CNN Justice notes that Joshua Komisarjevsky wants to make a deal. Komisarjevsky is the co-defendant with Stephen Hayes, convicted of the Cheshire Connecticut Petit rapes and murders.

July 2007, Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes invaded a home in Cheshire; beat and tied up Dr. William Petit; raped and strangled his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit; molested one of their daughters; and set the family’s house on fire before attempting to flee.

The two daughters — 17-year-old Hayley Petit and 11-year-old Michaela Petit, both of whom had been tied to their beds — died of smoke inhalation. Petit escaped to a neighbor’s home.

Hayes has been sentenced to death.  While Komisarjevsky situation is somewhat different than Hayes’, it’s not enough so to feel comfortable that he won’t face the same fate.  There’s little chance of his not being convicted, and too much chance that the jury will vote to end his life. 

So Joshua Komisarjevsky’s lawyer, unnamed in the CNN story but who I assume to be Jeremiah Donovan, wants to cut a deal to take death off the table.  To this end, a motion was filed that explains why Komisarjevsky is less culpable than Hayes and why Judge Jon Blue should accept the offer to plea. 

The motion states that Komisarjevsky’s primary reason for the conditional plea is to “avoid another lengthy, expensive and emotionally charged trial that will undoubtedly cause extreme mental anguish to the Petit and to the Hawke families, to the community at-large and to his own family, friends and supporters.”

This, of course, is absurd.  The primary reason for the condition plea is to save Komisarjevsky from death.  It’s a pretty good reason to want a deal, given the likelihood of execution as the outcome.  But it makes for a weak bargaining position.

This case is both a great and terrible example of plea bargaining.  Deals are bilateral.  There has to be something for both sides to gain, and lose, in order to make a deal.  In contract, it’s called “consideration.”  In criminal law, the consideration is the fear of losing, whether by conviction and sentence if one is the defendant or by acquittal and release for the prosecution. 

The problem for Donovan is that his gun is empty.  He’s shooting blanks and he knows it.  The evidence against Komisarjevsky is beyond overwhelming, leaving essentially no hope of beating the rap.  And it’s such a horrific crime that the potential for death cannot be ignored.  Offering to plea guilty has no counterpart here of acquittal. Offering life rather than death gives the prosecution nothing.  It’s an offer without consideration.

And so, Donovan has attempted to frame his motion in such a way as to create a give-back where none otherwise exists.  The plea will save the state from a “lengthy, expensive and emotionally charged trial,” and save the Petit and Hawkes’ families “extreme mental anguish.”  Donovan is doing what lawyers have to do, sometimes make lemonade out of lemons.

There’s no harm in making the motion.  The worst that can happen is that the judge says no and he’s in the same position as he is now.  On the other hand, the argument proffered, that it’s good for the state and the families, is weak.  Those are concerns for the prosecution to offer, not the defense.  To the extent there is merit to the arguments, they should motivate the prosecution to offer a deal to Komisarjevsky, rather than the other way around.  I would expect Donovan is well aware of this.

What seems most likely is that Donovan is making his best plea for mercy now, before his world heats up beyond control when the trial is about to start.  Maybe now heads are a little cooler.  Maybe now the need to closure, a misguided need though it may be, has been sated by the sentence imposed on Hayes.  Maybe now Judge Blue has proven his death penalty bona fides and need not do so a second time.  Maybe.

This is likely the best opportunity Komisarjevsky will get to save his life.  And he’s got little to trade for it.  It puts the ball in Judge Blue’s court, testing his mettle on the death penalty, on mercy, on blood lust.  Donovan is trying to give him the wedge to distinguish between Stephen Hayes, the person who lit the match, and Komisarjevsky, the person who, though  guilty of many wrongs, did not chose the death of the Petits.

“Steven Hayes admitted raping and strangling Mrs. Hawke Petit; Steven Hayes purchased the gasoline and doused the house with it, including specifically over Mrs. Hawke Petit’s body; and, as the state has already argued, Steven Hayes lit the fire that culminated in the unnecessary, senseless and tragic deaths of the Petit children,” the motion stated.

