We took a little time off from the blog as I tried in vain to learn how to create a Wordpress theme from a Blogger template – a process that requires greater coding skills than I possess – and with that project shelved, we’ll just be using Blogger as our host for the time being. (If anyone reading this knows how to enable RSS on a blog that refuses to offer the option, email me, please.)

Anyway, as we get back in the saddle, we’ll start with a round-up of some of the stories that we missed.

Florida criminal defense attorney Brian Tannebaum put together a thoughtful post on whether or not it’s a good thing for the defense to appear on the news, as it relates to the alleged Letterman extortionist’s attorney. That lawyer opted to show up on the Today show, where his basic argument for his client was, “He was a journalist for 20+ years, so he’s obviously too smart to have done this”. It didn’t exactly wow Matt Lauer or Ann Curry, and the whole thing made his client look like he had no real defense. Which brings up a valid point: Does it benefit you, the attorney, to go on the news, or does it benefit your client? If being on TV helps you, but not your client, you may opt instead to pay for some commercials.

Robert Guest, a defense attorney from Dallas, talks about something I’d found myself discussing with friends in the wake of the Polanski arrest: Why it’s more important that a suspect’s rights aren’t violated when we’re all pretty sure he’s guilty. Guest’s example is Hughen v. State, a case in which a suspect was interrogated after requesting an attorney, because the police insisted that he should sign a form that they assured him wasn’t waiving his rights, which he did. In that case, as in Polanski’s, it seems very likely that the person in question was guilty of the crime with which he was charged. While the issue in Polanski’s case involves ex parte communication between the judge and the prosecutor, the basic issue is the same – defending the rights of people who probably did the thing they’re accused of means that we’re all safer if we’re ever accused. Because if the state can’t make its case without violating a suspect’s rights when they’re right, what do you think they’re going to do when they’re wrong?

I was born in Indiana. I claim Texas as my home state, and I’m proud of it. I’ve never exactly been ashamed of Indiana, but it’s not the coolest place on earth. But here are a pair of stories that explain why shame might be an appropriate thing to feel when discussing the Hoosier State: 1) A grandmother was arrested for purchasing two boxes of pseuphedrine-containing cold medicine in a single week because her grandchildren – triplets – were sick. The state documents who buys these products (like they do most places, since they can be used to make meth) and then arrests those who buy too much in too short a period. 2) The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that “reasonable suspicion”, rather than probable cause, is sufficient for police to take DNA evidence in the form of a cheek swab from a suspect. The post, from the indispensible Simple Justice blog, goes on to detail exactly what we mean when we talk about “slippery slopes”.

There’s also a semi-debate regarding texting-while-driving laws, which Austin is about to pass as a city ordinance. Grits for Breakfast (Central Texas’ finest source of criminal justice commentary) argues that the law is essentially meaningless and an ad campaign detailing the dangers of DWT would be a better use of resources, while Simple Justice finds that tweaking such laws so that a person couldn’t be stopped by police solely on suspicion of DWT would address most of the concerns. The discussion spills into the comments section of Simple Justice, with Grits and SJ both making some fine points. And, since this is a concern that’s likely to play out in Austin streets, it’s worth paying attention to now.

Labels: driving while texting, in the news

posted by Dan   permalink   0 Comments