinion will not be the last word on this case. The notation “pet. granted” in
the citation means that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that state’s
highest court for criminal cases, has agreed to review the Amarillo court’s
opinion. So, we may find, once again, that hard cases make bad law. In the
meantime, though, we can thank the Texas Court of Appeals, Amarillo district,
for reminding all of us, and all judges, that “[W]e are duty bound to uphold
the law and follow the old adage that ‘two wrongs do not make a right.’”</span></span></span></div>
Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-22423967018039757892009-04-18T19:58:00.000-07:002017-02-28T18:40:03.536-08:00GUILTY PLEAS, PLEASE<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">I’ve handled many cases, misdemeanor and felony, over the last thirty-plus years as both a prosecutor and defense lawyer. And most of them have ended in guilty pleas. Guilty pleas are a result of negotiations between the defense and the prosecution. As a prosecutor, I learned to carefully consider the evidence and the appropriate punishment before making an offer. I also learned to consider, but not to be bound by, the wishes of crime victims. They certainly have a right to input, but sometimes cannot see the case objectively as required for a fair prosecution. As a defense lawyer, I've learned that the way to get good guilty plea bargains is to prepare for trial. I remember once discovering through a careful study of the prior conviction papers the prosecution proposed to use to enhance my client’s punishment that the prior conviction was invalid. That led to a MUCH better plea bargain. The other thing I learned about plea bargaining was to take the time to make sure the client understood exactly what was going on. Otherwise, the plea can blow up, either in court or later.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Do people like to plead guilty? Not usually, of course. Some of them know they are getting a better deal than they perhaps deserve, and are content. Some of them are angry at the time, but then calm down. I remember a letter I received from such a client, apologizing for blowing up at me in court and thanking me for doing a good job for her. All of them, though, end up accepting that there is evidence that will convict them of a crime, and most of them accept responsibility for what they did. That, it seems to me, is what is supposed to happen in the criminal justice system. </div>
</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Do innocent people plead guilty? Until DNA exonerations began, I would have said that this was very rare. Now I am not so sure. It does appear that some accused persons are so frightened and discouraged about the prospects for being found “not guilty” that they will accept a known punishment for something they didn’t do. I hope that hasn’t been true of any of my clients. I hope that they knew that I would fight hard for them if they decided to go to trial. I can’t say that I’ve won many criminal trials, but I can say that I fought hard!</div>
</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">
Are guilty pleas a good idea? Yes. Sometimes it is suggested that a person who pleads guilty “got off.” Rest assured that the person who pleads guilty and gets a twenty-year sentence goes to prison just like the person who goes to trial and gets a twenty-year sentence. Does the person who pleads guilty get a shorter sentence? Usually. But that’s fair. This is a person who has decided to accept the consequences of the charge and save everyone the time, expense and trouble of a trial. And that’s worth something. There is no clear formula that says, “This crime is worth x number of years, while that crime is worth y number of years. Sentences for the same crime vary from person to person, from state to state, from country to country. Rewarding those who make the system work smoothly makes sense, and doing so by shortening the sentence is a sensible way to do it.</div>
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-57035107522821382322009-03-14T18:40:00.000-07:002017-02-28T18:40:14.255-08:00LET'S GET REAL!<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">On February 26, 2009, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Larry Streu’s habeas corpus petition and remanded for a hearing. The question before the court was whether Mr. Streu had filed his petition on time. To decide this question, the court had to determine whether the time during which his motion to reopen his Missouri post-conviction action was pending in the Missouri courts counted against the time permitted by the federal habeas corpus statute for the filing of a habeas corpus petition. The court decided that the time did not count, that is, that the statute of limitations was “tolled” while the state court motion was pending in the Missouri courts. So far, so good. This result will likely allow Mr. Streu to have his constitutional arguments about why he was wrongfully convicted heard in federal court. But in the course of its opinion, the court suggested that Mr. Streu, who, until I was appointed to represent him in the Eighth Circuit, had been proceeding without a lawyer, might have filed the state court motion in order to give himself more time to file the federal petition. What’s wrong with this idea? Two things. First, Mr. Streu wants to get out of prison. He has no incentive to delay filing anything. The sooner he gets things filed, the better off he will be. Of course, since he is not a trained lawyer, and doesn’t have access to much in the way of legal research tools, filing court papers is a laborious process. But he certainly has no incentive to delay. Second, even if Mr. Streu did want to buy himself more time to prepare his federal petition, how would taking the time to file a state motion do that? Filing the state court motion takes just as much time and effort as filing a federal petition. So why did Mr. Streu file a state court motion? He did so because in general, issues that weren’t raised in state court can’t be raised in federal court. By filing his state court motion, he was trying to let the state court rule on an issue that he thought his state court lawyers had missed. If the state court had granted relief, that would have been fine with him, and he would not have needed to go to federal court at all. Obviously, this sort of filing should be encouraged by the federal court, not discouraged. The Streu decision will have the effect of doing that, and the federal court need not worry about delay.