Deliciously Unrealistic Due Process Violation

 - but people think this kind of stuff is true.

Parents to be Jailed for Child's Bullying?

Um . . . I'm thinking this is a due process violation.  Let me know what you think.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Nightmare

Don't Eat Your Weed

Words of wisdom in a video that speaks for itself:

Thought Provoking Law Quote: Alan Dershowitz

It has often been said that a trial is a search for truth. However, is there only one truth in a complex dispute? In 1995, former NFL star O.J. Simpson went on trial for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. The criminal trial was broadcast on TV from the courtroom and captivated the nation’s interest. The “search for truth” was placed front and center in the American conscience. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz describes the scene in his article, Is a Criminal Trial a Search For Truth?:

A review of the trial transcript reveals that this phrase was used more than seventy times. The prosecutors claimed that they were searching for truth and that the defense was deliberately obscuring it. . . . The defense also claimed the mantle of truth and accused the prosecution of placing barriers in its path. And throughout the trial, the pundits observed that neither side was really interested in truth, only in winning. They were right – and wrong.

Simpson was acquitted of the criminal charges against him by the jury. The victims’ families also filed a civil lawsuit against Simpson for wrongful death of their loved ones. In the civil trial that took place immediately following the criminal trial, the jury found Simpson liable for the deaths. One incident, two trials, and two different “truths.”

"One [pot] plant in the backyard should be like growing squash."

Click here to read the Boston Globe report headlined, "Never come between an 81-year-old and her marijuana plant."   The Amherst, Mass. resident whose plant was confiscated was incensed that the police used a helicopter to locate her backyard plant.  "Plain view" includes "plane view."

Apparently, medical marijuana use is legal in Massachusetts, but growing it yourself is not.

Too Clever For Their Own Good

In 2012 a deadly meningitis outbreak was traced back to a drug compounding firm in Framingham Massachusetts called the "New England Compounding Center."  When indictments were handed down in 2014, in addition to the second degree murder charges were charges for fraud against government.  Apparently the company claimed to have filled prescriptions for fictitious patients and charged the federal government. The investigation unearthed an e-mail from the company's owner cautioning his employees that, "All names must resemble 'real' names...no obviously false names! (Mickey Mouse.)"

The clever employees conjured such fake customers as, "Chris Rock, Alex Baldwin, Michael Jackson, Fat Albert,Wonder Woman, Martha Stewart, Samuel Adams, Hugh Jass, Freddie Mae, Fannie Mac,Ned Flanders, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Harry Potter and Coco Puff, among others."

The "News of the Weird reports additional names of, "Baby Jesus, . . . L.L. Bean, . . . Mary Lamb, all of the Baldwin brother actors, and a grouping of Bud Weiser, Richard Coors, Raymond Rollingrock and,of course, Samuel Adams."

They would have called less attention to their crimes if they used the alias list from Psych. Criminals often suppose themselves to be more clever than they actually are.

Read the indictments here.

Click here or on the image below to see a CBS News report on how NECC customers supplied fake names to secure cheaper drugs from NECC rather than complying with the law.

In Finland, Criminals Who Earn More, Pay More

A millionaire in Finland was fined about $58,000 for driving 14 MPH over the speed limit. Finnish law imposes fines based on income to make sure that there is equality of deterrent effect across income levels. It's a scheme not without merit. Although, if you can claim you were speeding for business purposes, you might be able to earn a tax deduction.



Just for fun:

A Post-Racial Legal System?

Today is the 150th Anniversary of the surrender of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia to the Union Army of the Potomac in the American Civil War.  So it seems that a Civil War themed post is appropriate.

Millenial students are fond of espousing this country's ascension to a state of post-racial relations. Certainly recent events involving fraternity chants and disputes over the interactions of white police officers and black suspects have elevated race back into the social justice consciousness.  But surely these issues must have been scrubbed from the interior of the halls of justice?  It is there that highly educated lawyers and judges interact with the single-minded ideals of the pursuit of justice.

Then how does this happen? The Idaho Appeals Court overturned the conviction of a black defendant on charges of sexual assault of a minor after the prosecutor quoted lyrics from the song "Dixie" in her closing argument.  Written as  minstrel song before the Civil War, "Dixie" became the unofficial anthem of the Confederate States during the war and has been associated ever since as a glorification of the society that enslaved African Americans.  According to the Idaho Statesman, Prosecutor Erica Kallin's address to the jury included the following:

" 'Oh I wish I was in the land of cotton. Good times not forgotten. Look away. Look away. Look away,' " Kallin said. "And isn't that really what you've kind of been asked to do? Look away from the two eyewitnesses. Look away from the two victims. Look away from the nurse and her medical opinion. Look away. Look away."

Click here to listen to an audio clip of this section of the closing argument.

