There’s lots of talk about Tiger Woods right now. After a “minor car accident” on his own property, he’s gone back and forth regarding speaking to the police, and finally hired Orlando criminal defense attorney Mark NeJame, who’s advised him to keep his mouth shut – as any good defense attorney would do.

I thought it was interesting that a lot of the talk about the fact that Woods hired a defense attorney made mention of a 2003 article that described NeJame as “Orlando’s own Johnnie Cochran”. It reminded me of the Chris Rock joke about Cochran and Kobe Bryant – people said that Kobe shouldn’t have hired Cochran because it made him look guilty, and Rock’s joke is that, yeah, maybe, but at least then you get off, and you’re the guilty-looking person who goes free, rather than the innocent-looking guy in jail.

That perception, that by hiring Orlando’s Johnnie Cochran equivalent, Woods must have done something wrong, isn’t an accident, I don’t think. I don’t think that it keeps getting brought up by coincidence – there’s a strong push to suggest here (as in most cases) – that Tiger Woods has something to hide by hiring this guy.

That’s my take on it, anyway, but I am but a guy who works in the office. The office is full of smart attorneys, however, so I talked to Kristi Couvillon, one of those smart attorneys, for her take on it.

“A lot of innocent people haven’t hired attorneys for that reason and some of them have found themselves convicted,” she said. “I think an innocent person has more reason to hire an attorney, not less. Honest statements can be misconstrued and used by law enforcement as statements of guilt, and it would be so much worse, to me, for that to happen if I hadn’t done anything wrong.”

Which makes sense, especially if you’re high in the running for title of “most famous person in the world”, like Tiger Woods, and people would get a thrill out of seeing you brought down. The stakes are pretty low here, for sure – Woods probably faces misdemeanor charges, at most, though that’s just my speculation based on some media reports – but that only makes it more interesting that there’s this rush to tarnish his image (especially considering how squeaky-clean it is) right now, what with the “he hired the equivalent of Johnnie Cochran” bupkis and all. If there’s a clear interest in convicting the guy of something in the court of public opinion right now, that’s probably all the reason he needs to defend himself with an attorney. I wouldn’t be talking to the police right now, either.

Labels: hiring a lawyer, in the news, presumption of innocence, public perception

posted by Dan   permalink   0 Comments

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

The Dallas Morning News has Governor Perry’s response to Texas’ execution of an innocent man in Cameron Todd Willingham. It involves the use of the phrase “so-called” and air-quotes to deride the fact that the state executed a man based on evidence and testimony that’s provably false.

Y’all might have had your hearts warmed by the story of the Grapevine, TX high school football coach who asked half of his team’s fans and cheerleaders to support the Gainesville State School team, consisting of kids in corrections. ESPN covered it. So did This American Life, national news throughout the country, and there’s apparently a movie underway about the coach. Grits for Breakfast has the two TYC teams’ schedule online now, including a Thursday night game in Austin on October 15. If you were moved by the story – and what are you, made of stone, if you’re not – it might be worth showing up to let them know that being supported isn’t just a one-time thing.

Also on the subject of high school football, an Ohio judge sentenced a teenaged boy who pled to an assault charge to five years of probation and barred him from playing team sports for that period. The story comes from Popehat.com, who rightfully point out that the other terms of his probation – finding full-time work in a state with over 10% unemployment or enrolling as a full-time student – may be difficult without the ability to engage his natural talents. Before the conviction, the boy was being scouted by a number of universities.

Slashdot.com, the somewhat over-reactive online community, is in a tizzy about APD. And, specifically, about Chief Acevedo’s talk about “taking on” people who criticize the department online. The summary of the story from the Statesman that got all the comments on Slashdot is pretty off, though – it misrepresents Acevedo’s position so that it looks like he’s saying, “we’re going to arrest people if they call us jerks”, when he’s really saying “pretending to be an APD official when you’re not and making statements that are untrue is a criminal act”, which is true. Grits for Breakfast pops up again to wonder if this means that, like, all other crime in Austin has been completely eradicated so this is a really good use of police time.

Ever get arrested in a casino? Apparently rather than just break people’s legs for cheating these days, the house will now hold them in custody and offer them the opportunity, sanctioned by a district court judge, to sign a confession, pay $500, and not be prosecuted. Which is a little bit creepy, since if you’re being detained against your will and accused of a crime by people with vast resources, you’re not really in a great position to make a great decision, hence the fact that the practice is now under investigation. Insert your own “whatever happens in Vegas” or “the house always wins” pun here – this practice is apparently good for almost $750,000 a year.

Also on Popehat, there’s a downright terrifying piece about an undercover investigative report from a Florida television station in which they went to various police stations asking for the form to file a complaint. A (very mild) sample:

tester: Do you have a complaint form that I can, like, fill out or something like that?
officer: Might not be a legitimate complaint.
tester: Who decides that?
officer: I’m trying to help you.
tester: Like, if there’s a form, why can’t I just take it and leave, right?
officer: No, you don’t leave with forms. You tell me what happened, and then I help you from there. Do you have I-D on?
tester: Why?
officer: You know what? You need to leave.

(It gets worse from there.)

But in more fun news, Austin solo practice attorney George Lobb crashed the groundbreaking ceremony for the new federal courthouse  in Austin. He brought his own shovel and hardhat, and a real big smile. Click the photo to enlarge. it’s a pretty great picture. he looks very happy to be there.

