I'll show you

A criminal in Colorado went in to rob a corner store. After having the clerk empty the cash drawer, he told him to give him a bottle of scotch that was behind the counter. The clerk refused, telling the robber he didn't think he was over 21. After going back and forth with the clerk, he finally pulled out his driver's license and showed it to the clerk. After looking at it, he agreed he was over 21, and gave him the bottle of scotch.

Unfortunately for the robber, he didn't get a chance to drink much of the scotch. After he left the clerk called the police, and gave him his name and address, which he had gotten off the license. Of course, it didn't take the police to long to find him, and arrest him.

What's a case worth

Intoxication manslaughter cases have been in the Waco news later. Several weeks ago, a young girl was sentenced to 2 years for the death of her cousin. They had both been out drinking at a party, and had a wreck on the way. During the trial, the victim's parents pleaded with the jury to not send her to prison.

Last week, a young man was given 30 years for the death of a mother, and injuries to her children He had been passing in a no passing zone when he collided with the victim. The wreck killed the mother, and seriously injured one of the children. Obviously, the wreck devastated the mother's family. It also devastated the defendant's family. His brother had been killed several years earlier after drinking too much, and driving his truck into a ditch.

This week a defendant decided to plead guilty instead of going to trial. She had been out drinking with friends, including the victim. The victim had also been using drugs. They ultimately got into a fight, and he got out of the car, and the others left. They came back, and ran over him, killing him - he was lying in the road at the time. She agreed to 8 years instead of going to trial. When interviewed, her law stated it was not a good time to be charged with McLennan County. Obviously, the verdict the previous week influenced her expectations o what could happen.

So how come one defendant gets 2 years, and another gets 30. The easy answer is that different juries may look at cases differently. Still, that doesn't really explain the difference between those two results. Even when plea bargains are involved, there often appears to be substantial disparity between similar cases.

It's no secret that the majority of cases are resolved by plea bargain. When trying to negotiate a plea, both lawyers are trying to guess what a jury would do. The defendant does not want to agree to more time than a jury would likely assess. The prosecutor also does not want to offer substantial less than what a jury would assess. When trying to guess what a jury will do, both sides have to evaluate all aspects of case. That includes the facts of the offense, and a defendant's prior history. Although it shouldn't be a consideration, the circumstances of the victim must also be considered. (that will be left to later)

Plea bargaining has a lot of similarities to gambling, and each defendant's attitude towards risk must be taken into consideration. Some people want to know what will happen, and stay away from risk. For them, plea bargaining allows them to know beforehand what is going to happen. Others enjoy risk. For them, they may not shy away from the risk of a trial, where they might get a lower sentence, or one substantially higher than is being offered.

Another factor which cannot be controlled is the prosecutor assigned to the case. Policies vary among Counties, but almost everywhere prosecutors have some discretion when making offers. In some counties, that discretion is almost unlimited, which creates a real problem for criminal defense lawyers. One prosecutor may be more lenient than another, and the luck of the drawer determines whether a client gets a low offer, or a high  offer. That is one of the more difficult things to explain to clients when they see other people coming out substantially better than they are. It is impossible not to compare cases, and everyone does it.

Just as the prosecutor makes a difference, so does the defense lawyer. Prosecutors know some lawyers have a reputation for pleading everything out, and avoiding trials. They also know other lawyers are going to fight for their clients, and aren't afraid to go to trial if they think that is he best strategy. Without a doubt, the latter are the ones who are most effective in negotiating favorable agreements.

In the end, there is no formula or rule you can use to evaluate a case. There is no substitute for experience. That is the only way you can know how juries and prosecutors evaluate cases. Unfortunately, that leaves everyone with their own opinion, which they won't hesitate to share - all you have to do is look at the comments on most news web sites. Of course, that is also one of the things that makes this Country great.

The role of the victim

There was a recent trial in McLennan County involving the tragic death of a young girl in a car accident. The defendant was her cousin, who was driving, and lost control of the car. They were both extremely intoxicated, and were coming back from a party.

The case generated a lot of publicity, and a lot of discussion. There were numerous comments posted to the newspaper and TV websites. The case was somewhat unique because the victim's family did not want their niece prosecuted. They testified for her at trial, and told the jury they did not want her to go to jail, and that if she did, it would be like losing another daughter. The jury didn't agree, and ended up sentencing her to two years in the prison.

The case is also unique because it raises the question of what role the victim plays in the prosecution of a criminal case. Of course, this isn't a factor in many cases, since they are essentially victimless crimes (e.g. drugs, DWI) However, for those cases involving victims,  the case is centered on them.

