It’s not easy to turn a quadruple murder into an internet joke, but that’s what happened after police used the DNA found on Domino’s pizza crust to identify the accused murderer of Savvas Savopoulos, his wife Amy, their son Philip and their housekeeper Veralicia Figureroa. Who orders pizza during a robbery and resultant murder?  According to the police, that would be Daron Wint.

The first effort at defending came from Robin Flicker:

Robin Flicker, a lawyer who has represented suspect Wint in the past but has not been officially hired as his defense attorney, says police are zeroing in on Wint because his DNA was found on pizza at the crime scene. The only problem, Flicker said is that Wint doesn’t like pizza.

“He doesn’t eat pizza,” Flicker told ABC News. “If he were hungry, he wouldn’t order pizza.”

Continue reading →

Amnesty International has released a report on the state of law enforcement in the United States, and it’s unattractive. As reported in the Guardian:

Every state in the US fails to comply with international standards on the lethal use of force by law enforcement officers, according to a report by Amnesty International USA, which also says 13 US states fall beneath even lower legal standards enshrined in US constitutional law and that nine states currently have no laws at all to deal with the issue.

Contrary to the way in which shootings are portrayed by journalists who repeat police press releases as if they actually meant something, police are theoretically constrained by law, as is everyone else. It’s just not the same law, despite the fact that there is “no officer safety exception in the Constitution.”

The ordinary presentation to the public is by some chief or spokesmodel, who explains that a shooting was within departmental policy.  This is a nonsensical point, although journalists rarely question it.  Departmental policy is not law.  Departmental policy is whatever the big cheese at the police department decides it is, and not even the almighty chief gets to create policy that violates the law.  The chief does not dictate when cops can shoot, when cops can kill. Only the law can do that. Continue reading →

The link was sent here by Mike Paar, who sends over a lot of links, mostly about cops or prosecutors behaving badly. This one was different, and the subject line reflected it: “Call them out when they do wrong, but praise them when they get it right.”

In Carson City, Nevada, District Attorney Jason Woodbury declined to prosecute a murder.

The Reno Gazette-Journal reports that 88-year-old William Dresser was arrested in January 2014 for killing 86-year-old Frances Dresser, his wife of 68 years.

She was at Carson Tahoe Hospital after a fall at home caused permanent paralysis.

Carson City District Attorney Jason Woodbury says Frances Dresser expressed a desire to no longer live and that her family requested William Dresser not be prosecuted.

It’s not that Woodbury couldn’t prosecute, but that he didn’t want to.  Continue reading →

When the nurse put my daughter into my arms moments after her birth. I had no clue. I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t know how to feel. The wise nurse told me to sing her a song, so I did. To this day, my family makes fun of me for my song choice, and I can’t explain it. It just happened.

No moment changed my life more. Up to then, I lived for myself. My lovely wife too, but really myself, and she was just an adjunct to my life, as I was to hers. But this was different. For the first time in my existence, there was someone more important to me than me.

The first decade was one of emerging joys. Sure, a million problems, but they came with the turf.  The smile, the hug, the kiss, made the problems disappear. I was one of those dads who chose to spend time with my kids, who went out of his way to find reasons to be with them.  They needed me, and that gave me purpose. Continue reading →

Despite the dearth of facts, there are enough to reach an immutable conclusion. Los Angeles police shot a man in the head without justification, no less avoidability.  From the LA Times:

The man flagged down officers about 6:35 p.m. at Los Feliz Boulevard and Tica Drive south of Griffith Park, according to a police account.

“This person extended an arm wrapped in a towel. The officer exited the vehicle and said, ‘Drop the gun, drop the gun,'” LAPD Lt. John Jenal said.

Then at least one officer shot the man, officials say. 

After the shooting, a video was taken of the cops rolling the man over, revealing the gaping wound in his head, in order to cuff him.  This aspect, caught on video, has given rise to more, and harsher, criticism than the shooting.  The question of why they would risk manhandling someone who took a bullet to the head, and thus needed aid while posing no threat, to cuff him was paramount. Continue reading →

As noted in the New York Times’ editorial, Justice Anthony Kennedy seized the opportunity to write a concurring opinion in Davis v. Ayala to go a bit orthogonal.  The case was a habeas corpus review of the defendant’s Batson challenges, the prosecution having used its peremptory strikes to cleanse the jury of dark skin.

