Don’t like how the criminal justice system works? Think it’s replete with corruption and lies?  It just doesn’t do what you think it should do?  No problem. Just create one of your own!!!

In Bozeman, Montana, a group of locals decided to hold a meeting at the public library to decide what to do.  Via the Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

A meeting is scheduled at the Bozeman Public Library at 1:30 p.m. Saturday with a presentation and vote to decide if a common law grand jury should be in Gallatin County, said Averil Heath, who is coordinating the effort. A similar meeting is planned at 10 a.m. Saturday at the Livingston Public Library for a common law grand jury in Park County.

“I believe that justice is not being served, and there is a great deal of corruption taking place and no one is being held accountable,”  [Averil] Heath said. Continue reading →

The evidence that Vonte Skinner murdered Lamont Peterson was shaky, enough so that the first trial ended in a hung jury.  But the second trial included the introduction of evidence that defied everything a lawyer thought he knew about evidence.

[T]he most significant issues concern the admission of defendant’s rap lyrics that were found in the car he was driving at the time of his arrest. Prior to defendant’s first trial the judge ruled, over defendant’s objections, that the State could introduce the selections with specified redactions. Defendant wrote the lyrics over a period of several years. The State pointed to one lyric written after September 2005, but conceded that others were written as many as three to four years prior to this crime. The jury was not given any information about when the lyrics were written.

At this trial, the State referenced the rap lyrics in its opening and introduced them in its case in chief to establish defendant’s motive and intent, not in response to an attack on the State’s evidence. Continue reading →

Some weird hits came in a few days ago from a “disqus” comment thread at a board I hadn’t heard of before.  This isn’t particularly unusual, as there is no telling where or why a link to a post is going to end up in an unusual place.

In this instance, it was a Catholic-based bulletin board discussing overmilitarization of police based on the purchase of an army surplus armored vehicle, segueing into Radley Balko’s excellent book, The Rise of the Warrior Cop.  A couple of links to posts here involving police misconduct were tossed in for support.  They elicited this reaction:

Can you please cite to some factual sources that actually support your generalization that “police murder or rape people in their custody”? The simple justice link you provided is so overtly biased, inflammatory and hysterical that it’s nothing more than a rant and doesn’t merit serious consideration.  Tons of opinion, very few facts.  The fact that you’re calling an anal cavity search RAPE doesn’t lend you credibility, either. Continue reading →

When left to their own discretion, school administrators were the target of reproach for applying rules inconsistently.  Much like the push for federal sentencing guidelines, the theoretical expectation is that there be a foolish consistency in the punishment of students and defendants based upon easily quantifiable metrics.  Bureaucracy loves easily quantifiable metrics, as it enables clerks to check boxes rather than think.

Thus was born the zero tolerance approach of schools toward whatever bogeyman was destroying America’s youth.  Lest this sound unduly flip, the rationale which found some justification when addressing heroin was applied with equal force for ibuprophen.  No drugs means no drugs. That’s how zero tolerance rolls. Continue reading →

Soon after #ReinventLaw’s dog and pony show, I suggested that it was sad and pathetic that the gurus of the Future of Law couldn’t bear the thought of scrutiny.  They adored themselves so much that they threw parties to celebrate their fabulosity, but the only people invited were those who loved them as much. It’s what Marco Randazza liked to call a circle jerk.

So I made an offer. If they truly believed they had the goods, then I would be willing to give of my time to provide balance to their hallelujah choir. If their ideas were sound, they would withstand scrutiny.  If not, then, well, not.

In a few weeks, the #ReinventLaw dog and pony show comes to New York City.  As it happens, that’s where I am. Opportunity knocks, right? So I waited by the mailbox for my invitation to speak.  And I waited. I’m waiting still. Continue reading →

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of the Susan B. Anthony List, which is quite surprising given its awkward standing issue. It’s also important that it did, as the damage done by an Ohio law criminalizing speech that was false or made in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity is likely to do great harm long before any justiciable “case or controversy” exists.

The Wall Street Journal explains the background:

Ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, an antiabortion group called the Susan B. Anthony List announced plans for a billboard campaign against Rep. Steve Driehaus (D., Ohio) based on his vote for the health care law. They were to read, “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.” But they never were posted after Mr. Driehaus threatened legal action against the billboard company. Continue reading →

The 7th Circuit, in upholding a $30 booking fee imposed by the Village of Woodridge on every person arrested by its police, explained its rational basis in simple but brutal terms:

Woodridge’s booking fee clearly passes the rational basis test. In imposing the fee, Woodridge hopes to offset the cost of booking arrestees, or at the very least to collect revenue, either of which is a legitimate goal.

To “collect revenue,” even without a necessary connection to the “fee for service” aspect of the sentence, is close enough.  The collection of revenue is a legitimate goal.  And indeed, it’s not merely legitimate, but overarching.

In his new home at the Washington Post, Radley Balko offers a laundry list of horribles where the collection of revenue is not only legitimate, but sufficiently important to come before public safety. Continue reading →

Entire conferences are built around shiny iToys, and attended by lawyers who inexplicably adore their gadgets more than they do the skills like cross-examination or, heaven forfend, persuasive writing.  Because technology is the future. Because tech is their friend.

Except when it fails. Via Alex Craigie:

But the internet is all abuzz about Michael Bay’s meltdown on Monday during a Samsung press conference at the CES 2014 Conference. If you’ve missed the viral video, it’s not really that earth shattering. But, let’s agree that it’s lucky for Bay that he doesn’t have to count on his public speaking skills to earn a paycheck. If you or I were presenting evidence and our computer or Trial Director program went screwy, apologizing and walking off wouldn’t be a realistic option. Continue reading →

There may be bits of this with which some may take issue, but this is the advice and perspective of a police officer (no, I can’t prove he’s really a cop, but from its content, I’m prepared to go out on a limb) and it’s not only pretty damn good, but quite helpful to see the world through his eyes.

A small taste:

I’ve been seeing a handful of “Know your rights” style infographics pop up lately.

Continue reading →

Ohio’s Jeff Gamso has added his own mustachioed wrinkle in the lawyer confidence game series* that has wended its way from Judge Richard Kopf to Houston’s Mark Bennett to here.

I’ve turned down work, turned away clients and their families because they asked me to do not what was unethical (I’ve turned those folks away, too, but that’s a different issue) but what was impossible. There are things the law does not allow.  There are times when there’s nothing else to do, nothing to be done.  It sucks, but there it is.  And I won’t take your money.  It’s too much like stealing.

Among the many ugly truths of lawyering is that people believe us, which means that if we’re larcenous in heart or mind, the opportunity to steal is there. I’ve quipped many times that if I wasn’t so damned honest, I could be rich. Not only is it easy, but clients wouldn’t have the slightest clue that their lawyer was taking advantage of them. Indeed, they would be more inclined to thank their lawyer for his hard, hard work and imaginative diligence than call out his theft. Continue reading →