I am still trying to recover after learning that Governor Perry vetoed some of the only good criminal justice bills that made it through the legislative gauntlet this session (after hundreds of bills died in the House due to the controversy surrounding voter ID). Few, if any, lawmakers voted against the bills that Perry killed and it is beyond frustrating that one person has this much power: I echo the sentiments of Senator Wentworth's vent:

"There's no check on the governor's power to veto bills that have been through an entire process," said Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a Republican from San Antonio who represents part of southern Travis County. "When senators and representatives from all 254 counties overwhelmingly — in some instances, nearly unanimously — pass legislation that's been through a really tortuous path to get to his desk, for the governor to veto it seems a bit unusual," Wentworth said.

So much for the democratic process.

The bills I am most upset about are the expunction bill and the sex offender de-registration bill.

The expunction bill would have made it easier to for those who have had their cases dismissed, or were arrested but were not charged with a crime, to expunge their records. This would have been an amazing opportunity for people who have had their cases dismissed (or not filed!) to move on with their lives without having a criminal record following them around.

Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, along with many other groups, proposed the change because current law imposes lengthy time limitations (and in some case, no time limitations) on being able to file for an expunction after a case has been dismissed. For example, I have two clients that were falsely accused of sexual assault that are unable to have their records expunged under current law because there is no statute of limitations for that offense. Sorry, looks like those false sexual assault charges are going to have to follow two innocent men around at least two more years until next session! And sorry to the thousands of innocent Texans who are going to continue to be harmed with a criminal record that will make it even harder for them in these tough economic times to find jobs, housing, etc.

And Governor Perry's official veto statement as to why he vetoed a bill that had bi-partisan support and passed unanimously out of the House and Senate is nonsensical: "Expunction statutes should not be used as a means of discovery or as a means to force a prosecutor to rush to file formal charges prematurely." What??? Expunction statutes have never and would never be used as a means of discovery - what we want when we are seeking to expunge records is a destruction of those records, not a request to get offense reports. In addition, prosecutors must only have probable cause to file formal charges against someone - and every defense attorney knows how difficult a time a prosecutor has persuading a grand jury on that!

The sex offender de-registration bill was a very narrowly tailored bill that would have offered some relief to young "offenders" who could petition the court for an exemption from life-time sex offender registration for consensual sexual activities if they were within four years of the "victim." Under current law, a 17 1/2-year old who has consensual sex with his 14-year old girlfriend (or a 19 year old with a 15 year old or a 20 year old with a 16 year old) is guilty of sexual assault. That person, if convicted, has to register as a sex offender for life just the same as someone who commits rape or makes child pornography.

What we are talking about here under this bill would have been to allow those teenagers in "Romeo and Juilet" situations to petition the court (and this would have been permissive - not mandatory) to excuse them from a lifetime of sex offender registration for consensual sex as long as they were within four years of the "victim". (And as long as the "victim" was 14 or older.)

And Perry's reason for the veto: "I believe the bill fails to adequately protect young victims." First, the "young victims" Perry refers to are the teenagers who had consensual sex with partners four years older than they were - how does not making those "offenders" register for life in the same way that dangerous predators do "fail to adequately protect" them? Got me. And more importantly, what about the "young victims" out there that will be harmed because our limited public safety resources will be diverted and wasted on monitoring thousands of people on the sex offender registry that pose absolutely no public safety threat? (Not to mention those "young victims" - the "offenders" - who now have no relief from a life-time of living publicly as a sex offender.)

You can probably guess that I am not normally a huge Republican backer, but here's to Kay Bailey Hutchison (or really, anyone but Perry... ANYONE - Kinky Friedman? Leslie Cochrane? Kermit the Frog?) for 2010.

(Flickr images via bludgeoner86, d. jones photo, stuck in customs, faster panda kill kill, lovebrkthru)

Labels: expunctions, governor perry, kay bailey hutchison, kinky friedman, leslie cochrane, politics, sex offender registration, texas gubernatorial election 2010, texas legislature, texas republican primary

posted by Kristin Etter   permalink   2 Comments

By Raman Gill

I was struck by a recent article in the Wall Street Journal on The National Network for Safe Communities, which is, essentially, an intervention program for future violent criminals. Much like substance-abuse interventions, the target (yes, target) is confronted and told that he must stop his offensive behavior. I call them targets because that's exactly what they are--targets of criminal investigations:

Under the project, law-enforcement officials and prosecutors in the cities identify individuals operating in violent-crime areas who haven't yet committed serious violent crimes, and build cases against them, including undercover operations and surveillance. The culmination is a "call in" when the case is presented to the would-be suspect in front of law enforcement, community leaders, ex-offenders and friends and family.

