The New Mexico Supreme Court has attracted considerable attention this week with its ruling in the State of New Mexico v. Samora where it ruled that courts could not exclude jurors who did not speak English. Michael Anthony Samora was charged with first-degree murder and other crimes for the bludgeoning death of his girlfriend and a subsequent robbery and stabbing at an Albuquerque convenience store. He appealed on the grounds that a juror was excluded because he could not follow the proceedings in English. The Court agreed but found that the error did not deny him a fair trial.
Category: Lawyering
It has long been maintained by defense counsel that the Justice Department not only protected unethical prosecutors but has a culture encouraging unethical conduct in litigation. This problem is magnified by the tendency of courts and bar committees to look the other way in the face of violations or to confine sanctions to admonitions or verbal criticism. This week criminal defense attorneys are pointing to Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Snyder as an example of the problem. Snyder was accused of extremely serious ethical violations, but only received an admonition on one of the least serious acts of misconduct from the D.C. Bar. This follows a finding by a judge that Synder engaged in a comprehensive pattern of violations and contemptible conduct. The informal admonition if anything will reinforce the view among some federal prosecutors that they are largely immune from sanctions for withholding evidence or engaging in unethical conduct. Defense lawyers are crying foul at the handling of the case by Bar Counsel Wallace Shipp Jr. and his staff at the D.C. Bar. Shipp imposed the lowest possible sanction for what the court called a “history of repeated, blatant Brady violations and misrepresentations.” Additionally, the Justice Department itself has declined to fire Synder. Continue reading “Informal Admonition of Federal Prosecutor After “Repeated, Blatant Violations and Misrepresentations” Called “Ludicrous””
President Barack Obama on Friday seemed to acknowledge that the determined effort by the White House and Congress to demonize Edward Snowden has not exactly worked. The White House has put pressure on many people in this town to make clear that Snowden is not to be praised in the media or by members of Congress. Various reporters and new organizations have held the line in mocking Snowden or refusing to call him a “whistleblower” rather than a “leaker.” After all, the fear seems to be that Snowden has to be a traitor or Obama would look like a tyrant. Even high-ranking members have been frog walked back before cameras for uttering a work of praise for Snowden. The problem is that it has convinced few people, even with alteration of Wikipedia and other sites to maintain the party line. Now Obama has come forward to assure people that Snowden is no patriot. No, I guess that title belongs to Obama and others who have engaged in warrantless surveillance and continue to mislead the public on the erosion of privacy and civil liberties. Those patriotic souls include John Clapper who lie under oath to mislead the public about the programs. He is not a perjurer but a patriot in America’s New Animal Farm. Notably, however, not a single reporter asked Obama about the perjury by Clapper. Instead, Obama laid out another set of meaningless measures designed to lull the public back into a comfortably and controllable sleep.
Below is my column this morning in USA Today on the trial of Maj. Nidal Hasan. The trial raises the problem of when you have a defendant who states that he is as guilty as sin under our criminal law but who wants to talk about the sin rather than the crime. It is not the first time we have dealt with unhinged self-represented defendants but Hasan is more unsettling than just another fool for a lawyer.
Continue reading “The Hasan Trial: An “Ugly Thing” Takes Center Court”
Jurors are routinely told by judges and lawyers that they alone decide guilt and the parties will abide by their decision. That did not stop however Judge Amy Salerno who allegedly chastised a jury for finding a defendant not guilty in a recent case in Columbus. Salerno has now correctly been referred to the court for disciplinary action after four jurors complained about the tongue lashing.
We previously discussed the infamous case of Tawana Brawley and Al Sharpton, now a MSNBC host. In 1987, Brawley, a black teenager, falsely accused a prosecutor, a New York police officer and a state trooper of a racist attack and rape. The racial animus was fueled actively by Al Sharpton who used the case to propelled himself into national fame or infamy. She later recanted and a court ordered damages to be paid by both Brawley and Sharpton — neither of whom paid. The falsely accused former Dutchess County prosecutor Steven Pagones tracked down Brawley living in Virginia and working as a nurse last year. He is owed $190,000 in damages against Brawley, now 40.
