Posts
Come on, people. I don't want to blog about the Jodi Arias case. It is a stupid case that does not deserve to be famous. The issues in it are not worthy of national attention. Neither the victim nor the defendant are any more interesting than the victims and defendants in every other murder case currently pending throughout the nation. The only reason anyone should be talking about this case is as a starting-point for why we have developed this media monster that creates celebrities out of whatever random criminal defendant it latches onto.
But, goshdarnit, then today I read that Jodi Arias' childhood friend, who had planned to testify during the mitigation portion of the death penalty trial, was now declining to testify because she had received death threats and was feeling conflicted about the case. Wait. Back up. Death threats? She received death threats?!
First, let's just get this one thing out of the way: whoever made those death threats has definitely committed a felony and probably two (depending on how Arizona categorizes these crimes*). Criminal threat, obviously. And then there's intimidating a witness. Both of these things are obviously big no-nos. (At least I hope it's obvious...) Threatening people is not cool. Intimidating witnesses into not testifying is not cool. Interfering with a defendant's right to present mitigation at a death penalty trial is not cool.
Whatever really happened, it wouldn't have happened without Nancy Grace and her HLN cronies (yes, and other media outlets, but Nancy Grace is the worst) turning this case into a media circus. They've spent months vilifying this woman who otherwise wouldn't be known outside of her own and her victim's families. In that case, her childhood friend would probably have put aside her conflicting feelings (which are normal enough) and testified as she had planned. And as lots of other friends and family members of convicted murderers do at death penalty trials all across the country. No one is proud of their murdering friends; but they do recognize there is good in those people, too. I can't help but suspect that the sheer international notoriety of Jodi Arias largely contributed to the conflict leading the witness to bow out. (As a character witness, not a material witness, she can't be compelled to testify. It's also probably really bad strategy to try to get a witness who doesn't want to testify at a penalty phase to testify. Won't go well for your client.)
As for the death threat, it should go without saying that's not a terribly normal occurrence in death penalty trials. Maybe it's not fair, but I can't help but picture one of Nancy Grace's frothing at the mouth viewers, quite possibly ready to inject the 3-drug cocktail him or herself. I don't know how we get to a death threat being made against this woman without it being related to the insane, over-the-top, hateful coverage Jodi Arias has received on cable television and gossip sites.
Now I personally would find it hilarious if this incident and the over-the-top media coverage leads to an appellate reversal. The district court declined to grant a mistrial after the witness told of receiving death threats. If Arias goes on to receive a sentence of death, that could get very interesting. Any error or problem that contributes to a death sentence should be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny on appeal than that same error would receive in a trial that resulted in a life sentence. An appellate attorney could make a lot of hay about a case where participants were receiving death threats. I know my state court would be troubled. (I also know, though, that most of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, where defense attorneys sleeping during trial aren't a problem, wouldn't be.)
This will only be an issue if Arias is sentenced to death. Here's hoping that the jury spares us the years of Nancy Grace's ranting about an appeal by just sentencing her to life. And, hey, I won't have to write about this case again, either.
*Dorky lawyer alert. Depending on how various state statutes are written, the actual best charges may be misdemeanors in some places.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Those darn cocker spaniel eyes
The good news is that the thing that had me so stressed out yesterday isn't going to cost me any money, so I'm not going to have to come up with $1500 to pay for doggy surgery or a pile of doggy meds. And my sweet, sweet pup is perfectly healthy.
But the bad news...
She is not yet 7 and apparently her eyesight has been deteriorating for some time now. The vet estimates at worst she will be fully blind in 6 months, or it may take 2 years. She's obviously doing a bang-up job (get it? bang-up? Because the clue I had something was wrong was that she kept walking into things) adapting already, though, as it took me this long to notice something was really wrong. So there's no reason to think she won't keep adapting.
Her mommy may be the real problem. I'll have to be a lot more careful about not leaving my shoes and books and knitting projects lying around.