“Coupled with these realities is the fact while Joshua Komisarjevsky is guilty of many things, he never intended the deaths of Jennifer Hawke Petit or her two daughters, which he explained to law enforcement while giving a prompt and detailed rendition of events that has been corroborated in large measures by the state’s forensic evidence,” the document continued.

The opportunity is there for the court to find a reasoned basis to distinguish between Hayes and Komisarjevsky. There are legitimate reasons to conclude that his conduct, though horrible, is not as horrible as his co-defendant., and that Judge Blue may believe Hayes’ sentence of death appropriate, that death is not appropriate for Komisarjevsky.

If Judge Blue wants to, he can grant the motion. He has the opportunity to contemplate what becomes of Joshua Komisarjevsky.  Now is when the decision will be made whether he lives or dies.

Like almost everyone reading this, I lack any qualifications to suggest the implications of the meltdown(s) occurring in Japan.  Experience has taught me, however, that promises by experts have never saved a life.  We will learn the significance of these events, whether they be dire or demonstrative proof that the nuclear energy industry has advanced to the stage where we need no longer fear catastrophe.

From Morgsatlarge, via David Kopel at VC, a letter by Dr Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT, in Boston. He is a PhD Scientist, whose father has extensive experience in Germany’s nuclear industry.

I am writing this text (Mar 12) to give you some peace of mind regarding some of the troubles in Japan, that is the safety of Japan’s nuclear reactors. Up front, the situation is serious, but under control. And this text is long! But you will know more about nuclear power plants after reading it than all journalists on this planet put together.

There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.

By “significant” I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on – say – a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.

I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake. There has not been one single (!) report that was accurate and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a weakness in the Japanese crisis communication).

The explosion Tuesday at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has elevated the situation there to a “serious accident” on a level just below Chernobyl, a French nuclear official said, referring to an international scale that rates the severity of such incidents.

The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale — or INES — goes from Level 1, which indicates very little danger to the general population, to Level 7, a “major accident” in which there’s been a large release of radioactive material and there will be widespread health and environmental effects.

“It’s clear we are at Level 6, that’s to say we’re at a level in between what happened at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl,” Andre-Claude Lacoste, president of France’s nuclear safety authority, told reporters Tuesday.

A Level 6 seems a pretty major to me.  Are we still happy because it could have been worse?

Having received some inquiries/complaints about the lack of transparency around SJ, I thought a quick tour might squelch the rumors that this blawg is actually written by a large group of elves in a boiler room.  So buckle up and enjoy the ride.

This is the entrance to SJ World Headquarters.  Notice our security force.  You can never be too safe.

This is the SJ reseach library.

This is the SJ waiting room, where all the important visitors to World HQ sit and wait.

This is the SJ  combo art collection and heating plant.  You can never have too much heat.

And this is where I sit in the morning before sunrise, drink a few cups of joe and type stuff on the computer.  No elves.

Hope you enjoyed the tour.

Over at Military Underdog, Eric Mayer tells the story of the lawyer who loved too much.

A fellow attorney was lauded for his use of tech (particularly PowerPoint slideshows) during closing arguments. He used pictures and music to portray a very touching scene designed to get the finder of fact to sympathize with his client. In one case, he used it in a Involuntary Manslaughter case where the client drank, drove, wrecked, and killed the passenger in the car. The case was actually a negotiated plea for 2 years. The judge sentenced his client to 4 years. So, his client did the 2 years as negotiated.

He felt like he was on a roll, and a lot of folks complimented him on using a very emotional PowerPoint in his closing. As a result, his boss encouraged everyone to find ways to incorporate technology into their openings and closings.

In another case, a marijuana case, the lawyer was urged to take a good plea.

“Cut your losses,” we said. “Military juries get pissed about this stuff. Go with the judge.”

He didn’t listen. He wanted to make music. He wanted to extract emotion. And he wanted to try it on a jury.