But that wasn’t the issue in the case. The issue was that in justifying the use of challenges to rid the jury box of anyone remotely close to the defendant’s life experiences, the prosecutor was allowed to make his pitch privately to the judge so as not to reveal his secret, masterful strategy.  Of course, this meant the defense was flagrantly denied due process, but some things must give way if the prosecution is to be assured of a win.

The Supreme held that the offending conduct was harmless error, because the defendant was GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY. No harm, no foul. Move along, nothing to see here.

But while agreeing with this outcome, Justice Kennedy took the opportunity to note that Ayala’s world post-conviction was awfully quiet. Continue reading →

Memo to United States Attorney’s offices across the nation: The AUSAs in the Southern District of New York, the one in Manhattan, think they’re better than you.  They are the elite, the best, the smartest, the toughest. They will not be questioned. They will not Reason.

Since Ken White at Popehat revealed that libertarian website Reason received a subpoena for every bit of information they could conceivably offer about certain commenters, it’s come back to an AUSA in the Southern District of New York, a kid named Niketh Velamoor, who found his way to the office through the usual Harvard law, judicial clerkship, biglaw seat-warming, path.

Ken first did the lawyerly, and right, thing by calling Niketh before publishing the subpoena, lest he somehow impair a serious investigation that didn’t appear on the surface of the flamingly idiotic subpoena.  It was the proper thing to do.  Just because the investigation appears ridiculous on its surface doesn’t mean there isn’t something serious lurking beneath.

Did Niketh thank him for his concern in reaching out?  Nope. Instead, he fed him some equivocal nonsense to create an innuendo of fear that he might be violating a court order by disclosing the subpoena. Continue reading →

Is it not enough that nine people, nine human beings, are dead?  Is it not enough that they were murdered in a church, apparently by a twisted young man who sat there for an hour with his soon-to-be victims, and then executed them?  Is that not enough tragedy to satisfy whatever lust burns within us?

Oh no. War of another sort has broken out, where wild-eyed madmen fight to see who gets to own this nightmare to use it for their own agenda, whether that’s political or clickbait.  It’s not about what happened in Charleston, though some have already condemned the accused killer, Dylann Roof, to the deepest region of hell for being pure evil, even though he might just be a deeply flawed human.

But what happened in Charleston.  Was it terrorism?  Was it racism?  Was it the work of a madman? Was it a “mere” crime?  What?  Without putting it in a pigeonhole, how can it possibly make sense and be used to push a larger agenda?

At Fault lines, I took the Daily Kos’ Shaun King to task for his rush to characterization. Continue reading →

There was no question that New York’s speedy trial law, Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30, was a wreck.  It had long been gamed by prosecutors, with the willing acquiescence of judges who shrugged and said “meh, what do you want me to do?”  This was no secret, and was publicly laid bare in a New Yorker article by Jennifer Gonnerman.

And people “oohed” and “aahed,” and nothing was done about it.

Now that Kalief Browder committed suicide, there is a dead young man after whom a law can be named, too tempting for politicians to ignore. And so was born “Kalief’s Law,” because they could.

State Senator Daniel Squadron and Assemblymember Jeffrion Aubry announced legislation (S.5988) to fix New York State’s “speedy trial” law following the recent death of Kalief Browder, who spent three years in pre-trial detention at Riker’s Island. Kalief’s Law closes a legal loophole that forces defendants to endure significant delays before trial, even while in jail, despite the time limits established by law. This change will limit delays by prosecutors and the court, so that defendants are afforded their constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Continue reading →

Given the experience of politicians with sexcapades, one might hope they would be a little more circumspect in their embrace of the flavor of the month redefinitions of what constitutes a sexual assault for college students. After all, had that been the rule when they went to Fordham, there’s a good chance they would be digging ditches today.

But no. Neither New York’s leaderless Assembly nor Senate had the guts to say no means no, and gave in to Governor Andy Cuomo’s gift to his daughters. From the New York Times:

New York’s political leaders have reached a deal on one of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s legislative priorities for 2015, saying they will adopt new laws intended to change the way sexual assaults on all college campuses in the state are handled.

The agreement, announced on Tuesday, proposes legislation that would establish a statewide definition of “affirmative consent,” and define consent as a “knowing, voluntary and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity.”

Which means . . . what? Continue reading →