Elizabeth Coker, 258th Judicial District Judge in Texas, appears to want to be both judge and prosecutor at trial, but clearly not the defendant. Coker has admitted to sending text messages to a prosecutor to suggest examination questions during a trial. What is astonishing is that the prosecutor Kaycee L. Jones, was later made herself a judge despite the misconduct. The case reflects what defense attorneys have often complained is the close relationship of judges and prosecutors as well as the overwhelming preference for making prosecutors judges across the country.
Category: Lawyering
Below is a slightly expanded version of today’s column in USA Today on the Zimmerman verdict. As I wrote before the case was sent to the jury, I saw no alternative to acquittal even on manslaughter and expected the jury to render a full acquittal. I respect the conflicting views of many on this blog on the case and how it was charged and handled. We will now have to wait to see if the Justice Department will re-try Zimmerman as a civil rights matter. I have serious reservations about such an effort, but that can be for a later discussion. For now, a few observations on the verdict can serve to as a foundation for our own discussion.
Continue reading “SEPARATING LAW AND LEGEND IN THE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT”
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As I write this I’ve just read a story in the New York Times about the U.S. threatening countries in South America to not grant asylum to Edward Snowden. In typical “Times” fashion these countries are characterized as “leftist” mavericks against the assumed U.S. hegemony in that vast continent. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/americas/us-is-pressing-latin-americans-to-reject-snowden.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp . The attitude of the story is that these countries by resisting our government’s pressure are acting in a petulant manner. This is typical of the mindset of many supposed journalists today who are unable to put in context the history behind the actions of certain players on the world stage. What it highlights for me is that there seems to be unprecedented pressure by our government to capture and punish Mr. Snowden for his “crimes”. With my admittedly jaundiced view of much of the history of my country in my lifetime, the attempt to take Snowden down for his “crimes” makes sense if you put into the context of American history with respect to foreign relations and how foreign relations has impacted the growing unconstitutional treatment of United States citizens at home and abroad. Since this is a huge topic deserving of many tomes and therefore doesn’t lend itself to the guest blog format, my piece will present my own impressionistic view of the interaction between foreign policy and the growth of the American Police State since World War II, which can be expanded, abetted or contradicted by you the reader.
For all practical purposes the Second World War began with the almost total loss of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. While it was known that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had actively been trying to aid Great Britain in its struggle against the Axis Powers in Europe, the American Congress was skeptical of foreign involvement and there was a large “isolationist” strain in the American people. The devastation of Pearl Harbor shocked the nation into realizing that it had to focus upon the rest of the world and awakened within the country a strong thirst for revenge. I say this not disparagingly since were I alive at the time, I would have been one with this national outrage and blood-lust. The problem with arousing such a strong emotional call for action in any society is that in the frenzy to act, societal norms are often breached in the name of expediency. In the case of our country World War II planted the seeds of the Corporate/Military/Intelligence Complex (CMIC) that is reaching full flower today. What follows is my personal overview of this development since that embattled time and why this government has such a great need to crush Edward Snowden for his deeds. Continue reading “Who Do You Trust, US or Your Lying Eyes?”
Last night saw an extraordinary confrontation between the defense and the court in the George Zimmerman trial. The defense is seeking to use photos and material from the phone of Martin. The most serious issue is that the defense claims that the government had this material since January and only recently gave it to the defense — another allegation of withholding evidence by the prosecution. The judge and the lawyers are clearly exhausted and I think the schedule is a bit too punishing. I realize that the jury is sequestered and want to go home. However, these days are diminishing the professional ability and clearly the personal restraint of the judge and lawyers alike. While I do not think that the defense should get a few days to rest, I do think that schedule has been unnecessarily demanding and even a few hours of more rest would be in order. I realize the jurors and courts have limited time but I have never agreed with the punishing schedule of many trials. However, I am more concerned with the delay in turning over this evidence until June.
Continue reading “Meltdown: Judge Walks Out In Tense Exchange With Zimmerman Counsel”
Lawyer Christopher Kirby certainly had quite a night when he appeared to represent the East Ramapo School District at a simple school board meeting. By the end of the evening, Kirby was leaving just before the arrival of police, a community was in full uproar, and his firm was terminated from further representation of the District. How can things get that bad, you ask? It started with a smirk.
It is often difficult to get actual charges against a police officer, but former St. Louis Officer Rory Bruce, 35, was an exception. After all, it was a police video that clearly showed him verbally abusing a teenager and then sucker punching him while handcuffed. One would think it would be an easy conviction, even without the testimony of the 16-year-old boy. That is if the judge watched the video. She did not. Judge Teresa Counts Burke showed no reason to actually watch the video before ruling and now the police union is demanding that the department rehire Bruce.
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
A recent United State Supreme Court decision has made it almost impossible for small businesses and individuals to bring class action lawsuits against large corporations who may be in violation of antitrust laws. Not only did the case fly under the mass media radar, it also may allow corporations to use contractual language to insulate them from many other federal laws. I am talking about the American Express v. Italian Colors case that was decided by a 5-3 margin. What the Supreme Court majority did here was to allow American Express to force its small business customers to sign a contract that included language that precluded those same customers from having any viable access to judicial review of American Express’ business practices. Continue reading “The Supreme Court Versus the Common Man”
As discussed in the media (Washington Post and Associated Press), the plaintiffs in the World Bank case have filed their final proposed findings before the Special Master, including recommendations that D.C. Attorney General Irving Nathan and top aides be referred to the Bar for investigation. The case (Chang v. United States) has been going on for over ten years and involves the mass arrest of bystanders without probable cause during demonstrations against the World Bank and IMF. The case has been under investigation by Special Master John M. Facciola, United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who is looking into the loss or destruction of key evidence in the possession of the District of Columbia as well as false statements and filings made before the Court by District officials. Because I am co-lead counsel in the case with Dan Schwartz of Bryan Cave, I must remain circumspect in what I can say about the case. To relieve the burden on my secretary, I am posting the filing this week which is in the public record.
Prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial are facing a collapsing case and renewed question over whether Angela Corey succumbed to the political pressure and overcharged the case. The prosecution’s case has thus far been a disaster and many are now questioning whether charges should have been brought at all, let alone charged as second degree murder. For some inexplicable reason, the prosecutors led with Rachel Jeantel, who was one of the least compelling witnesses that they could have called from earlier perjury to ever-changing testimony. Now Angela Corey (right) and her office appear to be turning toward alternative areas of prosecution involving the daughter of one of the defense counsel.
We previously discussed the finding of a Minnesota judge that the leading firm of Covington & Burling committed a serious conflict of interest in representation in a large environmental case against 3M corporation. Now, a state appellate court has upheld the disqualification — an embarrassing blow for the law firm, which continues to generate bad publicity in the litigation for its current and future clients.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has rejected a request from the state bar association to disbar Robert Bradley Miller, former assistant district attorney for Oklahoma County, and given him just a suspension from practicing law for 180 days and court costs for egregious misconduct in two capital cases twenty years ago. We have often discussed the lack of deterrence for prosecutors who are rarely disciplined for conduct leading to reversals or false convictions. In this case, the bar wanted Miller out of its ranks for hiding a key deal with a witness and using falsified subpoenas to coerce cooperation from other witnesses. The novel defense — accepted by the state Supreme Court — was that lots of prosecutors acted abusively back then. The shocking opinion was written by Oklahoma Justice Yvonne Kauger (left).
By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
University of Virginia student Elizabeth Daly thought she was doing a good thing buying some La Croix bottled water and cookie dough ice cream from the Harris Teeter Supermarket to share at a charity event. It was 10:15 p.m. and the twenty-year-old, along with her female roommate were trying get to a police sponsored “Take Back The Night” event where she thought she would be listening to stories from sexual assault victims and developing strategies to combat the scourge of most college towns. Instead, as she crossed the dark parking lot and got into her vehicle, she was set upon by six people, one of whom jumped on the hood of her SUV and another who pulled a gun.
“I couldn’t put my windows down unless I started my car, and when I started my car they began yelling to not move the car, not to start the car. They began trying to break the windows. My roommates and I were … terrified,” Daly stated. Not wanting to become a victim herself, Daly heeded the words of her panic-stricken front seat passenger and took off. As she did, she grazed two of the assailants.
“They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform,” she recalled Thursday in a written account of the April 11 incident.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
President Obama has admitted that while in school he was a frequent marijuana smoker. George W. Bush also alluded to smoking marijuana and possibly to using cocaine. Bill Clinton claimed to have smoked it but not inhaled it, which is the type of ridiculous statement Clinton is capable of asserting for political gain. Thus the last three Presidents of the United States have admitted that one time or another they have broken the law and used a banned substance. While each of those Presidents presided over the continued witch hunt and prosecution of the “War On Drugs” I believe that Barack Obama has been the most hypocritical.
Had either G.W. Bush, or Bill Clinton been arrested for smoking marijuana there is no doubt in my mind that they would have neither served jail time, nor would they have had their careers stained by a criminal record. Bush, as the scion of a great political family would have had his record expunged, or possibly have had the police back off when they discovered who he was. Bill Clinton was a student at a prestigious University and while not rich, came from a politically connected family in Arkansas. What they also had in common was that they were White men. Barack Obama on the other hand would have likely been arrested, despite his status as a Harvard student and while he probably would have escaped jail time he would have been forced to take a plea which would remain on his record. If such a thing had occurred it is highly probable that Barack Obama would never have been elected Senator, much less President. There is a likelihood that he might never even have been allowed to enter the Bar as an attorney, since that entrance requires extensive background checks. Whatever you might think of him Barack Obama is a very intelligent man. Surely he must realize how fortunate he was to not get caught smoking grass and yet as President he has stepped up the War On Drugs and has allowed egregious prosecutions in States that have passed medical marijuana laws. To my mind this is blatant hypocrisy, but beyond that political position lies a destructiveness that can only rationally be seen as the continuance of the oppression of Americans of color, particularly Blacks, by our Federal Government. I will deal with our President’s hypocrisy and use it as the basis of my condemnation of the War On Drugs. Continue reading “Obama and the War on Drugs: Hypocrisy in Action”
U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee has issued a sweeping victory for the Obama Administration and its contractors in seeking to bar any recourse for people injured or killed in U.S. camps or prisons like Abu Ghraib. Lee dismissed a lawsuit detailing well-supported accounts of abuse of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison — holding that the injured parties could not use U.S. courts to seek judicial review and relief for the abuse. He closed the door to the U.S. judicial system to four Iraqi plaintiffs under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) as well as one plaintiff who was deemed as barred under Iraqi law.
There is an interesting story out of San Jose where a man was falsely accused of being an accomplice to murder despite being in a hospital at the time of the crime. Defense attorneys often argue contamination in DNA cases and the attorneys for Lukis Anderson, 26, insisted that either contamination or sheer negligence had to be the reason for the finding of his DNA on the body of robbery victim and Monte Sereno businessman, Raveesh “Ravi” Kumra (LEFT). It turns out that that is precisely what happened. The same ET crew that had worked on Anderson earlier responded to the home invasion of Kumra and used the same equipment — transferring the DNA to the body.