But, damn, I'm gonna miss that look.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Pardon me while I indulge in a little self-pity
So this is just how my life is. Nothing ever just goes smoothly. I can never get ahead. And just when I think I might be getting there, something else comes up. Before I've even had time to dream of a plane ticket to New York or a car that doesn't threaten to overheat every day, some crisis comes up that will eat up every spare dime (or at least all the emotional energy I have to spare or both). And there's never anyone else to share the burden.
It doesn't help that I'm the world's biggest pessimist and always assume the absolute worst (for which I blame my father).
It's exhausting.
And it requires way more wine than I can afford.
Monday, May 13, 2013
The high cost of prison phone calls
One thing that people who don't regularly communicate with people in prison may not think about is how prisoners make phone calls to their loved ones. And who pays for them.
Sadly, over the last decade or so, inmate phone calls home have become quite the racket. Departments of Correction sign contracts with private companies. In most states, the DOC gets a portion of whatever revenue is made on each phone call. Inmates, then, are paying ridiculous sums per minute, as much as we used to pay for international phone calls to really obscure countries. My college roommate served in the Peace Corps in Africa in the '90s. In the two years she was there, I made special arrangements to call her only a handful of times, treating each of them like a luxury because as a college graduate with a full-time job, one half-hour phone call would equal about 4 Friday night dinners out. So imagine how much harder it is on an inmate who makes $.12 an hour and just wants to talk to his mom or grandma once in a while.
It's just another way in which our correctional policies are hopelessly short-sighted. The DOCs love the current set-up because they get to earn money. And the private contractors obviously love it. But when we turn calls home into a luxury for inmates, we're only further decreasing the likelihood of inmates losing connections to their communities, their families, their friends. We're only further increasing their sense of isolation. Those inmates who are more isolated, less connected to their communities seem like the inmates most likely to reoffend upon release, don't they? The reality is that most prison inmates will be released some day, so it's in our best interests as a society to keep that in mind.
Plus, there's the fact that it's just not very nice to jack up prices on inmate phone calls. I don't think it's making prison a 5-star resort to grant them access to phone calls that don't cost an arm and a leg. I know it's not popular to suggest that we might be a little kind, show a little human decency, even compassion, to prison inmates. But, truly, it wouldn't kill us.
I was glad to see, then, that the FCC might actually be looking into this. I don't know if anything will actually change on that global a level, but it would be nice.
Sadly, over the last decade or so, inmate phone calls home have become quite the racket. Departments of Correction sign contracts with private companies. In most states, the DOC gets a portion of whatever revenue is made on each phone call. Inmates, then, are paying ridiculous sums per minute, as much as we used to pay for international phone calls to really obscure countries. My college roommate served in the Peace Corps in Africa in the '90s. In the two years she was there, I made special arrangements to call her only a handful of times, treating each of them like a luxury because as a college graduate with a full-time job, one half-hour phone call would equal about 4 Friday night dinners out. So imagine how much harder it is on an inmate who makes $.12 an hour and just wants to talk to his mom or grandma once in a while.
It's just another way in which our correctional policies are hopelessly short-sighted. The DOCs love the current set-up because they get to earn money. And the private contractors obviously love it. But when we turn calls home into a luxury for inmates, we're only further decreasing the likelihood of inmates losing connections to their communities, their families, their friends. We're only further increasing their sense of isolation. Those inmates who are more isolated, less connected to their communities seem like the inmates most likely to reoffend upon release, don't they? The reality is that most prison inmates will be released some day, so it's in our best interests as a society to keep that in mind.
Plus, there's the fact that it's just not very nice to jack up prices on inmate phone calls. I don't think it's making prison a 5-star resort to grant them access to phone calls that don't cost an arm and a leg. I know it's not popular to suggest that we might be a little kind, show a little human decency, even compassion, to prison inmates. But, truly, it wouldn't kill us.