Continue reading “Tawana Brawley’s Wages Garnished For Defamation Damages From Infamous Hoax Case”
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
It has not made a lot of noise in the main stream media, but recently, an important case filed jointly by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights challenging the Department of Justice and the Obama Administration’s drone war was argued in front of Judge Rosemary Collyer. That case is Anwar Al-Aulaqi vs. Panetta, et al and it was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2012. You can find the filing here.
What makes this case so important is that it was filed on behalf of the estate of a 16-year-old American citizen who was killed by an American drone strike, along with other victims, in Yemen in 2011. Recently the United States Department of Justice presented a defense that is quite striking. Continue reading “The Most Important Court Case You May Never Have Heard Of”
After years of abuse in confinement from denying him a charge to denying him counsel, Pfc. Bradley Manning finally had a trial on the most serious charge against him: aiding the enemy. He was convicted on lesser charges. The verdict should again focus attention on the mistreatment of Manning by the Obama Administration for leaking classified reports and diplomatic cables. Many of these documents showed that the U.S. government was lying to the public and to its allies.
Continue reading “Manning Acquitted Of Aiding The Enemy in Wikileaks Case”
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
What does a large Oil Company do when it is ordered to pay a $19 Billion dollar judgment to a country and its indigenous communities that were ravaged by the drilling and leaks caused by the Oil Company? If that Oil Company is Chevron, it cries foul and does everything possible to avoid having to pay for its corporate sins.
“Advocates for the plaintiffs in the Chevron case say that subpoenaing the email records is the company’s latest nuclear tactic to win a lawsuit it keeps losing. Chevron was ordered to pay $9 billion in damages in 2011 and to issue a public apology. After the company refused, a judge ordered the damages to double. The Supreme Court has declined to hear Chevron’s appeal.” Mother Jones Continue reading “An Oil Company Just Spilled the First Amendment”
By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Author’s note: This is the second in a series of related posts examining the American Jury. In the first installment (here), we looked at the antecedents created by the judicial system that foster Jury Groupthink. We said that seven systemic components lead to a higher risk of groupthink when citizens form isolated, cohesive work groups to decide issues in a litigation setting. We also explained that the more antecedents in the mix, the higher the likelihood of decisions based not on reason or evidence but more on the need to reach a unanimous decision and to defend that decision later. The events of this week serve almost as a scripted piece of this article as first one then another juror in the Zimmerman case came forward to exemplify aspects of the groupthink mentality. (More about that in Installment Three.) Antecedents by the judicial system aren’t the only promoters of group think. Societal constructs created by our society as a whole enhances the pattern, too, and serve as telltale markers of the bad decision-making, as we shall see.
You think your average juror is King Solomon? No! He’s a roofer with a mortgage. He wants to go home and sit in his Barcalounger and let the cable TV wash over him. And this man doesn’t give a single, solitary droplet of shit about truth, justice or your American way.
~John Grisham, The Runaway Jury
John Grisham’s crystallized cynicism surely doesn’t hold true for all jurors but the point to be made is that jurors are not “big picture” deciders of great issues of the day utilizing lofty principles. Instead, jurors tend to recoil from abstract notions of truth and justice and delve more deeply into human motivations and empathy. In their classic work on American juries, Professors Kalven and Zeisel of the University of Chicago, concluded that “in many instances the jury reaction goes well beyond” rational sentiments “and rests on empathy of one human being to another.” Appealing enough to our natural sentiments and intuitively correct, but in the battle of human versus human, the question becomes, “empathy for whom?” And how does empathy fit into the structure of a system that calls for cold-blooded reason and eschews warm-hearted sentiments? Not so well, it seems. In fact, jurors swear off these emotional human frailties (which form much of their everyday decision-making. Don’t think so? Ask yourself: “Why did I marry my wife? Wide pubic bone for ease in childbearing perhaps, there Mr. Spock?) and promise to be guided by the evidence alone. How can juries bridge the gap between their own intuition and the judge’s instruction?
