Go to qualitypolicing.com

Tag: courts

  • Testifying Crime Lab Techs

    In the Supreme Court round up, I’m happy that 13-year-olds can’t be forced to strip for suspicion of carrying ibuprofen. Clarence Thomas once again comes out as the dufus court jester in the 8-1 decision: “Preservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution.” No, Sir. But strip searches are.

    What is shocking (really) is the decision, overturning 90 years of precedent, that lab analysis must testify in court. Leaving aside the constitutional issues for now, this is a hugedecision. And the court broke down in a very unusual way in its 5-4 decision.

    According to the New York Times 500 employees of the FBI laboratory in Quantico conduct more than a million tests a year. Justice Kennedy wrote in dissent: “The court’s decision means that before any of those million tests reaches a jury, at least one of the laboratory’s analysts must board a plane, find his or her way to an unfamiliar courthouse and sit there waiting to read aloud notes made months ago.” Just like a cop. And then the will be postponed.

    Constitutionally, from my amateur perspective, it seems like a sound decision (Remember that just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean the constitution is or should be on your side).

    For the majority, Scalia writes, “the best indication that the sky will not fall after today’s decision is that it has not done so already. Many States have already adopted the constitutional rule we announce today.” I hope he’s right. But the sky really may fall, at least at bit.

    How from the lab is supposed to testify? One person? Everybody?

    On this I believe the dissent when they say, “Requiring even one of these individuals to testify threatens to disrupt if not end many prosecutions where guilt is clear but a newly found formalism now holds sway.”

    Compare that with the majority opinion, “Nor will defense attorneys want to antagonize the judge or jury by wasting their time with the appearance of a witness whose testimony defense counsel does not intend to rebut in any fashion.” Really? That ain’t how it is in the Eastside District Court.

    Regardless, the court writes:

    The Confrontation Clause [of the 6th Amendment] may make the prosecution of criminals more burdensome, but that is equally true of the right to trial by jury and the privilege against self-incrimination. The Confrontation Clause–like those other constitutional provisions–is binding, and we may not disregard it at our convenience.

    I wish he was just as strict in interpreting the Fourth Amendment. I’m not a fan of the Confrontation Clause in the U.S. It makes it too hard to convict and thus contributes to a system plea bargains where innocent people plea guilty and guilty people go free. It would be better if a signed affidavit counted as an officer’s appearance. Ifthere were need to question the officer’s report, then call in the officer.

    In other countries, like the Netherlands, police generally don’t go to court (unless something is very wrong). For this (and many other reasons) their court system works much better than ours, both to convict the guilty and protect the innocent.

    But we do have the 6th Amendment and now the Confrontation Clause is stronger than ever.

    So what might happen? Somehow, of course, the system will adapt.

    More than 95% of prosecuted cases never go to trial. So perhaps for them, nothing. But even for plea-bargained cases, the state might have to be ready to go for two or three appearances before the plea bargain is accepted. Now, along with having an officer present, a lab tech will have to be present. This will cost money and further slow down justice.

    There might be more smaller labs doing work closer to the court. And there might be the need for a lot more crime lab techs who suddenly discover the wonders of court overtime pay. And you’d hate to think of overtime pay influencing theirwork. But remember that this whole case came about because of bad lab tech work.

    Maybe a lot more people will be charged with offenses related to drug. Maybe a lot more cases will be dropped. Maybe more defendants will demand jury trials and the whole system will grind to inglorious halt. Or maybe, just maybe, the sham that passes for criminal justice will continue without pause, no matter what the Supreme Court says the Constitution means, in theory.

    A dysfunctional justice system benefits nobody.

  • Court Dress Code

    My friend used to joke that the local criminals would come to court “dressed in their best sweat pants.”

    I was reading a David Sedaris book, When You Are Engulfed in Flames, on my flight back from Chicago and came across this passage:

    There were plenty of things that should have concerned me–the blood-spatter evidence, the trajectory of the bullets–but all I could concentrate on was the defendant’s mother, who’d come to court wearing cutoff jeans and aGhostbustersT-shirt. It couldn’t have been easy for her, but still you had to wonder: whatwouldshe consider a dress-up occasion?

  • Corrupt Defense Attorney

    You don’t usually hear about thistoo much. He sounds like a very bad man.

  • Witness Intimidation

    Witness intimidation is nothing new. But it usually doesn’t happen from the defendant to the witness while the witness is on the stand.

