April 23, 2008

After 26 Years, Lawyers Reveal Innocent Man Was Convicted

There was an incredible story in the Tampa Tribune Sunday about two lawyers who chose the attorney-client privilege over revealing that their client had killed a security guard at McDonald’s. Another man, Alton Logan, has spent 26 years in jail for the murder.
It is unethical for a lawyer to reveal privileged information obtained from a client. It may also be unethical for a human being not to when a person is in jail for a crime that he did not commit. Interestingly, the lawyers decided they would come forward if the innocent man was given the death sentence, but they would remain silent if he was given a life sentence.

I do not mean to criticize these lawyers, because obviously they wrestled with what was the correct thing to do. But I think the easy path a lawyer can take in this situation is to do that which puts him out on a limb the least. For lawyers who say that the attorney-client privilege must come first, I would ask them what they would do if the innocent man was their sibling, parent, or child. Okay, now we all agree that the attorney-client privilege does not come first. So now the question is what do you do when that innocent person is someone you do not know? Would it matter if the man was a loving husband and father with no prior criminal record or a guy with a rap sheet as long as your arm? I'm grateful I'm not a criminal lawyer.

You can find the article here:

February 6, 2008

Roger Clemens Steroids Controversy: Physical Evidence of Perjury?

The New York Daily News reports that Brian McNamee has physical evidence corroborating McNamee's allegations that Roger Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs. The Daily News quotes Earl Ward as saying that "This is evidence the government has that we believe will corroborate Brian in every significant way."

Apparently, McNamee gave vials with traces of steroids and human growth hormone, as well as syringes and gauze pads ostensibly containing Clemens blood and DNA to Justice Department investigators.

Clemens admitted to getting B-12 shots from McNamee so I'm not a big enough CSI fan to know whether this sort of thing is going to be meaningful evidence. Obviously, his lawyers think so. "We will provide Congress with corroborative physical evidence that takes this case out of the he-said, she-said purview," another McNamee attorney, Richard Emery, told the Daily News (how many lawyers does this guy need?). "From our point of view, this corroborates that Brian told the truth from Day One and Clemens has not."

Certainly, it is a bizarre development. But what is creepy is that McNamee kept the vials, gauze pads and syringes from eight years ago because his lawyers say he feared Roger Clemens would deny using performance-enhancing drugs. But that makes no sense. At that time, he was committing a crime and presumably hoping that Roger Clemens would not be exposed. The more logical answer is that McNamee knew he had some pretty powerful evidence on his rich and famous friend and decided some incriminating evidence against Clemens might be a good thing to keep around. In other words, he pulled a Monica Lewinsky on his friend. (These syringes, Monica’s stained blue dress, Linda Tripp’s audiotapes, all of these things should be in the Judas Iscariot museum).

This might all end up being powerful enough evidence to show what most of us have suspected from listening to Clemens over the last few months: that Clemens had used some "help" after he left Boston to revitalize his career. But it also speaks very poorly to the character of Brian McNamee. Not only did he keep a chip to use against a friend, he also waited for him to commit perjury before revealing the chip. Why? I can’t figure out a motive other than malice.

If you assume Clemens is guilty, he really pushed all of his chips to the center of the table with Congress, hoping that regardless of what history records, it would always come down to a he (or "hes" depending on Andy Pettitte's testimony) said/she said and there would never be conclusive, beyond a reasonable doubt evidence against him. If - and it is a big if - the evidence conclusively demonstrates Clemens was taking performance enhancing drugs and lied to Congress, the current problems he has with his reputation are going to pale in comparison to the criminal charges he will be facing. Again, we are moving five steps ahead but it could be that the best batter and best pitcher of the last 50 years (I would argue this for both) could be facing perjury charges.

January 3, 2008

Jim Leyritz's Driver’s License Was Suspended: Who Cares?

Reports are coming out now that former New York Yankee Jim Leyritz was driving with a suspended license at the time he is accused of driving while intoxicated and killing a young woman in Florida last month.

This is one of those things that the media makes a big issue about when it really is no issue at all. Apparently, Jim Leyritz was ticketed for, of all things, using a cell phone while driving and he failed to post for his trial.