His client was guilty. They all knew that. For sentencing argument, the attorney rambled for 50 minutes, then presented a musical powerpoint as the finale’. The lights turned on after the song, and the jury’s faces told a simple story.

They were pissed.

Not even an hour passed for deliberations. 5 years, bad-conduct discharge. It was 3 years harsher than a guy caught with 35 child pornography videos some months earlier.

In  the comments that follow,  Carolyn Elefant argues that, like it or not, technology has come to the courtroom.

Look, it’s one thing to rail against the focus on technology to the exclusion of practice skills and judgment. And I will grant you that in your example, the use of Powerpoint in this case seemed both misguided and unfortunate.

But technology is coming to the courtrooms – perhaps not criminal or military courts, but federal courts and state courts in more metropolitan areas. And if solo and small firm lawyers are not familiar with how to use it in their cases, they will be at a serious disadvantage.

To which Eric replies :

I’m not railing against the use of technology. I’m railing against reliance upon the same.

The guy in my anecdote centered his case around the PowerPoint presentation. It guided his argument and was even the focus of his choice of forum. Much of his overconfidence came from others (particularly superiors) gushing over his use of tech. They should have gushed over his use of tech to SUPPORT his argument.

Rarely do we see such a fundamental issues played out so clearly.  Eric is hardly a Luddite:

When I arrive in court, I have a laptop (sometimes 2), iPad, iPhone, and MiFi (this doesn’t include the stuff brought by my co-counsel). This is in addition to the tech already in the military courtroom, which is substantial (Have you seen the size of the defense budget in this country?)

How much of this hardware he needs or uses is hard to say, but clearly he doesn’t fear it.  At the same time, he’s not blinded by love.  Many are.  Whether its the encouragement of  superior or the high tech choir on the internet, where things are so crazy that  there are blogs dedicated to lawyers who use Macs, some hear the message that cases are won by flashy presentations and shiny hardware.  If there’s a small “i” somewhere in your bag, you’re golden.

We all have anecdotes about technology, how it worked well in one instance, enabling a jury to see images with the circles and arrows and marks that made them understand an argument that might otherwise have been incomprehensible, and how the PowerPoint inexplicably failed during summation, leaving the lawyer stymied, confused, embarrassed and empty handed.

But Eric’s story is apocryphal not because of a technical glitch, but because it shows how we can come to adore technology too much.  So much that it confounded our judgment and makes us forget that tech is just a tool in our box, to be pulled out when it suits the job and otherwise to lay there untouched. 

Carolyn is right, that technology is a fact of life.  It would be foolish to ignore the existence of potent tools that can facilitate our efforts.  Only an idiot would use the butt of a screwdriver to drive home a nail when there’s a hammer available.  But technology should be used because it suits what we do, not the other way around.  We don’t develop our case to make it tech friendly, but take advantage of tech because it furthers our defense.

It can be very difficult not to fall in love with the tools available to us, to come to believe that these tools can do anything, win anything, make every case a winner.  Talk about them, that failure to use something like a PowerPoint presentation spells disaster in the courtroom confuses the tool with the craftsman.  Some cases will have no use for tech.  Some cases won’t be won no matter how many small “i”s you have in your bag.  Some cases demand skills for which there are no technological substitutes.

Which case is which is a matter of lawyerly judgment.  There’s no tech substitute for judgment.

And no matter how many small “i”s you have in your bag, there is no case that can be won with a bag filled with hi-tech and devoid of the basic lawyering skills that have been used to defend the accused forever.  Those who love tech too much may forget that the ability to examine and cross, open and close, voir dire and object, will always be more important that the shiniest of gadgets.

There aren’t a lot of World War II vets around anymore.  Their service to our country has given rise to the name, “The Greatest Generation.”  But that doesn’t mean that any particular vet has the greatest ideas.  Even 91 year old Martin Harty, first-term state representative from Barrington, New Hampshire. 

From the Concord Monitor :

A 91-year-old state representative told a constituent that he believes in eugenics and that the world would be better off without “defective people.”