After 26+ years of practicing criminal law, I've observed that the role a victim has depends on whose side they are on. If they side with the defendant, they are ignored. This regularly comes up in assault cases involving spouses or family members - they are often dragged into court, even if they want the charges dropped.

On the other hand, if the victims want the defendant prosecuted, they are often allowed to control the prosecution. Another case is being tried because a plea agreement could not be reached because the victim's family would not approve it. Basically, the decision on what was a reasonable offer was left to the victim's family.

There are certainly pros and cons to allowing victims to control a criminal prosecution. Many times, it may not be in the best interests of society as a whole to dismiss a case (think of a wealthy defendant who is able to buy his way out of case by paying off the victim) On the other  hand, the victim is not the best person to decide how a case should be  handled. Obviously they have a personal interest, and many times may not even care about other considerations.

Unfortunately, we have not reached a happy balance. Victims are allowed to control the case when the prosecutor agrees with them. If they don't, they are ignored or dismissed.

The ultimate question is what is the best solution in a particular case. The feelings of the victim and their family is a valid consideration. It is not the only one, though. The defendant and their circumstances must also be considered, as well as the facts of the offense. Unless all those factors are fairly weighed and considered, you cannot reach a "fair" resolution.

The myth of presumption of innocence

I've been out for a week, and am glad to be back. I spent 3 1/2 days at sign language school, which was  a grueling experience. Not being able to talk is bad enough - its made when worse when you have trouble communicating through sign. I learned a lot though - including the fact that  it's a lot harder to pick up another language though when you get older!

I read an article this morning which made a point I had not thought about. The article was about the Jon Benet Ramsey case, and how the parents had been "presumed guilty" all these years, only to be finally cleared. That case is a perfect example of why the presumption of innocence is little more than a myth.

Attend any criminal trial, and during jury selection you will probably hear defense lawyers spending a lot of time talking about the presumption of innocence. While it's an issue you need to point out, I don't think most people (jurors included), really believe it. If they answered honestly, they would say "yeah, I think he probably did it - why would they arrest him if he didn't do anything wrong". If you ask Mr. Ramsey, I'm sure he would say few people afforded him the presumption of innocence. Outside of his friends,  most people probably suspected he had some involvement. He had to live under a cloud of suspicion for years, and his wife died with it  still hanging over her.

Even with news of all the exonerations in the past several years, most people still think that if someone is arrested, they are probably guilty. That's probably human nature,  because most of the time they are guilty.  That's not an excuse though to brand someone a criminal, without hearing all the evidence. We need to do a better job of giving people the "benefit of the doubt". If you do that consistently, maybe it's a little easier to give meaning to the presumption of innocence if you are called to serve on a jury.

We need to take this case, and others like it, to remind everyone how important it is in our justice system to have the presumption of innocence.

Update - what were they thinking

Yesterday I posted about the Fort Worth area teenager who was arrested for delivering drug laced cookies to several police departments. He didn't stay long in jail. It seems like the police jumped the gun - tests done on cookies taken to two of the departments were negative for drugs. I guess it was just a bad batch of cookies.

What is bothersome about this story is how the police apparently arrested this young man with no evidence. You would hope that if they were charging someone with lacing cookies with drugs, they would verify there were drugs. Maybe it was the fact that he  was doing community service that caused them to assume he was responsible.

While the standard for issuing an arrest warrant is low (probable cause instead of beyond a reasonable doubt), you would hope that a magistrate would want some hard evidence - that is supposed to be one of the "checks" in our justice system. Unfortunately, too often they simply accept the word of the police who request the warrant.

The end result is that this action could destroy this young man's future, at least in the short term. He was arrested, and charged with a serious offense. Not only was he arrested, the story was picked up by the Associated Press. So instead of only a few people knowing about, thousands did. He probably will be remembered for a long time as the kid who delivered drug laced cookies to the police - the general public has a way of forgetting that someone was cleared of charges.

In many cases, the criminal justice system works -  sometimes, though, it is too slow. No matter what the law says, the stigma of being arrested is something that doesn't go away. That is why the government should make sure they have the evidence before they brand someone as a criminal.

What was he thinking?

A Fort Worth area teenager was assigned to MADD (mothers against drunk driving) to complete community service  hours. Apparently he was given the job of  delivering cookies to local police departments. (after all, everyone likes cookies) He wasn't content to just deliver the cookies, and get his hours done. I guess he thought he would have a little fun - so he laced the cookies with drugs. Needless to say, that didn't go over well. It didn't take them long to figure out what was making them sick, and tracing it to our young genius.