I was glad to see, then, that the FCC might actually be looking into this. I don't know if anything will actually change on that global a level, but it would be nice.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Hey Jodi Arias lawyers: you're doing it wrong
I don't want to say anything about the Jodi Arias mess. I don't want to get into the self-defense claim or the "should she get death" discussion (you know I think no one should) or even the celebrification of criminal defendants (I think you all know what I think of the Nancy Graces who created this monster).
Really, the only thing I want to say is this: no murder trial should take 5 months. I've had murder trials that involved multiple defendants, upwards of 40 charges, multiple victims, multiple incidents joined for trial. And not one of them has taken anywhere close to even half that time. For a one victim, garden variety murder case to take more than 2 weeks (separate from jury selection) is excessive in most cases. If the lawyers are taking longer than that, I can guarantee you they are putting on more witnesses than they should, taking too long with the witnesses, conducting cross-examinations when there is no need to, and doing a dozen other little things that are nothing but a waste of time.
I don't care what the attorneys think justifies such a lengthy trial. They are wrong. Universally, without exception wrong.
How can jurors possibly be expected to give up that much of their lives so attorneys can grand-stand, so every minute detail can be picked apart until nothing makes any sense? How can they be expected to pay attention and remember things? In his book "Mistrial" (full review coming soon), Mark Geragos talks about the Scott Peterson trial, also a 5 month trial. After the guilty verdict and death sentence, he talked to the jurors and asked them what they thought about what he considered the single most important piece of evidence that showed Laci was still alive at a time that made the state's case against Scott fall apart. None of the jurors had any idea what he was talking about. Because in 5 months of nonsense, they'd lost sight of the key details that might have made a difference. No attorney helps his/her case by taking so damn long to put it on and overwhelming the jury with minutiae. You aren't making your case if you're making the jury hate you for wasting months of their lives, either.
If I were ever at jury selection and the court and parties indicated they expected the trial to take anywhere near that long, I would be a menace. I would let them know I thought that was a sign that neither set of attorneys had any advocacy skills and that the judge had no control over the courtroom. In a trial that long, I would let it be known that I would keep track of which side took longer and vote against whichever party took longer, evidence be damned.
By all means, prosecutors should be allowed to make their cases. And of course I want all defendants everywhere to get to present their defenses. But if doing that takes five months, you're doing it wrong.
Really, the only thing I want to say is this: no murder trial should take 5 months. I've had murder trials that involved multiple defendants, upwards of 40 charges, multiple victims, multiple incidents joined for trial. And not one of them has taken anywhere close to even half that time. For a one victim, garden variety murder case to take more than 2 weeks (separate from jury selection) is excessive in most cases. If the lawyers are taking longer than that, I can guarantee you they are putting on more witnesses than they should, taking too long with the witnesses, conducting cross-examinations when there is no need to, and doing a dozen other little things that are nothing but a waste of time.
I don't care what the attorneys think justifies such a lengthy trial. They are wrong. Universally, without exception wrong.
How can jurors possibly be expected to give up that much of their lives so attorneys can grand-stand, so every minute detail can be picked apart until nothing makes any sense? How can they be expected to pay attention and remember things? In his book "Mistrial" (full review coming soon), Mark Geragos talks about the Scott Peterson trial, also a 5 month trial. After the guilty verdict and death sentence, he talked to the jurors and asked them what they thought about what he considered the single most important piece of evidence that showed Laci was still alive at a time that made the state's case against Scott fall apart. None of the jurors had any idea what he was talking about. Because in 5 months of nonsense, they'd lost sight of the key details that might have made a difference. No attorney helps his/her case by taking so damn long to put it on and overwhelming the jury with minutiae. You aren't making your case if you're making the jury hate you for wasting months of their lives, either.