Barrington Republican Martin Harty told Sharon Omand, a Strafford resident who manages a community mental health program, that “the world is too populated” and there are “too many defective people,” according to an e-mail account of the conversation by Omand. Asked what he meant, she said Harty clarified, “You know the mentally ill, the retarded, people with physical disabilities and drug addictions – the defective people society would be better off without.”

There’s something about being 91 years old, whether it’s the disinhibition of old age or the onset of senile dementia.  Word around the statehouse if that Harty isnt turning out to be the most effective legislator.

Colleagues say he is hard of hearing and has appeared confused in recent House sessions.

“He’s shown signs of great confusion in committee in terms of House process and content,” said Rep. Marilinda Garcia, a Salem Republican who serves with Harty on the House Legislative Administration Committee.

So why is he tolerated?

Rep. Jon Richardson, an Allenstown Republican on the Legislative Administration Committee, said he does not condone Harty’s comments on any level, but he takes into account the fact that Harty is a World War II veteran in his 90s.

House Speaker William O’Brien said in a statement that he does not endorse Harty’s comments but respects “his longstanding commitment to protect the values we cherish.”

“As someone who served in General Patton’s Army in North Africa and Italy against dictators like Hitler and Mussolini, he has given far more to our country and our ideals than most of us ever will,” O’Brien said.

That may well be true, but at what point does the free pass for a World War II vet expire?  One can certainly respect and honor the sacrifice a soldier made for his country while recognizing that his brain is past its prime. 

My father is a World War II veteran as well, having earned his bronze star and three purple hearts.  It wasn’t until he reached his 80s that he was ready to talk about his time in the Ardennes Forest.  His stories were compelling, horrifying and fascinating. And if my father ran for office, I wouldn’t vote for him.  He is still a wonderful raconteur, but his finger is no longer on the pulse of the nation.  To his credit, he knows it.

Martin Harty, for reasons unknown, felt that he would make a good state rep at the age of 91.  Apparently, enough of his constituents agreed to elect him. I’m going to take a complete leap of faith and guess that he didn’t run on the eugenics platform.  His initiative, then, might come as a bit of a surprise, maybe even an embarrassment, to the good citizens of his district.

Of course, Harty has lived a good long time, and may believe that his experiences combined with the unlikelihood of his running for re-election, allows him to speak his mind on issues of controversy.  Thus, Harty elucidates:

Harty said nature has a way of “getting rid of stupid people,” and “now we’re saving everyone who gets born.”

Omand says Harty then stated, “I wish we had a Siberia so we could ship them all off to freeze to death and die and clean up the population.”

Harty told the Monitor he was “just kidding” about Siberia.

Before you dismiss Harty out of hand for being some crazy old coot, his ideas are not without their cultural and historical foundations.  Consider  how the Inuits use to put the non-productive members of their family during times of famine onto an ice floe and let them drift out to sea.  Of course, those weren’t the mentally ill, or even the terminally stupid.  Those were the old folks and the practice is called senilicide.

Maybe Harty isn’t as crazy as he seems.  Just misdirected? Only kidding, as the really nutty ones here are the people who voted for this honorable World War II veteran to represent them in the state legislature.  What the heck were they thinking?

Update:  Even service in WWII  wasn’t enough to carry him through:

State Rep. Martin Harty (R-NH) has resigned from the New Hampshire House of Representatives following his comment to a constituent that mentally challenged people and other “defective” people should die in a modern-day Siberia.

New Hampshire Republican leaders are searching for ice floes.

When the market for lawyers crashed, so too did the work/life balance scam being promoted by those who sought to rationalize their choices.  Just as misery loves company, so do those who chose unconventional paths but refuse to face up to their choices. 

There is nothing wrong with making the decision to reject the typical lawyer path.  It’s not for everyone, and given the numbers of warm bodies being churned out of law schools, and the lies promulgated about being able to “have it all,” there were bound to be plenty of people for whom the law really wasn’t a good fit.  Let me emphasize: There is nothing wrong with this.