Continue reading “American Juries: Seekers of Truth or Mere Consensus? Part II”
Last night, I appeared again (here and here) on the PBS Newshour to discuss President Barack Obama’s comments about the Zimmerman trial. While I usually do not intrude on our weekend guest bloggers, I have received a few emails about a comment that I made about the Stand Your Ground law. I was commenting on the President’s statement that we need to reexamine the Stand Your Ground law and noted that the law was not in play at the trial. This led to a few emails objecting that I had ignored the jury instructions that they claim imposed the standard of the SYG law on the jury. I disagree and wanted to briefly explain. Most were civil and insightful and I thought, after our exchange, it would be good to post a brief discussion on this insular issue from the trial. There are important things to discuss in the aftermath of the verdict, as the President said, but we should be clear about our view of the underlying legal standards and trial record.
Continue reading “The Stand Your Ground Law And The Zimmerman Trial”
By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
”Write that down,” the King said to the jury, and the jury eagerly wrote down all three dates on their slates, and then added them up, and reduced the answer to shillings and pence.”
~Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
Few institutions of the English speaking peoples are held in the same esteem as juries in criminal cases. A full three quarters of those polled in the U.S. would want their case decided by a jury rather than a judge. Three in five Australians believe their jury system is working well. In the UK, juries enjoy support from 72% of the population and the same percentage rate the right to trial by jury as one of the most important in society. Compare that to the U.S. Congress’ approval rating of 15% or the President’s rating of 43% and you can see that in America we love juries.
And why shouldn’t we? After all, it was Jefferson who reminded none other than that firebrand of the Revolution, Thomas Payne, in 1789, that “trial by jury [is] the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” Jefferson words surely were on the mind of Justice Byron “Whizzer” White when he wrote, “The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power — to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge.”
But do modern juries live up to the billing? Are they the bulwarks of democracy seeking only truth or sad victims of a process designed to produce groupthink results due to systemic flaws? Are they staunch individuals committed to their position and determined to fight to the last man to prove it, or are they susceptible to influences both in and out of the deliberation room which have little or nothing to do with evidence and logic. In essence, are they seekers of truth or merely consensus?
Continue reading “American Juries: Seekers of Truth or Mere Consensus? Part I”
I have previously stated that I believe that Zimmerman prosecutor Angela Corey over charged the case as second degree murder and in my view contributed heavily to the defeat in the case. What many people described as the evidence for conviction is actually evidence of manslaughter. Had the case been framed as manslaughter or negligent homicide, it might have turned out differently. However, that was in my view an error in prosecutorial discretion. More serious questions have arisen over Corey’s ethics and that of her office. These allegations include her conduct following the acquittal of George Zimmerman.
Continue reading “Zimmerman Prosecutor Angela Corey Under Fire For Alleged Professional Breaches”
One of the most damaging moments for the prosecution in the trial of George Zimmerman trial was the inexplicable decision to lead with Rachel Jeantel, a friend of Trayvon Martin’s. Jeantel proceeded to admit to previously lying and then gave conflicted and at points unintelligible testimony. Her statement that Martin called Zimmerman a “cracker” further helped the defense in balancing the derogatory statements of Zimmerman. After the verdict, Jeantel has made statements that seem unhinged and again raise the question on why the prosecutors would place her so prominently in their case in chief. The latest controversy is a new allegation from Jeantel that she warned Trayvon that Zimmerman might be a gay rapist. She is not the only person associated with the trial who seems to be courting the press in the case with disastrous results.
Continue reading “Jeantel: “I Told Trayvon, [Zimmerman] Might Have Been A Rapist.””
As I mentioned in today’s column, the prosecution team of Angela Corey in the Zimmerman case have been accused of repeated prosecutorial abuse in the withholding of evidence from the defense. Circuit Judge Debra Nelson seemed intent on the most recent charge of withholding text messages to want to avoid the issue, but she earlier held a sanctions hearing with the testimony of the man who brought the violation to the attention of the defense: IT director Ben Kruidbos. Corey has been widely criticized for over-charging the case by experts, including an article out today, and her team was widely criticized for putting on a weak case for prosecution. Now, before Nelson has ruled on her office’s withholding of evidence, Corey has fired Kruidbos. His termination before a ruling on the alleged prosecutorial abuse only strengthens his claims as a whistleblower and throws the ethics of Corey and her office in great question.