If I were ever at jury selection and the court and parties indicated they expected the trial to take anywhere near that long, I would be a menace. I would let them know I thought that was a sign that neither set of attorneys had any advocacy skills and that the judge had no control over the courtroom. In a trial that long, I would let it be known that I would keep track of which side took longer and vote against whichever party took longer, evidence be damned.
By all means, prosecutors should be allowed to make their cases. And of course I want all defendants everywhere to get to present their defenses. But if doing that takes five months, you're doing it wrong.
Monday, May 6, 2013
The judge in the Casey Anthony case should keep his mouth shut. It's bad enough when the judges in these unjustifiedly high-profile cases pursue their 15 minutes of fame. It's even more unseemly when a judge does it. If you really want to get on The Today Show someday, maybe being a judge isn't the right career path for you.
Lying is a crime?
Yeah, I'll say it. Lying to federal investigators should not be a crime. I'm pretty sure Martha Stewart would agree with me. Remember that the feds didn't get her on insider-trading charges. Instead, they got her on charges of making false statements to investigators, applying this statute:
This statute has, sadly, even been interpreted to cover the exculpatory no. As in a person who is accused of a crime says, "No, I didn't do it." See Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998). Which means that pretty much any schmuck anywhere who is accused of a crime can have this federal charge tacked on if he tells any federal authority ever, "I didn't do it." So while the Fifth Amendment protects your right not to incriminate yourself, it doesn't protect your right to proclaim your innocence if you are, in fact, guilty. So says the US Supreme Court in interpreting this federal statute. You are still legally allowed to plead not guilty in a court of law without risking a charge under this statute. But don't tell the FBI guy you aren't guilty...
Which brings us to the poor, schmuck 19 year-old college buddy of the Boston bombing suspect who is now under house arrest and facing up to 8 years in prison. Not for conspiring to do the bombing itself. Not even for tampering with evidence after the bombing. Nope, just for lying. Just for being confused and scared and muddled during intense interrogation. As one would expect a 19 year-old might be upon being questioned by federal authorities after learning that your acquaintance is the prime suspect in a terror attack. (With the term "intense interrogation," I don't mean beating or torture or anything like that, but just that investigators with lots of experience really, urgently wanting information from this guy.)
I don't trust this charge against the one kid, the US citizen. The other two, the Kazakhs, are charged with tampering with evidence. This third kid is saying he was just there with them, didn't know what was going on. The fact that he isn't charged with tampering with evidence makes me believe the feds don't really think he knew what was going on. But they'll get him on lying. Who knows, maybe they're just hoping to make sure he'll testify against the other two if those two did discard a backpack with evidence in it.
But the point about the lying charge is that it shouldn't exist. It's a bogus charge. People make misstatements. People get muddled, maybe don't remember exactly what time something happened, who exactly said what, whether you went to spot a first or spot b. Honestly, try to relate right now everything you did 3 days ago. Then try to tell it a second time without changing anything, without saying, "Oh, no, wait, it wasn't like that, it was like this." You can't do it. Especially not when talking to people who are trained to get people flustered, to take advantage of vulnerability.
The reality is that not all incorrect statements are "lies." People can get confused, just remember things wrong, or be unsure. All without any malice or intent to mislead. Most of us (really, probably all of us) do it on a daily basis. With no idea that we're "lying" because that isn't our purpose. Or we could have all sorts of totally benign, not relevant-in-our-minds reason for not coming entirely clean, like maybe I don't want to admit to the cops investigating my burglary that, yeah, I really did leave that pile of clothes in the bedroom instead of letting them think the burglar did it.
So take a freaked-out 19 year-old whose one friend may be a murdering terrorist and whose other two friends may have tampered with evidence and put him in a room with federal investigators and I guarantee you he'll slip up somewhere. And keep in mind that the investigators are allowed to lie to him, in all sorts of extravagant ways. They can tell him they have witnesses and evidence they don't. They can confuse and befuddle him, tell him his memory is wrong, his answers are wrong, etc. And if in all of that, he says two things that are contradictory, changes his story, or gets a time or date wrong, boom, he can be charged with a federal crime.
