Houston attorney Paul Kennedy found this the other day – it’s a website that uses a Google Maps overlay to tell you which of your neighbors have been convicted of any sort of crime. While it’s called “FelonSpy”, it also catalogs misdemeanors, and they’re hoping that they’ll be able to include people who’ve been accused but either acquitted or had the charges dismissed, too.

We could make a list of all the ways this is wrong-headed and offensive, but that’d take too much time, given that they’re the sort of people who dismiss the suggestion that someone might be listed on their site in error with the following line:

“There are no mistakes in this site, and if you think there is, you’re probably the exact sort of criminal we all need to beware of.”

They’d probably just ignore the list if we made one. I’m betting, though, that just like the folks behind Busted! In Austin, if the site’s founders’ mom was arrested, they’d be a little less quick to include her on the map.

Labels: exploitation, presumption of innocence, tacky

posted by Dan   permalink   0 Comments

This is neat. Craig Watkins is the Dallas County DA whose “conviction integrity units” have worked with groups like the Innocence Project to ensure that everyone incarcerated in Dallas is actually guilty. (There’s a great Wall Street Journal piece on the man here.)

Anyway, he was on The Colbert Report last night to talk about his work, and it’s funny, as Colbert’s interviews usually are, and Watkins comes off better than most of Colbert’s guests usually do. But he really cuts to the significant point very quickly, which is something I’ve heard debated a lot (in reference to Roman Polanski, most recently, but it hardly began or ended with him) – basically, if we know someone is guilty, why does it matter so much if things are handled by the letter of the law?

And the answer – as most attorneys surely know, but most laymen feel is a subject of worthwhile debate – is that, if you can’t trust that the system is functioning fairly in cases where there’s no real debate regarding innocence, then it’s really, really hard to have faith that it’s functioning properly when there’s a genuine dispute. Watkins uses OJ as his example, but it’s a debate that I had with some fellow non-lawyer friends regarding Polanski a few weeks ago.

(A little background, if you ignored the circus: Roman Polanski, accused of, among other things, raping a teenage girl in the 1970’s, fled the country after he entered his guilty plea in response to a sentence that wasn’t what he expected. The judge in the case has been accused of impropriety, and since Polanski’s re-arrest two months ago, the fairness of the original proceedings have come into question.)

My friends, all of whom are good and moral people who are repulsed by Polanski and the accusations against him, which he’s never disputed, don’t get why it’s such a big deal if the judge inserted himself into the plea bargain process, offered a very light deal, and then started asking reporters and prosecutors if he should maybe up the sentence a bit. “The guy raped a teenager,” they say, “And we all know he did it. Who cares if the judge got a second opinion and then decided to give the guy what he really deserves?”

It’s convincing, because all of that’s true. What Watkins has had the courage – both in his actions as DA, and even on Colbert last night – to point out is that it’s more important that we get it right when someone is guilty. If we (and by we, I mean the people on behalf of whom the state seeks justice) can’t work within the legal framework we’ve established to convict someone whose guilt is never really in doubt, then what hope is there that a person who’s guilt is anything but a foregone conclusion will get treated legally and fairly?

I don’t know a ton about Watkins – just what I’ve read in various media and on the occasional blog, really – but we’re definitely lucky to have him advancing this argument.

Labels: craig watkins, innocence, innocence project, presumption of innocence, public perception, roman polanski, what prosecutors do right, wrongful convictions

posted by Dan   permalink   0 Comments

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

Last week, I called on Governor Perry to sign a pardon for Timothy Cole. He has continued to deny Mr. Cole's family's request for a pardon, repeatedly citing an Attorney General's opinion that precludes posthumous pardons.

Since Governor Perry was apparently not swayed by the Texas Legislative Council's report that suggested that he did have the power to issue posthumous pardons, State Senator Rodney Ellis submitted a request for a new Attorney General's opinion regarding whether Texas governors can grant posthumous pardons.

I look forward to reading the new AG's opinion and continue to hope that Governor Perry will bring Timothy Cole's family some peace by signing the pardon. However, the whole thing leaves me wondering what is the real motivation behind Perry's unwillingness to clear an innocent man's name? There is no fear that he is actually guilty - DNA has cleared him and the true culprit has since confessed to the rape for which Cole was wrongly convicted.

The matter makes me think of Perry's veto of the expunction bill - again, if someone isn't found guilty of committing a crime (and they don't plead guilty), why should his or her name and criminal record suggest otherwise? This is not being "tough on crime," this is being tough on the innocent.*

*and yes, I realize that some people have their cases dismissed even when factually "guilty" due to some other reason - often mitigating evidence in the interest of justice. But if we empower prosecutors to determine whether a committed crime is worth pursuing, and they decide to dismiss, then there's no functional reason to insist on waiting the full statute of limitations period.

(photo via eschipul's flickrstream)

Labels: expunctions, governor perry, posthumous pardons, presumption of innocence, senator ellis, timothy cole

posted by Kristi Couvillon   permalink   0 Comments

Kristi says:

Last week, Dan came back to the office with the latest copy of Busted! in Austin - a weekly publication full of pictures of mug shots of people recently arrested. I've seen this rag at various gas stations but haven't wanted to pay $1 to anyone who was profiting off of the misfortunes of others. (At first, I thought it was free, given its shoddy appearance, but then noticed its cheeky warning, "It's not free, unless you want to be in the next issue!")

Busted! In Austin always values the voice of dissent. Busted! In Austin is proud to exercise our 1st amendment rights in reporting what we feel is newsworthy.

It may seem like exploitation from your point of view, but from our point of view, we are reporting crime we think is newsworthy, evidenced by the paper's popularity.

The paper's alleged popularity (you'll notice that issue 6, which is the one I picked up, has exactly one paid ad) isn't the arbiter of newsworthiness, and I suspect that Ward knows this, too. If anything that people were willing to plunk a buck down on the counter for at a gas station was automatically the news, then Batboy would be our firm’s newest client. “I’m validated by people’s lower instincts!” isn’t exactly a convincing defense. He should have just typed, "Screw you, I wanna make money", and left it at that. This act is embarrassing.

Furthermore, the "we are reporting crime" line betrays the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's not reporting crime. He's reporting arrests. There's a difference. I reviewed the DWI arrest tape of a client the other day who had her charges dismissed before she was even out of jail. There was no probable cause and no reason to believe that she was driving while intoxicated - the judge grasped this fact very quickly and dismissed the case about as soon as it was brought to his attention. So no crime was committed, but her picture would still be eligible to run in Busted!, free of all context and devoid of any facts, except maybe if her hair looked good or not in the photo.

Labels: exploitation, fake journalism, mug shots, presumption of innocence, tacky

posted by Kristi Couvillon   permalink   0 Comments