I don't know what he was doing community service hours for, but now he has a second degree felony - tampering with a consumer product. I'm guessing if he ends up with community service on that case it won't involve anything having to do with food.

Privatization is not the answer

I posted earlier about the jail overcrowding McLennan County is having to deal with. Commissioners have been considering what to do, and one of the proposals is to contract with a private firm to build a new jail, and run it. Jailers have turned out in full force opposing the proposal. They make a number of valid arguments, which all boil down to one central fact - private jails are operated to make money, which generally means providing reduced staffing and services. Jail employees with a  number of years experience are understandably worried, since it would be cheaper to replace them with new, lower paid, employees.

Running a jail is a government function, and not something that should be delegated to the private sector. Granted, county jails often suffer many problems. However, at least there is some oversight, which ultimately rests with the courts. I don't think the same oversight would ever exist for private jails.

There is an even a more fundamental reason for maintaining county control - they are the ones responsible for the problem. It's easy enough to reduce the jail population - don't lock so many people up! There are clearly some people who should be in jail. However, there are also many who should not be, and should not be soaking up our tax dollars.

The first question should be how can we reduce the jail population Until all avenues to do so have been exhausted, building another jail should not even be considered.

Federal Involvement - a good thing?

According to the Associated Press, U.S. Representative Shelia Jackson Lee is calling for a congressional inquiry into the justice system in Harris. It appears that what triggered the request was the grand jury's failure to indict a homeowner who shot two people he thought were burglarizing a neighbor's home. With all the things coming out of Harris, you would think a refusal to bring charges would be a good thing. To be fair, she also lists other things, like the crime lab problem, and the District attorney's tasteless emails. But you have to wonder what the focus of such an inquiry would be.

I have no doubt there is plenty to investigate in Harris County. The crime lab has already been the subject of an investigation, and hopefully that has been addressed. There's also the issue of the disproportionate number of prisoner's on death row from Harris County. I'm sure there are numerous other issues I'm not even aware of. The problem I have is what could Congress do, other than make things worse.

Congressional inquiries are usually nothing more than a reason for politicians to get before the media. They rarely accomplish anything useful, and spend an awful lot of money doing it. I think there is even more of a problem when you mix criminal justice and politics - rarely do good things result. I'm sure there are deeper reasons, but you cannot deny that no politician wants to appear soft on crime . If you need proof, you only have to look at the continuing reluctance to deal with jail overcrowding.

I'm sure in a perfect world, good things could come out of such an inquiry. I'm afraid the opposite would be the case though, and we would be looking at more imaginative ways to lock people up. So let's hope this proposal stalls - I'm sure there are lots of other things to investigate!

More than fireworks

Today is July 4, and you are probably doing something with family - I know I am. Grills are fired up all over the country, and pools are in full use. Tonight, fireworks will be going off everywhere. Sometime during the day, I hope you stop and remember what we are celebrating.

The problem with holidays (think Christmas) is that many people forget the reason for the holiday. Today it was the signing of the Declaration of Independence. One of the most courageous acts ever done. Most of the signers probably believed they were effectively signing their death warrants. Fortunately for all of us, they believed strongly enough in what they were doing to think about more than themselves.

I think its  important to remember why this country  was founded.  Our founding fathers did not trust government  - they recognized that government 's derive their power from the people, and should be accountable to them. They also valued individual freedom, and the right of people to live their lives free from governmental intrusion. They were especially suspicious of those charged with enforcing the law - then it was soldiers, today its the police.

So what would the founding fathers think about our country today. I don't think they would be happy with the erosion of the fourth amendment. They expected people to be secure in their own houses - numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement have eroded that protection. I also don't think they would buy the argument that its necessary to enforce the law, and protect the public. They knew how that power could be manipulated, and abused.

One of the most common tactics today is requesting consent to search during routine encounters What do you think the founding fathers would say if asked for consent to search? I don't think it would be "go ahead, I don't have anything to hide". I think it would be an emphatic no, maybe accompanied by a few choice words.

Criminal defense lawyers should take time today to pat themselves on the back. They are the ones who ensure the government doesn't abuse its powers. They are the ones who ensure that the vision of the founding fathers is protected. They are the ones who remind us that the government exists for the people, and not the other way  around.

Have a great 4th, and enjoy all the activities associated with this holiday. We all need to recharge our batteries, and this is a great time to do it. Hopefully we can go back to the office on Monday with a little more passion for what we do.
Tags: