20 May 2005

Around the Web

1) Over at the Conspiracy David Koppel breaks down Florida's new "shoot 'em if they look at you cross-eyed" self defense statute.

2) Create a fake job and try to coerce a former clerk to turn on his judge? Can't imagine why the Bar wants to take their licenses.

3) Tom's tips on writing a criminal appeal. Me not think writing. That you think win you will. Will upset anyone but opposing counsel.

4) Where to prosecute a computer crime? Perhaps a courthouse should be built right in front of MicroSoft's headquarters and all trials should be held there.

5) Is it a conflict of interest if your attorney is being prosecuted by the same prosecutor you are?

6) No constitutional confrontation issues in Thailand.

7) Police aren't much better at knowing who's drunk than you and I.

8) Something's wrong when the defendant offers to increase the jurors' salaries out of its own pockets.

9) Orin on ceding more subpoena power to the law enforcement. As someone who feels like someone needs to step in and take some of the powers to subpoena away from prosecutors - in particular the grand jury chicanery - I cannot support the expansion of police powers in the area of terrorism by stating that the expansion would only bring them to where they are in criminal law.

10) Some judges just don't want you to talk in their courtrooms. And it is beyond belief that anyone would be stupid enough to anger the clerks and secretaries. Personally, I really don't want all my cases scheduled for 4:30 on Friday.

11) Injustice Anywhere comments that the Jackson case is looking like a rout. Not having followed the case all that closely I cannot state anything with certainty but it sure looks like this was a weak case which has become weaker and weaker as the trial goes on.

12) This has made it around the criminal blawgosphere a few times in the last couple weeks. What we'd all like to say to our clients sometimes.

4 comments:

Michael Pratt said...

5) Is it a conflict of interest if your attorney is being prosecuted by the same prosecutor you are?


I got to admit I am kinda of curious on this one. I can easily see doing a law school type argument on this for both sides of the issue

Spoons said...

1) It's kind of hard to reconcile your description of Florida's law as "shoot 'em if they look at you cross-eyed", when Koppel's piece concludes the exact opposite: "As the Florida bill is introduced in other states, victims-rights opponents will probably be successful in getting newspapers and television to describe the 5)proposal in very frightening terms. But when legislators and their aides read the actual text of the bill, many legislators will—like their Florida counterparts—conclude that bill is nothing more than some common-sense protections for crime victims."

5) Now that's very interesting. Until recently, my office was involved in prosecuting an attorney for DUI: that attorney himself represents many DUI defendants that we're prosecuting. We did ultimately decide to get a special prosecutor, but the conflict issue hadn't even occurred to me.

Michael Pratt said...

5) conflict of defense counsel.

there was a death penalty case which might address this issue. During the voir dire portion of the trial, the defense attorney stole the voir dire notes of the Prosecutor. She got caught when the Judge mentioned that there were video cameras in the Courtroom. Trial went on and the defendant got death.

Fast forward several years to the appeal. One of the grounds of the appeal was that the defense attorney had her loyalities divided as she was worried about the punishment the Judge would impose for her actions, the Judge waited till the end of the trial to address the issue.

The Ky Supreme Court ruled that had the defense attorney alwasy had a duty to vigorously defend his/her client, no matter the circumstances and nothing in the case led them to believe she had not done her duty.

I would suspect that the same reasoning would apply to the case in question.

Ken Lammers said...

spoons,

When there's a choice between me being an idiot or the possibilty that I was trying to be funny I always assume the latter. Of course, I may not always be right. ;-)