But why, then, are some lawyers who decide to pave their own way ashamed of themselves?

I would expect them to deny it to their dying breath. but the evidence is indisputable.  They hold hands and chant, like third graders in the choir, that they are real lawyers.  Sadly, Susan Cartier Liebel, founder of Solo Marketing University, has chosen to use her bully pulpit to become the  head cheerleader for this delusion.

Those who proclaim ‘real’ lawyers as only those who live and breathe the law – well this tragic stereotyped lawyer is often the one pictured as working 100 hours per week forgoing their families, their health, and other personal or business interests.  This scary ‘real’ lawyer is the one most prone to falling into disabling depression, life-altering addiction,  deliberately committing egregious acts to get disbarred because they can’t voluntarily slow down or admit they don’t want law to consume their souls anymore or the pressure to sustain the ‘image’ is no longer bearable.

‘Real’ lawyers come in all shapes and sizes and flavors.

There is no guru on any hill anywhere I know of who has been universally recognized and authorized to determine who has the requisite amount of passion and purpose, the right blend of hours worked and the perfect balance of all of life’s activities to call one lawyer over another a ‘real lawyer’… except the bar commissioners who give (or take away) a legal license based upon your ability to do your job and your other activities within ethical boundaries.

Susan has always had a nasty, if particularly unpersuasive, habit of lapsing into what Stephen Colbert calls “truthiness.”

Merriam-Webster’s #1 Word of the Year for 2006:

1. truthiness (noun)

1 : “truth that comes from the gut, not books” (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report,” October 2005)

2 : “the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true” (American Dialect Society, January 2006)

By creating a strawman, a caricature, and then jabbing at it a few times if not landing a serious blow, she rallies the misbegotten to her side, stroking their fevered brow. They need validation, fearful that others are laughing at them, and she offers it, collecting friends and admirers like Father Damien collected lepers.  Except Father Damien actually helped them, rather than made them feel better about their disease.

It’s fine to argue that any person with a valid license to practice law is a “real lawyer.”  It’s just unhelpful and deceptive.  The problem stems from an abject denial that there is any difference between these “real lawyers” and those other “real lawyers” who have full-time practices with law offices and staff and a decent copy machine. 

If they weren’t ashamed, they would embrace their choices and take pride in what they do instead of faking it to feign the appearance. Again I emphasize, there is nothing wrong with taking an alternative path.  What is wrong is pretending that you aren’t, that your path is “just the same” as lawyers in traditional practice and that there is no difference.  Lawyers who have chosen different paths may have a license to practice law, but they do not have a license to deceive.

A license to practice is an anachronism in certain respects.  It entitled its holder to perform all manner of legal work, even though the horse and buggy days of the general practitioner are largely gone.  Medicine has done a far better job of acknowledging, teaching and qualifying specialists, while the law has kept its head buried in the sand. 

The kid 12 minutes past his admission is just as much a lawyer as the old man with decades of solid experience.  The lawyer who is adept at his work is no more a lawyer than the one who botches case after case.  The lawyer in his pajamas at a keyboard is just as much a lawyer and the one who can appear 24/7 in court when the call comes in.  If the definition of real lawyer is one who has a ticket, then there are no distinctions.  But there are, of course.  The distinction are life threatening to the client who is deceived and sends his paypal payment to the wrong lawyer.

Many of the alternate paths offer sound options for lawyers.  The virtual law office may work very well for some types of practice, enabling a lawyer to charge less, earn more, and perform just as well as a lawyer in a wood-paneled downtown office.  All the VLO lawyer need do is explain to the client that there is no office to drop by should an emergency arise and he desperately needs to speak with someone.  It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but a trade-off.  Informed consent seems an appropriate description.

Other lawyers, those who want to handle a bit of work but only on the time frame that suits the lawyer’s lifestyle rather than the client’s needs, may also be a fine path provided the client understands that the lawyer will not be there for him when the lawyer’s kids have a recital at school.  If the client doesn’t mind sitting in the hoosegow waiting for the standing ovation to subside, then everything is cool.