The Appeals Court took judicial notice of the history and connotations of  "Dixie":

This Court does not require resort to articles or history books to recognize that “Dixie” was an anthem of the Confederacy, an ode to the Old South, which references with praise a time and place of the most pernicious racism. The prosecutor’s mention of the title, “Dixie,” as well as the specific lyrics recited by the prosecutor, referring to “the land of cotton,” expressly evoke that setting with all its racial overtones.

Because of the circumstances - a black defendant with charges of a sexual nature - the Appeals Court erred on the side of caution, setting the bar low for the defendant to show that the prosecutor's comments constituted reversible error, stating:

In this circumstance, both the constitutional obligation to provide criminal defendants a fundamentally fair trial and the interest of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of judicial proceedings weigh against imposing a stringent standard for a defendant’s demonstration that the error was harmful. Although the State’s case here was a strong one, it was not so compelling that no rational juror could have voted to acquit.

"Dixie" (in case you are not familiar with the song):

Work Song

Can Law Control Conduct?

A man assaulted in the men's room of Levi's stadium in San Francisco is partially paralyzed and has had to have part of his skull removed. 

If the purpose of law is to maintain order by controlling conduct, then why does it fail so miserably so often? Although the law prohibits fraud and larceny, people still do it. The usual explanation is greed or financial desperation. But what is so valuable to be gained by beating another person senseless that one would risk the law's sanctions?  Is there any way to make the law more effective?

WARNING! Images of violence:

Property Seized, But No Culpability Proven

Apparently it is legal for law enforcement officers to seize cash from suspected drug deals and then refuse to return it, even if no charges are brought against the parties.  Apparently, it is also legal for law enforcement to execute a civil seizure of a parent's home if a kid has been involved in drug violations in the house.  The parent's knowledge or culpability is irrelevant.

Aren't there Due Process issues here - substantive and procedural?

When Will They Ever Learn?

Hey everyone, did you know that the things that you post on the internet can be seen by lots of different people; professors, significant others, prospective employers, probation officers. . . ?

Not Innocent Enough

Nanci Griffith sings about the case resulting in the execution of of Philip Workman and the legal system's challenges.

Street Level Legal Interpretation

Criminal law is statutory.  Sometimes circumstances requires street-level analysis and legal interpretation by the hard working public servants entrusted with the first line enforcement of these laws.  Thorny gray areas become evident, as this video suggests:

Nebraska

Serial murderer and his baton twirling girlfriend face society's retribution.

Live:


Studio:

The Investigation

Racial profiling may not be an appropriate topic for humor.  However, human fallibility, innate prejudices and the extraordinary workings of the brain to block out what it doesn't think it needs may be.

Click here or on the image below to see a clip from Everybody Hates Chris:

Flash! Flash! Speed Trap Ahead!

A federal judge has ruled that a driver's act of flashing lights at oncoming drivers is protected free speech and may not be punished by government. The case comes from the US District Court in Missouri.

Jonathan Turley, a criminal attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School, said courts across the country are dealing with the same issue. In virtually every case except those still being decided, the person cited has prevailed, Turley said.

While flashing lights might be legal, is it ethical? Who is being helped? What public purpose does it serve? Shouldn't speeders be caught and punished?  If ethics is the communal sense of right and wrong, does it matter if you are a member of the community of drivers or the greater community of citizens of the area - including children, elderly, disabled and non-drivers who are at risk from speeders?  How many times has an innocent driver been injured or even killed because a speeding driver lost control and crossed the center line? You might think that you are helping out a fellow driver, but are you really part of the problem?

Just thinking...

People, Special Corporate People, Are The Luckiest People . . .

My apologies for the tortured reference to the old Barbara Streisand standard from the 1960's.  But, it is the start of final exams week and that makes academics a bit giddy as an antidote to the workload. In any event, this will be the last post until the Spring semester starts.

Two Jon Stewart clips below examine corporate personhood in relation to criminal responsibility. As usual, Stewart questions public policy, law and practice and raises pointed questions through humor.

Click on the images below to see Part 1 and Part 2:

Part 1:


Part 2:


Perhaps the legal standard for "personhood" should be whether or not the "person" can sing.

Barbara Streisand, a person who can sing:


JPMorganChase&Co, a "person" that cannot sing:
  

Human persons singing in protest of the practices of corporate person, JP Morgan (addressing CEO Jamie Dimon):

JP Morgan Settlement: Justice or Shakedown? Depends on Perspective.

Financial pundits last week were commenting on the $13B settlement the government negotiated with JP Morgan over the sale of shaky financial securities leading up to the recession of 2008.  On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart takes these pundits to task.  Whether you agree with Stewart or not, these videos can provide provocative prompts for timely discussion or assignments.

Click the image below to see Stewart take on the financial pundits.



Click the image below to see Stewart continue his criticism - especially addressing the Bear Stearns purchase.