« January 22, 2006 - January 28, 2006 | Main | February 05, 2006 - February 11, 2006 »
Blawg Wisdom Issues
If you haven't visited Blawg Wisdom recently you've missed a few great updates from myself and Kristine, including a request for input on the future of the site. If you have thoughts on that, I'd love to hear them, but here's something perhaps even more important:
Someone has somehow embedded some crappy pop-up ad on Blawg Wisdom! I don't have a clue how they did this except that the site was hacked around the new year and I assume they got this in then. The trouble is I can't see how to get rid of it. It's an embedded image on the page; you can't see it b/c it's an invisible gif but it triggers a popup. You can see it's there if you use Firefox and choose “Page Info” from the tools media, then click the “Media” tab.
So there it is. The question: Do you know how I can get rid of this? Looking at the page source doesn't reveal it, and it's not in the MT template, so what the heck? Any ideas?
Posted 02:27 PM | Comments (7) | meta-blogging
Ambivalent Question: The Cartoon Conundrum
The right column should now feature a new Ambivalent Question, namely: What do you think about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed?
I'm sure you know the basic situation, but I'll recap briefly as I understand it: A year or so ago a Dutch newspaper published some cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Many Muslims believe “it is forbidden” to depict the Prophet in any way. (I put that in quotes b/c I'm not clear where this prohibition originates. Is it in the Koran? Did some religious figure make this rule up? Is it tradition? I don't know.) A group of Dutch Muslims brought these cartoons to the attention of some Imams and other Muslim religious leaders and when they were recently republished in France many Muslims began protesting and much violence has been threatened (although I don't know of any actual violence yet).
UPDATE: Danish embassy torched in Syria.
So that's my understanding of the situation. Tony has helpfully published a collection of the cartoons in question. So what do you think? The poll and comments are wide open...
Posted 11:26 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | ambivalent questions
I, Postmodernist?
This quiz brought to me by Lyco: What is Your World View? You scored as Postmodernist. Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis.
What is Your World View? (updated) created with QuizFarm.com |
Posted 09:44 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | life generally
How not to get out of jail
A DC jail inmate tried to escape on Tuesday and ended up dead. I happened to be in court that morning for a status hearing and saw all the police, backed-up traffic, and general chaos. Inside the courthouse everything ground to a halt as all detainees were locked down for a headcount. No one knew what was going on, but everyone suspected something like this. Sad.
Luckily, my client was out on a PR bond and actually showed up for the hearing so all was good as far as we were concerned. This client is another homeless man, but he's definitely not crazy. In fact, he just got a pretty good job and things are really looking up for him. That makes me like him more (it's easier to work for someone who seems to also be working for himself), but what really makes me like him is that he calls me to keep in touch (he doesn't have a phone or address so I can't call or visit him), and most important, he shows up for court. Obviously it doesn't take much to make this student lawyer happy...
Posted 09:03 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L
Survivor Trippin'
The new cycle of Survivor started last night with a whole new cast and several new twists on the theme. I'm thinking the whole “exile island” thing might be interesting, the immunity idol hidden away for secret surprises later is fine, and the grouping of people by age and gender is lame. But what really threw me for a loop was the fact that, for the first time ever, I actually know one of the contestants on the show!
Yes, indeedy, I used to work with Courtney Marit. I recognized her right away but couldn't be sure until I saw her name was Courtney. Sure enough, her biography describes her as a highly unconventional woman who's done a little of everything in terms of world travel and the paper-pants hippy lifestyle, and:
She also worked as a massage therapist, ski instructor, snow maker, farmer, elder caregiver, trailblazer, biking/hiking guide and importer.
It was the biking/hiking guide part where our paths crossed—we both worked for Backroads. I don't remember if I ever actually led a trip with her, but I do remember hanging out with her at one or two leader houses and drinking with her at company events. In fact, I'm pretty sure we went through training together, but my memory is so hazy I can't be sure. Funny how time flies, huh?
Anyway, I wish Courtney lots of luck. If she doesn't go ga-ga over any more dead turtles maybe she'll be all right.
Posted 07:58 AM | Comments (3) | tv land
State of the Union, 2006
Wow, what a great speech the President gave last night! This was my favorite part:
Brilliant, don't you think?
But don't listen to me. Many others are saying it better:
- Salon War Room: Duty to speak with candor. And more on the same theme.
- Suburban Ecstasies: Observations (with jokes)
- Think Progress: everything from they posted yesterday.
- The wackiest 27 words from Bush's address.
Damn! I just feel so much safer and more hopeful, don't you!?
Posted 09:14 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack | general politics
CSI Effect As Blowback
Some cops and prosecutors are claiming that TV crime shows are helping real life murderers commit crimes and cover their tracks. If true, this would be another facet of the so-called “CSI effect,” “an expectation in every trial for the type of high-tech forensic evidence the show's investigators uncover.” Both of these developments are disturbing—especially if you're a cop or prosecutor. What's sort of funny about these “CSI effects” is that they're products of shows that are popular primarily because Americans so badly want to believe in humanity's ability to perfectly track down and punish law breakers and “evildoers.” It appears to work like this:
- People get scared.
- The President or the prosecutor or the police (the three P's!) reassure the scared people: “Don't worry, we're on it!”
- The scared people see CSI and think, “Sweet! With cops and investigators and technology like that, we have nothing to fear!”
- The scared people aren't really scared quite so much. CSI and similar shows become wildly popular.