Even the unbundling of legal services path has its merit, provided that it’s limited to those instances where the client doesn’t suffer for the consequential issues he couldn’t possibly foresee (since he’s a client, not a “real lawyer”) when the unbundled work is done and the client is unceremoniously left hanging by his fingernails.  There are no doubt instances where unbundling will serve a client well and save some decent money, but the critical issue for a “real lawyer” is to identify the risks of unbundling and make sure the client understands that he may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Of particular note are those lawyers who have adjusted their practice to fit their family demands.  I have enormous admiration for those who want to return to or continue to practice law while simultaneously caring for their children.

Aside: Some assume that this refers to women, and that anyone questioning is sexist.  Quite the contrary. This reveals their covert prejudice, as if there are no male lawyers who care for their kids and adjust their practice to change diapers, feed hungry mouths or clap at recitals.  I’m one of them, having never missed one of my son’s fencing meets, and I wont tolerate being told that only women care for their children.

Those who do must, by definition, give up significant time and availability.  It’s a perfectly legitimate choice for a lawyer to make.  It also carries very real ramifications for a lawyer’s ability to complete that 79 page contract that absolutely, positively must be done in 6 hours when the kids are home with the measles. 

I was once put into a foursome with some relaxed looking guys. I asked one what he did, and he told me he was a reformed lawyer. He drove the ball 250 yards, straight and true.  I shanked mine.  I wished I was a reformed lawyer, but I’m not.  He was proud to let me know that he had plenty of time to work on his swing.

There are people who hold law licenses but don’t practice law.  They are not real lawyers.  They may be reformed lawyers, or former lawyers, but they are not real lawyers if they don’t practice law.  The license is just a piece of paper. Being a lawyer is what one does for clients.

Susan is right, that “lawyers come in all shapes and sizes and flavors,” but they’re not all “real lawyers” as far as being honest with the public, and with themselves.  If their alternative paths are not harmful and do not detract from the ability to serve their clients, then take pride in your path.  Admit it happily and readily.  Promote it.  Own it.

If you hide it, conceal it, lie about it, pretend that it doesn’t exist, then you’re not a “real lawyer.”  Real lawyers practice law.  Real lawyers are honest about what they do and the consequences for clients.  Real lawyers are not ashamed of the choices they make.  Real lawyers do not deceive themselves or their clients.  Real lawyers are not liars.  Real lawyers do not hide in the choir of others who share their misgivings about taking alternate paths. Real lawyers are not enablers or apologists of such deception.

Go down whatever path works best for you.  If you can’t be proud of it, own it, be honest about it and put your client first, then you aren’t a real lawyer.  No truthiness changes it.

While every new email from an unknown sender is a romp through the unknown, some turn out to be critical.  This one may save a life, and who am I to withhold information that could save a life?

Sale!! The bulletproof Robo Vest – lightweight and concealed!!

Only for 48 hours – buy the Robo Vest get for free a Neck Heater.

The next generation of bullet proof vests.  Less than 350 usd! Retail price is more than $800!
Level 3A protection NIJ certified. Can also hold anti stab panels (for additional fees).

That’s right.  It can also hold anti stab panels (for additional fees), though I would think that if you need the body armour in the first place, the anti stab panels should be a no-brainer.

I receive a ton of solicitations for police, SWAT and military gear.  Either they know something about my risk factors that I don’t know, or they assume that anybody who writes about cops is in need of body armour, mini-helicopters with bombs and the latest in Tasers for mass destruction.  Not that I couldn’t think of uses for some of this stuff, but my police equipment budget is, how shall I say it, limited.

Curiously, many emails are press releases, asking me to write about whatever newest and greatest device of mass destruction just came on the market.  I usually respond that I never write about anything I have tested personally, and to just send one along. It’s only happened once, and as soon as I have a justifiable opportunity to shoot a bazooka, I promise that I review will be forthcoming.