I hate it. I think it's wrong. If someone is seriously, intentionally giving wildly false statements to throw off an investigation, that person can be charged with obstruction. But making it a federal offense to make false statements to federal authorities is just way too broad. And in case of this particular 19 year-old, it's probably being used to catch up in a terrorism investigation net a kid who doesn't deserve to have his life ruined for having bad taste in friends.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
- (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
- (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
This statute has, sadly, even been interpreted to cover the exculpatory no. As in a person who is accused of a crime says, "No, I didn't do it." See Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998). Which means that pretty much any schmuck anywhere who is accused of a crime can have this federal charge tacked on if he tells any federal authority ever, "I didn't do it." So while the Fifth Amendment protects your right not to incriminate yourself, it doesn't protect your right to proclaim your innocence if you are, in fact, guilty. So says the US Supreme Court in interpreting this federal statute. You are still legally allowed to plead not guilty in a court of law without risking a charge under this statute. But don't tell the FBI guy you aren't guilty...
Which brings us to the poor, schmuck 19 year-old college buddy of the Boston bombing suspect who is now under house arrest and facing up to 8 years in prison. Not for conspiring to do the bombing itself. Not even for tampering with evidence after the bombing. Nope, just for lying. Just for being confused and scared and muddled during intense interrogation. As one would expect a 19 year-old might be upon being questioned by federal authorities after learning that your acquaintance is the prime suspect in a terror attack. (With the term "intense interrogation," I don't mean beating or torture or anything like that, but just that investigators with lots of experience really, urgently wanting information from this guy.)
I don't trust this charge against the one kid, the US citizen. The other two, the Kazakhs, are charged with tampering with evidence. This third kid is saying he was just there with them, didn't know what was going on. The fact that he isn't charged with tampering with evidence makes me believe the feds don't really think he knew what was going on. But they'll get him on lying. Who knows, maybe they're just hoping to make sure he'll testify against the other two if those two did discard a backpack with evidence in it.
But the point about the lying charge is that it shouldn't exist. It's a bogus charge. People make misstatements. People get muddled, maybe don't remember exactly what time something happened, who exactly said what, whether you went to spot a first or spot b. Honestly, try to relate right now everything you did 3 days ago. Then try to tell it a second time without changing anything, without saying, "Oh, no, wait, it wasn't like that, it was like this." You can't do it. Especially not when talking to people who are trained to get people flustered, to take advantage of vulnerability.
The reality is that not all incorrect statements are "lies." People can get confused, just remember things wrong, or be unsure. All without any malice or intent to mislead. Most of us (really, probably all of us) do it on a daily basis. With no idea that we're "lying" because that isn't our purpose. Or we could have all sorts of totally benign, not relevant-in-our-minds reason for not coming entirely clean, like maybe I don't want to admit to the cops investigating my burglary that, yeah, I really did leave that pile of clothes in the bedroom instead of letting them think the burglar did it.
So take a freaked-out 19 year-old whose one friend may be a murdering terrorist and whose other two friends may have tampered with evidence and put him in a room with federal investigators and I guarantee you he'll slip up somewhere. And keep in mind that the investigators are allowed to lie to him, in all sorts of extravagant ways. They can tell him they have witnesses and evidence they don't. They can confuse and befuddle him, tell him his memory is wrong, his answers are wrong, etc. And if in all of that, he says two things that are contradictory, changes his story, or gets a time or date wrong, boom, he can be charged with a federal crime.
I hate it. I think it's wrong. If someone is seriously, intentionally giving wildly false statements to throw off an investigation, that person can be charged with obstruction. But making it a federal offense to make false statements to federal authorities is just way too broad. And in case of this particular 19 year-old, it's probably being used to catch up in a terrorism investigation net a kid who doesn't deserve to have his life ruined for having bad taste in friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