</span>Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-30906926533988660702009-02-15T16:38:00.000-08:002017-02-28T18:40:25.539-08:00FRED REVELS GOES HOME<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The first entry in this blog concerned the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Frederick Revels v. Mary Sanders, holding that the State of Missouri’s formula for determining whether Mr. Revels could be discharged from the state mental hospital where he had been confined for many years was unconstitutional. The State of Missouri unsuccessfully challenged that decision in the court en banc and in the United States Supreme Court. Finally, last month, Fred received a new hearing in the circuit court of Jackson County, Missouri, and was granted an unconditional discharge. The court concluded, “Mr. Revels has met his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he does not presently have a mental disease or defect that renders him dangerous to himself or others.” Therefore, the court, “with a great deal of angst and trepidation,” ordered his unconditional release. In the interim between the decision and his release, Mr. Revels has been diagnosed with some serious medical problems. It is hoped that in this case, justice delayed will not turn out to be justice denied.</span>Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-9795194113907620662008-09-15T17:21:00.000-07:002017-02-28T18:24:35.486-08:00THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS NOT A TECHNICALITY<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In 1964, two Mississippi teenagers, Charles Moore and Henry Dee were kidnapped and murdered by the Ku Klux Klan. James Ford Seale was arrested shortly after the bodies were found, but prosecutors judged there was insufficient evidence to convict him and did not file charges. A conspiracy of silence prevented his prosecution until 2007, when an elderly KKK member told the story in exchange for immunity. Seale was prosecuted 43 years after the crime occurred for the offense of kidnapping. He was convicted and sentenced to two life sentences.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">On September, 9, 2008, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction. The Court found that the five year statute of limitations had run long before the prosecution was commenced, and that the case was barred. Commenting on this action, Juan Williams, one of my favorite correspondents for National Public Radio, said that witnesses “stonewalled local officials and even congressional committees by claiming their Fifth Amendment right.” <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94449413" target="_blank">He commented</a>, “It’s just frustrating to see [the case] overturned on a technicality.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8434108538029204709#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title="">[1]</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I remember, around the time of the murders of the teens, going with my father to a meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, in support of Dr. Martin Luther King’s march in Selma, Alabama. I did a fifth grade research project on the civil rights movement. I have been fighting racial discrimination and violence most of my life. I have no sympathy for Mr. Seale, nor do I condone the negligence and inaction of prosecutors in this matter.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">But when we start talking about “technicalities,” I say, the Statute of Limitations is not a technicality. Nor is the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Here’s what the Fifth Circuit had to say about the purpose of the statute of limitations in the <em>Seale</em> opinion:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">[C]riminal limitations periods “provide predictability by specifying a limit beyond which there is an irrebuttable presumption that a defendant’s right to a fair trial would be prejudiced.” <em>United States v. Marion</em>, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971); see <em>Toussie v. United States</em>, 397 U.S. 112, 114-15 (1970) (“Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past.”)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Or, as the Supreme Court put it in <em>United States v. Kubrick</em>, 444 U.S. 111, 117 (1979)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">These enactments are statutes of repose; and although affording plaintiffs what the legislature deems a reasonable time to present their claims, they protect defendants and the courts from having to deal with cases in which the search for truth may be seriously impaired by the loss of evidence, whether by death or disappearance of witnesses, fading memories, disappearance of documents, or otherwise.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">It is true that the Fifth Circuit spent a lot of its opinion deciding which statute of limitations applies to Mr. Seale, since the law of limitation has changed several times in the 43 years since Moore and Dee were killed. Maybe that’s what makes Juan Williams think the case turns on a “technicality.” But statutes of limitations are an important part of the framework of laws which protect all of us from an overzealous justice system. In this case, they protect us from having to explain where we were on a particular afternoon 43 years ago, something that an <em>innocent</em> person would likely find quite hard to do.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So, although I would like to see Mr. Seale receive the consequences of what he did 43 years ago, I am not willing to sacrifice the rule of law to that end. Nor was the Fifth Circuit: “While we are mindful of the seriousness of the crimes at issue, we cannot abdicate our duty to faithfully apply a valid limitations period.” Had the Fifth Circuit abdicated that duty, this would have been a particularly egregious example of that other maxim, “Hard cases make bad law.