Speaking of press releases, this was an interesting notion:

To Mr. Greenfield,

Please view the link below for the Judgment Marketplace press release. This is the first online exchange to buy/sell/trade court judgments with a social networking twist. I would very much appreciate it if you can post this or something about Judgment Marketplace on your site. It is a great asset for everyone to know about. It also introduces the term “judgment trade” into the industry.

Thank You,
Shawn Porat-CEO

Judgment Marketplace

Shawn was so enthusiastic about my interest that he twitted me afterward to write a post about his company.  The idea of a judgment marketplace, an online exchange for buying and selling judgments, strikes me as absolutely wonderful for criminal defense lawyers.  I know many clients who would happily pay good money to be someone else to buy their judgments.  And serve their time.  And put their names on registries, and the life.

What?  Oh, that’s not what you meant, Shawn?  Then why would you send this to me?

Seriously, I’ve got no clue whether this is a good idea or a terrible one, as I’m not in the business of dealing with money judgments on either side of the table.  But whoever told Shawn that cold-emailing and twitting were the way to a blawger’s heart and keyboard, needs a good tuning up.  It seems unbelievable that people who start up business think that blawgs exist to promote their business. 

I realize they don’t mean to be offensive, but if they want to advertise, then advertise.  Put out some money and pay for the space.  I imagine some PR flak or social media marketer sold them on the concept of blanket emailing blawgers, who would love, just love, to write all about them.  Because we have nothing better to do.

And some don’t need us to write about them, because they will be more than happy to do the writing for themselves.

Hello Scott,

I was wondering if you accepted guest post submissions for your site Simple Justice? If so, can you let me know what length, topic, or other requirements you might have?

In case you’re unfamiliar with guest posts, what I’m proposing is that you permit me to write an article based on your specifications to be published on your site free of charge of course. The idea is to get some exposure for my new site by offering to write free articles for more established sites like yours. And along with the article, were you to publish it, would be a by-line mentioning me as the author and linking to my site. Assuming some readers enjoyed the article they might then click on the link and thus discover my site. As for the benefit to you, you’d be getting a free article written on whatever subject you’d wish for your site.

If you’d be willing to accept a guest post submission from me, or if you have any questions, please just let me know.

Thank you,

Chris Jacobson
Founder, Criminal Justice Degree

Shockingly, I am familiar with the concept of guest posts, as well as the concept of free promotion.  I’m a very worldly blawger.  I’ve been around a while.  It’s not like I’m Brian Tannebaum, who received this same email and started drooling at the prospect of a guest post.

Of course, these are the same guys who put out those 100 Top Law Blogs and 25 Top Bow Hunting Blogs (no really,they did this) in an effort to get those blawgs listed, who are so deeply flattered and validated by being “named” to such an august list, to link to their post.  Sometimes, they even offer badges to show the world how you’ve been honored, with the badges linking back to the site. 

Don’t laugh.  Some big blogs, including Above the Law, have fallen for this scam, exuding immense modesty in their appreciation for being included in the 100 Top Law Blogs for Judicial Hotties.  For those of you who have a link or badge from these guys because you were deeply honored to be included in their list, maybe you could use a guest post?  Chris Jacobson is standing by, waiting for your call.

It’s got a good beat, and you can dance to it. 



Now if someone would only put the words to rap, maybe we could get young people to hum along.

H/T The Washington Post

Update: And as it turns out, there is a rap version.  Not terribly catchy, but hey, it’s rap.

It’s not just rare to have a crime lab implode, but unheard of.  In Nassau County, the impact of incompetence and deceit that caused closure of the crime lab is just beginning to be felt.  To some, it’s a slap in the face.  To others, it’s a caress.

An email sent out by William Kephart, president of the Nassau County Criminal Courts Bar Association said that in technical reviews conducted, “so far in 11 cases [the NYS Inspector General’s review] have in fact discovered errors in all 11.”  How cool is that?