"The prosecutor talks to them and lets them know: 'we could arrest you now but we won't because the drug dealing stops today, the violence stops today,'" said Jeremy Travis, president of John Jay. "If you continue, you now know the consequences and you've seen the case against you but we don't want to send you to prison."

Here's the thing: Where's the defense attorney in all of this? I know, I know--there's no arrest, no case to defend against. No need for a defense attorney, right? But is there some sort of agreement about how statements and admissions that the target makes during these interventions are going to be used if - gasp! - the target reoffends? Can statements and admissions made during these "call-ins" be used against the target in future prosecutions? Because I'm guessing that, just like drug addicts who often have to go through rehabilitation many times before it sticks, a good number of people who've been regularly "operating" in high-crime areas don't stop doing so after one intervention.

I don't mean to be hyper-critical. Really, I don't. Instead of seeing these folks as targets of criminal investigations, they could easily be seen as recipients of a second chance. Not to mention that similar programs implemented in Boston, MA and High Point, NC in the 1990s significantly reduced homicide rates, which is fantastic. And we should all applaud prosecutors and law enforcement officials who are genuinely more interested in reducing crime than winning convictions and putting people in prison.

But still, it bothers me. I often find that defense attorneys are not included in projects and initiatives that focus on public safety. And that's really too bad, not only because initiatives like this might be skating a very fine line in terms of observing fundamental rights, but also because defense attorneys are sometimes in the best position to help offenders comply with the law.

What? Aren't defense attorneys the people in the system who help offenders "get away with it?" That's certainly one way of looking at it. But here's another: The defense attorney is the one person in the system whose undivided loyalty is to the accused. This means, in an ideal situation, that there is a solid relationship of trust between the accused (or, here, target) and the defense attorney. If a target, who might well be facing a host of pressures to continue his offensive behavior, feels he can talk about his predicament or predilections to his defense attorney, then the attorney can connect him to resources that can keep him on the right track. A good defense attorney, especially those that practice holistic advocacy like some of the best public defender offices in the nation, is going to have, or at least know about, tools and resources to help battle peer pressure, addictions, familial issues, and other issues that might sway even the best-intentioned people back to a life of crime.

In the end, defense attorneys, like everyone else, care about public safety. We can be assets, not impediments, to that end.

Labels: crime prevention, holistic advocacy, innovative tactics, risks and rewards, the role of defense attorneys

posted by Dan   permalink   0 Comments

Lately it seems that the only things I'm thinking about are the intersections between law and medicine. Up until this morning, I considered this a function of the national dialog about health care reform. Since I'm not in the health care industry, and since I don't like being left out of conversations, this was the simplest explanation.

The real answer is that the universe wants me to keep thinking about this topic.

On the way to work this morning I had another NPR driveway moment. (This would be understandable if I actually listened to NPR on the way to work, but that's what makes the story even better - I was so lost in a separate train of thought that I drove to work in silence, and for some reason turned my radio on only after parking.) Sitting in the parking garage, I heard an outstanding story about a group of retired health care practitioners called Bedside Advocates. This group of physicians and nurses do not practice medicine; rather, they provide information, facilitate better communication with health care providers, and develop a family-like relationship with clients.

In essence, they become zealous advocates.

For anybody who complains that lawyers simply do what their clients want, it is interesting to see the health care profession transplant a central tenet of our profession to improve their quality of care. When a client walks into my office, my job is to advocate for their interests. In order to know what their goals are, I have to listen. And ask questions. And educate. And ask more questions. And listen some more. A relationship forms through a shared common purpose, as well as through a discussion of our strategy to get there.

We talk a lot at Sumpter & Gonzalez about these things, and focusing on our "legal bedside manner". It's nice to see health care professionals acknowledge the need for "medical zealous advocacy", too.

Labels: doctors and lawyers, lagniappe, legal bedside manner, the role of defense attorneys, zealous advocacy

posted by David M. Gonzalez   permalink   0 Comments