Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Good days, bad days
  • Can I get a [expert] witness?
  • A new rule of law? Not quite
  • What’s Up in the 8th
  • Case Update
  • Case Update
  • Back to the Future
  • Manson lives
  • What’s Up in the 8th
  • Tinkering with the machinery of death


  • Archives

  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006


  • Friday Roundup

    December 4th, 2009

    Rich oxen getting gored.  Sentencing Law & Policy points us to a recent NY Times article, which begins:

    In the next several months, the Supreme Court will decide at least a half-dozen cases about the rights of people accused of crimes involving drugs, sex and corruption. Civil liberties groups and associations of defense lawyers have lined up on the side of the accused.

    But so have conservative, libertarian and business groups. Their briefs and public statements are signs of an emerging consensus on the right that the criminal justice system is an aspect of big government that must be contained.

    That the federalization of criminal law has gotten out of hand is not news to most of us in the criminal bar; I did a post on it back in January, mentioning a recent Cleveland case where a defendant was federally prosecuted under the Hobbs Act for stealing $538 from a Little Caesar’s pizza.  The post led with the 4th Circuit’s decision in US v. Comstock, which struck down a new statute empowering the Attorney General to certify that a prisoner was “sexually dangerous” and prevent his release; the 4th held that such “civil commitments” intruded upon an area traditionally reserved to the states.  The Supremes granted cert in Comstock, and the case will be argued in early January. 

    I’m certainly glad to see conservatives rushing to join forces with us, but I can’t help but wonder if some of this is due to the focus being brought to bear on the criminality in executive office suites leading up to the economic debacle we’re still going through.  The whole thing largely confirms the observation that if a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who’s been arrested.

    Maricopa County update.  A fewweeks ago, I mentioned the firestorm that had engulfed the legal blogosphere after a video of a court hearing in Maricopa County, Arizona, surfaced, showing a sheriff’s deputy rifling through a defense attorney’s file while she was at the podium addressing the judge.  (Video here.)  The latest news is that the deputy was found in contempt of court and ordered to publicly apologize to the lawyer, or go to jail.

    This was too much for County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who bills himself as “America’s Toughest Sheriff”:  insisting that his deputy was “just doing his job,” Arpaio swore he wasn’t going to “allow him to be thrown to the wolves by the courts because they feel pressure from the media in this situation.” 

    Arpaio, the kind of guy who gives fascism a bad name, is already being investigated by the Justice Department for numerous civil rights violations, and is accused of using his powers to go after political enemies.   The scary thing is he’s probably right:  in Maricopa County, it may well be that one of a deputy’s duties is trashing the principles of right to counsel and attorney-client confidentiality.  joar2

    But Arpaio turned out true to his word:  the deputy refused to apologize, and on Tuesday began serving his jail sentence.  So is the deputy doing his time in Tent City, pictured at right, the annex to the county jail that Arpaio set up to house the common riffraff?  Not likely.  As indicated in this article, Arpaio keeps a “celebrity wing” at the regular jail.  As the article notes, one Phoenix businessman got to serve his time on a DUI charge in the “Mesa Hilton” after his father donated $10,000 to Arpaio’s re-election campaign.  I doubt if the deputy will manage that, but he doesn’t have to.

    The march of technology.  As all lawyers know, the Ohio Supreme Court mandates that we receive 2½ hours of continuing legal education on ethics, professionalism, and substance abuse every two years.   The Cuyahoga County Defense Lawyers Assocation gave its annual seminar on the subject a few weeks ago, and there was no end to the things I learned.  Among them:  should my office-mates decide to stage an intervention with me, with the help of a counselor from the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program,  there is a 95% chance that I will leave with the counselor and go directly into treatment.  This sounded a bit high to me, and I’m thinking of developing a substance abuse problem just to test it out.

    The speaker on professionalism was Judge Colleen O’Toole of the 11th District Court of Appeals, and she devoted most of her presentation to the increasing role that technology plays in legal matters.  Not the technology that most of us think of, like Lexis and computerized dockets, but the technology of “the masses”:  Facebook, Twitter, and so on.  The effect of those on jury trials is becoming notorious, as this article demonstrates:

    The first mistrial Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John Russo declared in his courtroom wasn’t because of a hung jury, improperly admitted evidence or a procedural error.  It happened, in large part, because of a text message. An attorney in another Ohio jurisdiction called Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason’s office reporting that her sister, who was serving jury duty on the felonious assault case in Russo’s courtroom, had texted her with a legal question — a direct violation of the judge’s orders to abstain from doing outside research on the case.

    Mea culpa on this; I’ve often found it more than a little embarassing that I’ve been doing a legal blog for almost four years now, and I still have difficulty figuring out how to open a text message, let alone send one.  So I decided to get with it, and start up my own Facebook page.  (You can find it online should you choose to do so, but be forewarned:  it includes a picture, which goes a long way toward explaining why this blog does not.)  So far, I’m not impressed; the operative word here seems to be “self-indulgent.” 

    I might even rethink the whole thing after reading this story:

    A Canadian woman on leave from her job at IBM says she lost her benefits after her insurance agent spotted her in Facebook photos having fun.

    The woman, Nathalie Blanchard, says her insurer, Manulife, told her the photos are evidence she is no longer depressed, according to the Associated Press and CBC News. The photos showed Blanchard at a Chippendales show and on vacation.

    Well, I guess I just won’t post any pictures of me having fun.  Shouldn’t be much of a problem…

    One Response to “Friday Roundup”

    1. Bill Thompson Says:

      So as to the above-described theft case your saying they shouldn’t have made a federal case out of it? Your observation regarding the alliance with conservatives on matters of individual rights is spot on. Here at the PD office, we’ve often discussed the uselessness of political labels as it relates to the values near and dear to the criminal defense bar. A good example is the right to bear arms. While on the one hand most of us abhor the violence associated with the ready availability of handguns and accordingly support gun control measures. As pure defenders of our Bill of Rights, however, are we not compelled to aide with the free carry advocates? Just sayin’…

    Leave a Reply


    Search Posts




    Court Links

    Cuyahoga County
    Court of Appeals
    General Division
    Domestic Relations
    Juvenile
    Probate

    Ohio Courts
    Supreme Court
    Geauga Common Pleas
    Lake Common Pleas
    Lorain Common Pleas
    Summit Common Pleas

    Links to all Ohio Courts

    Ohio Revised Code

    Federal Courts
    Supreme Court
    6th Circuit
    Ohio Northern District
    Ohio Southern District



    Law Blogs

    Sentencing Law & Policy
    Volokh Conspiracy
    CrimLaw
    Grits for Breakfast
    Concurring Opinions
    Simple Justice
    A Public Defender
    Defending People
    CrimProf Blog
    How Appealing
    Lowering the Bar
    Crime and Consequences
    Drug War Rant
    Snitching Blog
    Overlawyered
    Balkinization
    Legal Blogwatch
    ScotusBlog

    Ohio Law blogs

    Jeff Gamso's Blog
    Cleveland Law Library
    6th Circuit - Criminal
    6th Circuit - General
    Bullseye Blog (PI law)
    Ohio Family Law Blog
    Ohio Employment Law Blog
    Ohio Practical Business Law
    Ohio Environmental Law Blog
    Other Ohio law blogs


    Criminal Defense Bars

    Ohio (OACDL)
    Cuyahoga County (CCDLA)
    National (NACDL)


    Legal Discussion Forum

    Attorneys Forum - Legal Help and Law Discussion Forums.


    Blogfinder

    Law Blog Metrics



    lawyer blogs