This was a lab not only run by the cops, of the cops and for the cops, but physically situated in police headquarters.  And nobody there gave a damn whether its work was legit.  Shocking.  Of course, they learned a little from the spray after feces met fan.

Now that the laboratory, which had been at Police Headquarters in Mineola, is closed, county officials said they were sending evidence elsewhere to be tested. The county is also constructing a new laboratory in New Cassel under new leadership.

Marc Gann, president of the Nassau County Bar Association, called Rice’s pumped-up testing plans “a major step in the right direction” but said they should reach back to 2005, when the lab was first placed on probation.

Brooklyn Democratic State Senator Carl Kruger is being processed as I type.  The  New York Times explains why:

Mr. Kruger had been under investigation by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn who were looking into accusations that he had helped businessmen surmount bureaucratic hurdles in exchange for assistance raising campaign money, but the charges stemmed from an investigation by Manhattan federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The offensive act:  He helped businessmen surmount bureaucratic hurdles.

The benefit derived from the act: Assistance in raising campaign money.

The crime: Politics.

It’s a curiosity.  The nature of politics requires those in office to raise ridiculous sums of money for their campaign, or their next campaign, hours after their last election.  Where does this money come from, and why does anyone want to part with their cash on hand and give it to some political guy?

The principled answer is that people contribute to the campaigns of people running for office because they agree with their philosophy, believe they will do an excellent job representing their constituents and, assuming they aren’t related, find them worthy of financial support.  Who are we kidding?

There are certainly some, maybe even plenty, of people who contribute to political campaigns because they are staunch believers and supporters.  Most are nickel and dime contributors, though a couple (Soros and the Koch Brothers come immediately to mind) are big bucks.  Yet a significant amount of the support necessary to run for office comes from otherwise nice folks who want something.  They want to curry favor.  They want a guy in office who will vote a particular way.  They seek a specific outcome.

This is the American way.  Trust me when I say that no politician truly enjoys going out night after night to local do-gooder groups and cub scout troops, handing out proclamations praising the planting of a tree.  It’s not that they don’t believe in the cause, or don’t like the group, but that they want to stay home with their family, kick off their shoes and watch Steven Tyler attempt to express a cogent thought or see which hairstyle best suits J-Lo.

It’s unbearably oppressive to get on the hamster wheel of politics. Why any sane person would want to do it is beyond me. Even the most philosophically naive learns quickly that the hamster wheel never stops turning.

My guess is that the question in Senator Kruger’s case will be whether the favor done had a quid pro quo, as in, he sold his support for a cash payment.  Maybe there was a hard, cold deal on the table, where Kruger promised to help a business “surmount bureaucratic hurdles” for $10,000 a pop. 

But he didn’t spend the money on a “fact-finding” trip to the leeward islands, or a sordid weekend with some floozy, or even bespoke suits so he could dress appropriately when he handed out proclamations.  It was campaign money, the life blood of politics. 

One might argue that there would be less potential for a crime if government didn’t create bureaucratic hurdles that needed surmounting through the interference of a state senator.  There aren’t too many people out there arguing for the creation of bureaucratic hurdles to make every business’ life pointlessly difficult.  The “hurdles” arise for good intentions, to protect us from some evil, real or imagined (or misguidedly imagined when linked to the name of a dead child), but somehow seem to take on a life of their own, with unintended consequences spreading misery far and wide.

And so constituents, and friends of constituents, seek comfort and aid from those in power who can use their influence to make the seas of bureaucracy part and allow life to move forward.  If Kruger did such a thing in a cause or case with which he disagreed, then he betrayed a trust.  If he did so for cash, then he committed a crime.

But if Kruger’s influence helped someone who deserved to be helped, and if Kruger’s efforts to help a deserving constituent produced a hefty contribution to his campaign chest to keep this hard working, right thinking, senator in office, then it would seem that the system worked perfectly. 

We may not like the way politics works.  In fact, we may think it stinks.  But the answer is to change politics, not indict those who are running on the hamster wheel as fast as they can.