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">* * *</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8434108538029204709#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title="">[1]</a> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94449413</span>Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-40687332289032315282008-07-14T19:40:00.000-07:002017-02-28T18:24:24.563-08:00SIGH OF RELIEF<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The United States Supreme Court’s latest decision in the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees (<em>Boumedienee v. </em>Bush, decided June 12, 2008) made me heave one. I don’t think most Americans realize how lucky they are to have a constitution which doesn’t let the government lock people up for a long time just because the government thinks they are dangerous, scary, or disagreeable. I have been alternately furious and terrified by the Bush administration’s position that because there are terrorists in the world, they can decide that anyone is an “enemy combatant” and keep him locked up forever. No trial, no charge, no hearing, no nothing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I’m reminded of the poem attributed to Nazi resistor Pastor Martin Niemoller:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">First they came for the Socialists, and I didn’t speak up,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">because I wasn’t a Socialist.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">because I wasn't a Jew.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Then they came for me, and there was no one left</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">to speak up for me.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">(I’ve learned from Wikipedia that Pastor Niemoller may not have written this poem, and that there are many variants. I still like it.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The poem reminds us that what we do to those who are dangerous, or those whom Jesus calls “the least of these,” comes back on us. That’s what the Bush administration needs to be reminded of. Also the dissenters on the United States Supreme Court, who let fear-mongering overcome their duty to the Constitution.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I don’t want to close without commenting on the scariest comment I heard about this decision. That came from Newt Gingrich, who described it as a decision by “five lawyers.” That is exactly the sort of lawyer-bashing promoted by Dick the Butcher, whose statement, in Shakespeare’s King Henry VI, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," was intended to keep his own treachery from being discovered.</span>Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-46802964567558248922008-05-24T17:01:00.000-07:002017-02-28T18:34:24.332-08:00ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND HABEAS CORPUS REFORM, PART 2The second major change in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">habeas</span> corpus created by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">AEDPA</span>) was a new limitation on the granting of relief. Under prior law, the state court's application of constitutional principles was reviewed <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">de</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">novo</span></em> by the federal court which was not required to give any sort of deference to the state court's analysis. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">AEDPA</span> provides, however, that a federal court may only grant relief for a state court's constitutional error if that error was an <em>unreasonable </em>application of federal constitutional law as decided by the United States Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
This provision has had the effect of producing many federal court decisions that say, "We think the state court was wrong about the constitution, but not <em>unreasonably</em> wrong, so the conviction stands." Why state prisoners should not have the benefit of the United States Constitution is beyond me. I understand that many people think people who have been convicted of crimes are a different species from the law-abiding, but that is simply not the case.<br />
<br />
If we do not speak out for those who seem not to deserve it, there will be no one to speak out for us.Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-77787623757263987552008-05-18T13:53:00.000-07:002017-02-28T18:34:07.264-08:00ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND HABEAS CORPUS REFORM, PART 1In the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, commonly known as "AEDPA", the United States Congress abruptly "overhauled" the remedy of habeas corpus available in federal court to persons with criminal convictions. Habeas corpus has traditionally been the remedy which provided a check on unjust or ineffective state criminal procedures. When habeas corpus relief is granted, the federal court can order a state court to release, retry, or re-sentence the petitioner. Because a habeas corpus petitioner must ordinarily raise his grounds for relief in state court before proceeding in federal court, habeas corpus serves as the remedy of last resort for many persons who are the victims of unjust conviction or sentence.<br />
<br />
For many years before 1996, some law-and-order advocates had suggested that habeas corpus relief was too readily available and needed to be limited. These concerns had been overcome by the view that injustice needed a remedy, even if that remedy was sometimes long in coming or inconvenient to administer. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, however, the law-and-order tidal wave swept over these calmer heads, and AEDPA was passed. The AEDPA made two primary changes in the habeas corpus remedy which greatly limit the access of wrongfully convicted persons to justice. <br />
<br />