This is the very definition of not a big deal. It might even be possible – theoretically - that I recently had my license suspended for of all things failing to display a front tag (I thought my wife paid the fine and they sent notice to my old address). It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened or why it happened in the case and will, in the end, be of no legal consequence.

What is a big deal is that a woman lost her life in this accident and Jim Leyritz has been accused of causing the accident while driving drunk. By focusing on the wrong things, I think the media sometimes sends the wrong message to all of us about what really matters.

December 11, 2007

Sentencing of Michael Vick: Good Substance, Bad Style

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson sentenced former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick to 23 months in a federal penitentiary. For more details on the sentencing, you can read the front page of pretty much any newspaper in the country tomorrow.

I love animals and I hate cruelty to any living thing. So I support the sentence and believe, in my world, that it was a rather light sentence. But this blog post is not about that. This blog post is about how human beings should afford others with respect.

Notwithstanding the pain Vick caused his victims, he was also on the wrong side of justice because he failed to treat those dogs to the respect to which they were entitled.

Today, Michael Vick wrongly received a dose of his own medicine from the sentencing judge. Vick's attorneys had requested permission from the judge to allow Vick to change into a suit before the sentencing. What possible harm could this cause? Judge Hudson refused and required Vick to show up before the nation in standard striped prison gear. ESPN reported that as Vick walked down the steps from the lockup, "spectators saw the chain-gang outfit and gasped."

What exactly was the point of this? Sure, the Judge Hudson impressed a lot of people around the country with his toughness and I have a hard time believing he was not considering how his act was going to play around the country in his over-the-top lecturing to Vick. In his book, Judge Hudson praised the manner in which criminals are punished in the Bahamas: "They believed in short periods of intense incarceration with hard labor 16 hours a day, six days a week. They also used caning or whipping for any offense involving violence or injury to the victim. The recidivism rate? Less than five percent. Now that's effective justice."

Michael Vick was blessed to be fast and quick. As a result, he will get a second chance one day. And with that chance will come power over others. Judge Hudson set a poor example for Vick today on the proper exercise of power over others.

December 10, 2007

Judge John P. Miller to Head Criminal Division

The Maryland Daily Record reported last week that Judge John Philip Miller has been named Judge in Charge of the Criminal Division of the Baltimore City Circuit Court, succeeding Judge John M. Glynn, who will return to the civil docket.

September 17, 2007

Jeff Skilling's Appellate Brief: A Piece of Good Legal Writing

The Wall Street Journal blog has published convicted Enron executive Jeff Skilling 237 page appellate brief.

Like most Americans, I did not follow the case closely and have not carefully reviewed the evidence against him but I assume he is guilty because a jury convicted him. (From a documentary I saw, I could certainly convict him of first degree arrogance in about 3.4 seconds.) Anyway, I am linking to this brief because, after reading about 10 pages, it is obvious Jeffery Skilling picked lawyers who are fantastic writers. The best way for lawyers to become better writers is to read good legal writing.

You may wonder how these lawyers got around the requirement in the Federal Rules that a brief may contain no more than 14,000 words. His lawyers filed a motion asking the appeals court to accept a longer brief. One blog, Talk Left, said that: "Jeff Skilling is serving 24 years in prison. The trial lasted several months. If his lawyers say they need 237 pages to present his arguments, I say let them." While I suspect the guy is guilty, I could not agree more.

August 9, 2007

New Hampshire Court Tosses Confession in Child Rape Case

The New Hampshire state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that state prosecutors cannot use videotaped admissions in a child rape case, because police violated the suspect's rights while questioning him.

Indisputably, the Defendant was not read his Miranda rights or told that he could have a lawyer. But he was not in custody, because he was told that he was free to leave. To me, this means you are free to leave and are not in custody.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court disagreed, essentially finding that you may not get around Miranda obligations by saying that a person is free to leave when you have that person "in custody." The court ruled that although “the defendant may not have been placed in handcuffs or any similar device, he was restrained from early on in the encounter.”