We’ve also got a bigger piece on this coming up, but in case you missed it last week, Charles Hood, a death row inmate here in Texas, had his motion for a new trial denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals even though his prosecutor and the judge were having an affair at the time of his trial and conviction. The argument, as best as I can understand it – and bear in mind that I’m not a lawyer, went something like this:

Appellate Attorney: My client needs a stay of execution, because the judge was sleeping with the prosecutor.

Court: Prove it!

Appellette Attorney proves it by deposing the participants, who admit the affair under oath.

Appellate Attorney: There, proof, now can my client be treated fairly?

Court: Oh, not at this point. You should have done this earlier.

(Cue the wah-wah-WAH sound.)

Labels: abuse of power, APD, art acevedo, football, governor perry, grits for breakfast, in the news, linkdump, money

posted by Dan   permalink   0 Comments

The recent story of a 10-year old girl ticketed for selling lemonade and cookies in the park is not only a ridiculous embarrassment for NYPD and for our criminal justice system generally, but it also underscores the alarming over-criminalization trend in our country. If 10-year old Clementine Lee can labeled a criminal for selling her lemonade in the park, then what does that mean for the rest of us?

This disturbing trend is highlighted in an excellent essay written by Judge Alex Koziniski and Misha Tseytlin. As they put it, "most Americans are criminals, and don't know it, or suspect that they are but believe they'll never get prosecuted."

It has been reported that the Congressional Research Service cannot even county the current number of federal crimes! Why? Because, as a Heritage Foundation Report notes:

According to the ABA, there are in excess of 3300 separate criminal offenses and nearly 10,000 “regulations” that have criminal sanctions. And these laws are scattered in over 50 titles of the United States Code, encompassing roughly 27,000 pages. Worse yet, the statutory code sections often incorporate, by reference, the provisions and sanctions of administrative regulations promulgated by various regulatory agencies under congressional authorization.

This has become such an issue that on July 22, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Over-Criminalization of Conduct/Over-Federalization of Criminal Law. In his testimony before the committee, Hon. Richard Thornburgh rightfully raises the question: "If legal scholars and researchers and the Department of Justice itself cannot accurately count the number of federal crimes, how do we expect ordinary American citizens to be able to be aware of them?"

More than just a systemic degradation of the basic precepts of our criminal justice system, the immediate concern to everyone should be one that Krister Everston, a victim of this over-criminalization, pointed out in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee: "Ordinary citizens, even people trying to do good, are at great risk of criminal prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment."

It's easy to fall back on old tropes like, "Ignorance of the law excuses no one,", and it's true, as far as those things go. But how meaningful is a principle like that when it's your ten year old being criminalized?

(image via Chris_Wilson’s flickr)

Labels: in the news, over-criminalization

posted by Kristin Etter   permalink   0 Comments

Every few days I make it a point to compile the news and commentary surrounding criminal defense issues, especially as they relate to Austin, and send it along to all of the attorneys in the firm as potential blog topics. Starting today, those links and discussions are also going to be posted here, as well.

Kristi Couvillon wrote recently on APD’s dash cam policy, which got me thinking about this story: Florida cops stop a young woman for DUI, and then proceed to rear-end her car. After she's arrested, with the dash cam still recording, they cook up a story that they all agree to in which they decide that it's her fault, and then charge her with DUI/property damage. "I don't make things up or lie ever, because it's wrong," says the cop on the tape, "but if I have to bend it a little to protect a cop, I'm gonna."

Austin defense attorney Jamie Spencer has a couple good posts up right now. On the APD prostitution stings, he asks how much money was spent dressing a whole bunch of female police officers like prostitutes and running a sting that netted 23 arrests. And he gets to one of the hearts of the taser issue (which I’ve written about briefly here) when he asks how potentially unconstitutional acts can be declared acceptable just by claiming that they’re not outside of department policy.

In case you haven’t heard yet about The Superglue Incident:  Four women superglued a guy's penis to his stomach after tricking him into a bondage scenario because he was screwing (and scamming) all of them. If only we were still running the “We Could Defend That” campaign. 

US Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech at the ABA convention where he says most of the same things that regarding reform and non-violent drug offenders, etc, that I’ve been learning since I started working with this firm.

In Kaufman County, the chief public defender/founder of the public defender's office is planning to run for DA. The link from Robert Guest, a Dallas-area defense attorney, talks about the difference between the roles, and what good can come from a PD becoming a prosecutor.

We have a bunch of old ads in a binder that equate DWI arrests with prohibition. I never really got those, but this bit from Politico, where MADD criticizes Obama for having Gates and Crowley over to the White House for beer, rather than milk and cookies, helps me understand it a little.

Also, California dropped charges against a guy who'd been arrested for DUI while riding a horse.

Finally, not to be all ACLU here, but this is video of a cop assaulting a woman from behind at a convenience store in Philadelphia because, half an hour earlier, his son had rear-ended her car.

Labels: abuse of power, APD, cameras, dwi, in the news, linkdump

posted by Dan   permalink   0 Comments

Just a quick note this time around that our own Kristi Couvillon was quoted in an article in The Daily Texan regarding why a judge might set the trial dates apart for the two defendants facing charges in the Texas Youth Commission abuse case:

Kristi Couvillon, an attorney with Austin law firm Sumpter & Gonzalez, said that waiting until after Brookins’ trial made sense for the scenario, in which the cases were not directly related.

“That way you’re just focusing on that one defendant,” Couvillon said.

Labels: daily texan, in the news, texas youth commission

posted by Dan   permalink   0 Comments