    Melissa Harris writes in the Sun:

    On the 10th day of the 17-day trial, as the lawyers huddled at the bench with their backs turned, the jury watched the 29-year-old defendant lock eyes with the witness, hold up a legal document with one hand, pump a thumbs-down gesture with the other and warn, “I know your name. You’re going down. You’re going down.”

    Fear instantly gripped the face of the witness, who muttered in disbelief, and within earshot of jurors, “Did he just threaten me?”

  • Arizona v. Gant

    The court just ruled that police can no longer search a car incident to arrest… assuming the car isn’t within reach of the arrested person and there is no reason to suspect that the car contains evidence related to the arrest.

    Since New York v. Belton(1981), police have assumed that they can search a car any time the driver is arrested. This relates to Chimel v. California (1969) saying a search incident to arrest is justified by officer safety or the interest in preserving evidence.

    In Arizona v. Gant (2009), a man was arrested for a suspended license and in custody in a police car. Police, because they could, searched his car (officer safety?) and found drugs. This is what has been overturned.

    The real-world implications of Grantwill be small. In my experience, most searches of cars happen not incident to arrest but technically to “inventory” belongings when the car is towed. Grant does not address that.

    But I’m always pleased whenever the courts extend fourth amendment freedoms of citizens. It doesn’t happen too often.

  • Bad Judge

    I can’t think of anything much more unconscionable than a selling a kid to jail for kickback money. Then multiply that times 2,000 and you’ve got Judges Mark Ciaverella and Michael Conahan.

    Things were different in the Luzerne County juvenile courtroom, and everyone knew it. Proceedings on average took less than two minutes. Detention center workers were told in advance how many juveniles to expect at the end of each day — even before hearings to determine their innocence or guilt. Lawyers told families not to bother hiring them. They would not be allowed to speak anyway.

    The NYTarticle has more details.

  • Ghetto Court

    The Detroit News reports:

    Mayor Kenneth Cockrel Jr.’s administration was dealt an embarrassing blow Friday, after his top lawyer ignited a racial flap by saying the city’s 36th District Court was “acting like a ghetto court.”

    Kathleen Leavey, who is white, resigned as the city’s corporation counsel Thursday, but said the comment was misinterpreted. That same day, the court’s chief judge, Marilyn Atkins, sent a scathing letter to numerous city officials calling the remark racist.

    Deputy Mayor Saul Green asked Leavey to quit. Cockrel’s spokesman, Daniel Cherrin, on Friday called the comments “unacceptable.”
    …
    “I called it that because of the way they treat people,” Leavey said, referring to long lines for service that are common. “They treat people poorly … whether you are black or white. You just get less service than you get in the suburbs. It’s just a bad situation.”
    …
    “It definitely could be perceived as a racist statement,” Kenyatta said. “I don’t think she would have said that about Dearborn’s court.”

    Leavey said she plans to revert to her civil servant position in the Law Department. She’s been with the city since 1985, including a stint as director of the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department from 2000 to 2002.

    “I am not going down without a fight,” Leavey said.

    She said she is “deeply, deeply wounded” by the accusations she is racist.

    So basically this woman is being canned because she’s white. I don’t normally have much sympathy for this line or argument. But let’s get real.

    Calling a messed up court system “ghetto” should not be a firing offense. Especially if the court system is! Yes, I know calling something ghetto is offense to some. And I briefly address this in my book (and then proceed to call the Eastern District “ghetto” with a capital G.).

    Yes, it’s a loaded term. Ghetto can be a racist term; it can also be a descriptive term. If it’s used to label a decent person as “low class” simply because of skin color, it’s racist. But many people call themselves ghetto. Many people actghetto. Many people don’t.

    To me, the question is whether callingthe Detroit system ghetto is justifiable. Now I don’t know the Detroit court system at all. But if it’s anything like Baltimore’s, and given Leavey’s comments it probably is, the court system is underfunded, overworked, and virtually incapable of meeting out true justice for and to the hundreds of thousand of poor black men and women–men and women from the ghetto (many but not all of whom are ghetto)–that walk through it’s revolving doors every year.

    The court system is one big hustle. It’s about getting by with what you got, pulling one over on people out to hurt you, and looking out for number one. The courts beat you down and saps your will to fight for what’s right. You can call that justice if you want, but if that’s not ghetto, I don’t know what is.

  • Public Defenders in Revolt

    “Public defenders’ offices in at least seven states are refusing to take on new cases or have sued to limit them, citing overwhelming workloads that they say undermine the constitutional right to counsel for the poor.” Read the whole story here.