Again, this begs the question of whether you can be in custody if you are free to leave. If you are told you are free to leave, wouldn’t a reasonable person at least try to leave? This guy has been accused of abusing four girls. Do we really want to stack the deck against these police officers who obviously were very honest in their report of the interrogation? Or should we err on the side of a confessed child molester? We are talking about four abused children. I cannot see the justice in choosing the latter option. This is coming from someone who is about as liberal as a person could be on how we should be handling criminals in this country. I sure hope the police have enough evidence to get a conviction anyway.

August 1, 2007

Baltimore City Looks to Add "Big Brother" Speed Cameras

The Baltimore Sun reports today that Baltimore officials are asking the Maryland General Assembly to approve speed cameras in neighborhoods around the city. The need for these devices was requested in a report yesterday by a committee called - get this - Task Force on Traffic Calming and Pedestrian-Friendliness. To the great surprise of all, the task force’s proposal lacks specifics but recommends placing cameras near parks, churches, schools, and recreation centers.

Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon and Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley support the proposal, which would work much like red light cameras do in most counties in Maryland. This same bill passed in 2003, but was vetoed by then Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich.

There remains opposition in the Maryland legislature to the bill, mostly by Republicans who fear Big Brother, and, as Governor Ehrlich called it, “trial by camera.” “If you really want it to be about safety, then put a policeman there and put some points on people’s license when they speed through a school zone," said Senator Andrew P. Harris, a Republican whose district is in parts of both Hartford County and Baltimore County. "It's the government taking a picture of you.... It's Big Brother keeping an eye on you."

I appreciate these concerns in the abstract, but do people really have a right not to be watched speeding down the public highways? Moreover, how much different is being watched by a police officer, as Senator Harris suggests, than by a camera. On thing is for sure: a camera is a whole lot cheaper. Last I checked, Baltimore City did not have extra money lying around in its budget.

July 18, 2007

Missing Evidence in Baltimore City Police Rape Case

The Baltimore Sun reports today that twice in the past year, the police have "lost" critical evidence in separate rape cases against Baltimore City police officers. Both of the alleged rapes occurred to victims in police custody.

In this most recent case, DNA analysis showed that wipes that the teenager said were used by the officer after the sex act were found in a station trash can had DNA consistent with the accused officer and his alleged 16 year-old victim. For anyone other than the O.J. jury, this is pretty powerful evidence, right? But now, the clothing, the rape kit and all of the physical evidence are gone. This sounds like an episode of The Wire.

Comically, the accused police officers lawyer, Warren Brown, called the the missing evidence "a blunder" and said that he is not "reading anything sinister into it." Mr. Brown is considered one of the top criminal lawyers in Maryland. But give us a break. I'm sure he had nothing to do with it but we all know what happened here. I can't stop thinking about the choice someone made to go in and steal this evidence. I admire people willing to go out on a limb for a friend but not when there is solid evidence that shows that friend raped a 16 year-old girl.

There will be a few front page stories in the Baltimore Sun and there will be a few angry bloggers (this is a good one from Rev. Herber Brown III) but this story and these concerns will soon blow over and this story will be forgotten until this happens again in a few months. I'm sure the next story will be forgotten too unless it involves someone who knows someone instead of a 16 year-old girl with a likely troubled past and no connections. I just hope some Baltimore personal injury lawyer who handles these kinds of cases (our firm does not) steps up and brings a civil suit against the police officer.

July 5, 2007

Maryland's Ex-Felons Given the Right to Vote

Maryland is joining the new national trend in expanded voting rights for people with felony convictions. This week, Maryland’s new law went into effect allowing all former felons to vote immediately after they complete their full sentences.

The argument to keep felons from voting has always been that criminals forfeit their rights to vote by committing a felony. But doesn’t any felon who cares to vote trying to be a part of the democratic process? Should we continue to punish people after their punishment has ended?
I think the answer is no because we have to bring people back under the umbrella of society if they are fit to be released from jail. (I’m hopeful there is in the fine print of these bills a G. Gordy Liddy exception but this is probably wishful thinking.)