The first of these changes, which will be discussed in this post, was the enactment of a statute of limitations. Prior to AEDPA, there had been no deadline for filing a habeas corpus action. Most successful actions were filed within a relatively short time after state proceedings were complete, but a small number of persons obtained relief years after their convictions and sentences. This was not generally true in death penalty cases; in those cases the pressure of execution dates usually resulted in prompt filings. However, to fix this non-problem, the AEDPA established a one-year statute of limitations. The year begins when the conviction and sentence become final in state court. It is tolled while post-conviction proceedings are pending in state court. Once those proceedings are over, the year starts running again from the point at which tolling began. This sounds rather straightforward, but in practice, it has been difficult to determine both when the conviction and sentence become final and when post-conviction proceedings are pending. Different states have different procedures and when they start and end is not always clear. This has resulted in a number of cases in which either the litigant or his counsel has miscounted the deadline by a few days, and petition is dismissed as a result of the error. The situation is particularly difficult for those petitioners who have counsel who make a mistake about the deadline. The courts have been extremely reluctant to make exceptions to the deadline in those cases, holding the client accountable for the lawyer's mistake. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not considered to be a legal excuse for failing to meet the habeas corpus statute of limitations.<br />
<br />
Holding a client accountable for her lawyer's mistake about the statute of limitations makes sense in the context of the ordinary civil case. If my lawyer fails to file suit in time on my claim against the person who ran into my car, I can sue my lawyer for malpractice, and if my suit had merit, I will be entitled to a judgment against my lawyer for the damages I would have recovered in the lawsuit. In that situation, the defendants in the lawsuit get the benefit of the statute of limitations to which they are entitled, and I get the benefit of the damages to which I am entitled. Unfortunately, if my lawyer makes a mistake about my <em>habeas corpus</em> deadline, I can't sue my lawyer to get my conviction reversed. That can only happen in the habeas corpus action. So, as a result of my lawyer's negligence over which I have no control, I may find myself denied access to the courts. Since many people in this situation have court-appointed lawyers, they cannot even be faulted for picking the wrong lawyer. This result, while protecting the interest in finality that underlies the statute of limitations, is highly unjust to the petitioner.<br />
<br />
What's the solution? One possibility would be to repeal the statute of limitations, but allow a defense of laches. If the state could show that the petitioner was or should have been aware of his ground for relief well before the petition was filed, and that the state's interests were harmed by the delay in bringing the action, dismissal would be appropriate. This is really the most just resolution of the problem, but it seems unlikely to win much support.<br />
<br />
A less drastic solution would be to expand the doctrine of equitable tolling, now available only in very limited situations. If the delay is relatively short, little would be lost from the certainty of the statute of limitations to ease the requirements for equitable tolling to cover the situation where a lawyer makes a mistake. Most lawyers would prefer not to be in this situation, so it is unlikely that wholesale disregard of the statute would occur. Obviously, if the delay were several months, the burden would fall on the client to show that she diligently kept up with what her lawyer was supposed to be doing. If it were shown that the lawyer was recklessly negligent, for example that she failed to inform the client that there WAS a deadline, or did not know herself that such a deadline exists, disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer would serve to inform the bar that if they choose to accept such representation, they must inform themselves about the statutory requirements. The threat of such proceedings should be a sufficient deterrent to lawyers. Similarly, if a <em>pro se</em> litigant claimed total ignorance of the statute, barring his suit would be justified on the general principle that one is presumed to know the law. But an honest mistake about the limitation period which resulted in a filing which was not seriously late should not bar a <em>pro se</em> petition, either.Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-38166079643519892652008-05-08T17:59:00.000-07:002017-02-28T18:34:33.991-08:00ADDICTION TO IMPRISONMENTThe American criminal justice system--and maybe Americans in general--are addicted to imprisonment. Recent studies show that 1% of Americans are in prison, a very high percentage. Few other countries routinely imprison people for stealing and drug offenses as we do. This addiction, like all addictions, is expensive. And, like other addictions, it creates its own economy. Economically depressed areas want prisons for the jobs they generate, but that requires prisoners to fill the beds. Of course, people who spend significant amounts of time in prison are likely to return, particularly since our society is highly intolerant of people who have been convicted of crime, done their time, and been released. We seem to want to show those who break the law that we are "mad as hell and just won't take it any more!" But returning anger for wrongdoing only generates anger in the wrongdoers. There has to be another way.Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434108538029204709.post-47144214357015392622008-03-25T11:49:00.000-07:002017-02-28T18:34:46.188-08:00FREEDOM FOR NGRI DEFENDANTSome twenty years ago, my client Frederick Revels, in a drug induced psychotic rage, killed three members of his family. Initially, his mental condition made him incompetent to proceed. After he recovered, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and placed in a mental institution. He has been there ever since! However, for at least 15 years, he has not received any psychiatric treatment. His doctors agree that his mental illness is in remission, and he is not dangerous. However, under Missouri law, Mr. Revels must prove not only that he is not dangerous, but that he will never again be dangerous. In a decision earlier this month, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held this requirement unconstitutional. A motion for rehearing will likely be filed, but assuming this decision holds, Mr. Revels will likely be released after a new hearing.Elizabeth Unger Carlylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18336466901414766911noreply@blogger.com0