- A few of the not-so-scared CSI watchers commit crimes, using tricks they saw on the shows to make it harder for law enforcement to crack their case. More people get away with their crimes.
- The rest of the not-so-scared CSI watchers sit on juries and hold the state to a higher burden of proof; therefore, more people get away with their crimes
Now, the real question: Is the Bush/Cheney “War on Terra” really just “CSI” for global terrorism?
Posted 06:42 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | crimlaw
Penciling in a murder trial
A lot of law students think they have tough class schedules and that law school is so hard and all that, but what if your calendar looked like this:
Holy crap. I have my first misdemeanor trial scheduled in a couple of weeks and I'm freaked out about that (a little). If it was a murder trial? I can't even imagine.
Aside from that stress, “Janet” offers some great insight into the mind of a high-stakes criminal defender:
So there you go: A public defender who is basically motivated by a slightly modified Golden Rule. When put that way, the cliched “how can you defend those people?” becomes “how could you not?”
At any rate, good luck, Janet!
Posted 10:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | crimlaw
The Talk of the Crimlaw Blawgosphere
For the past week everybody in the crimlaw blawgosphere (or at least the part of it that I know) has been talking about two great examinations of criminal justice in America. The first is a three-part series called The $40 Lawyer about Charley Demosthenous, an unlikely public defender in Florida. (In that jurisdiction you have to pay a $40 application fee to get a public defender, hence the title of the series.) The second is a five-part series called Tainted Trials, Stolen Justice about the failures of the criminal justice system in Silicon Valley.
The three parts of the unlikely PD series (one, two, and three) have already received plenty of commentary elsewhere, including especially the posts and comment threads (and links to further posts and discussion) from Blonde Justice (and here) and Arbitrary and Capricious (and here). While the series is terrific reading for anyone wanting to be a PD, it is, as many have noted (and I mentioned the other day), sad to see the article perpetuate the stereotype that PD is a job of last resort for slacker law students. Nothing could be further from the truth in most jurisdictions. Take it from someone who's now looking for a PD job—these are incredibly competitive positions and there are many many people who would love to have one but can't get one b/c of that stiff competition. That said, the series also shows what a tough job it can be—often thankless, low-paid, and with an incessant and grueling workload. Even if the series is suggesting that PDs are the losers of the legal world, it can't help but give them props for their dedication and determination against big odds.
Although I haven't been able to read everything people have already said about this series, I haven't seen one reaction that struck me from the first installment, namely that Charely's colleague, Chris Chapman, sounds like a tool:
“No, man, no,” Chapman says, trying to spare Charley's feelings, though he knows the state is griping.
Chapman is bald and chatty and an improbable presence, grandson of former Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Hugh Culverhouse. He wanted to be a fighter pilot or, failing that, a prosecutor. He hates the long hours at the PD's office but wants the job on his resume. His rich-kid hobbies - horseback riding, fencing, piloting prop planes - seem alien to his cash-strapped colleagues.
Chapman thinks Charley's courtroom approach is shortsighted and self-sabotaging. Chapman tries hard not to irritate what he calls “my state attorney people.” He thinks being nice gets him better deals.
Plus, he figures he'll be in private practice soon and may be working with some of them. “I'm looking ahead,” Chapman says. “If you ask any state attorney over there about their favorite public defender, I bet they'd say me.”
Great strategy, Mr. Chapman! Way to put your own interests ahead of those of your clients! I, for one, cheered when I read in the second installment of the series that Chapman resigned from the PD's office. He claimed his bald head, white skin, and upper-class background made him an outsider in the PD's office, but just from the little the article tells us about him, I'd have to say the real reason he never “fit in” was his attitude. Perhaps that does come from his upper-class background, but I worked my first summer with a PD who had come from and still had lots of money and she was a totally kick-ass PD who delighted in pissing of the prosecutors if doing so would help her clients.
As far as the five-part Santa Clara County series, I haven't been able to read the whole thing yet, but the third installment focuses on the defense, basically concluding that inept defense counsel produces injustice time and again.
But the newspaper review found a telling distinction, in that private attorneys' failings are often driven by money. The most unscrupulous behavior involved a class of private lawyers who take cases for a relatively low fee, and then boost their profits by avoiding a time-consuming trial.
Defendants with language barriers and little education found themselves at the mercy of these lawyers, who pushed them to plead guilty even when it may not have been in their best interest. In 10 cases uncovered by the review, defendants buckled; in four of those cases, including Herrera's, there was significant evidence the defendants were not guilty.
Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who now is a professor of criminal law and ethics at Los Angeles' Loyola Law School, calls the phenomenon of innocent people pleading guilty to crimes ``one of my biggest concerns. Unfortunately, it happens all the time,'' she added, because guilty pleas ``take a lot less work.''
In other words: When PDs fail it's because they're overworked, but when private defense attorneys fail, it's because they're greedy. That sounds about right, and it's a situation that I doubt will change any time soon because the end result is that we get more “bad people” off the streets, and that's the whole point of the criminal justice system, right?
The rest of the installment on the defense function is definitely worth reading. Defense attorneys may benefit from the reminder to be vigilant about making objections and preserving issues for appeal, while the article's indictment of the judiciary for failing to discipline ineffective counsel argues for the need for reform in that area.
UPDATE: A couple more links about this story:
- Public Defender Dude had many of the same reactions I did.
- Great comments from David Feige at Indefensible, here, here, and here. He calls the series “offensive” and “insufferable.”
Posted 11:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | crimlaw
