Mercury News editorial: State must fix three strikes law - San Jose Mercury News
Blogger Bob's comment: As we struggle to pay the price for incarceration in California (and now in San Bernardino County), the local costs of more prisoners being released early due to overcrowding, maybe we need to start the dialogue [and trim the demagoguery]. Stanford University's Three Strikes Project, led by law professor Michael Romano, is trying to get on the ballot an initiative for the November 2012 ballot [whether the proposition sews the seeds of its own demise remains to be seen and how it may drive tough-on-crime voters to the polls that might not otherwise come out this year may be a concern to some]. The Three Strikes Project's stated aim is to apply the law to only serious or violent third offenders which would save money and steer the law closer to what voters intended back in 1994. The three strikes law has been used by some district attorneys to give life sentences to about 4,000 inmates who committed nonviolent crimes. The price? Per a 2010 state report, the total cost of applying the Three Strikes Law at nearly $20 billion, or roughly $35,000 a year per inmate. No one need go further than San Bernardino County DA's [Mike Ramos] traveling road show video that measures departmental success based on the number of years people are incarcerated--its like the phony assurances the US Defense Department tried to give the public during the Vietnam conflict when body counts were used to try and measure success. We should be talking about policies which improve public safety. Does incarcerating non violent offenders always make us safer. Why can't we do house arrest for convicted felons like Ramos did for the San Manual character convicted of attempted murder--opps I forgot, his Tribe were amongst Mike Ramos' supporters?
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
REDFLEX CAMERAS--MORE NEWS
..
(1) In an article found at www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3642.asp, it is reported that Reflex lost market share, gave their spokesperson a bonus and promised to "avoid ballot initiatives" by blocking voter access to the ballot and "create positive environment for renewals and expansion" by increasing the use of front groups to support automated ticketing machines"--wow, the Aussies want to screw with our electoral process over red light enforcement cameras?
.
(2) In Vista, California, a judge threw out a Redflex camera system based citation where the defense lawyer alleged that "unsupervised civilians access to private DMV information was a violation of 21455.5 because that section does NOT authorize such disclosure"--keep notes folks!!
.
Blogger Bob's comments: I won a case in a superior court appellate department on more traditional foundation and hearsay grounds (People v John Macias). I also argued in my briefing the DMV issue but got no where with the three judge panel I was in front of (Powell, Kohn and Brisco as I recall). Too bad the constitution is so badly butchered by some judges and we do not have uniform interpretations. On another note, didn't the City of Victorville authorize the unbridled access to DMV records as well and Angeles Valles and Ryan McEachron signed a new contract authorizing that--great people to consider when you vote for your next Congressman!!
(1) In an article found at www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3642.asp, it is reported that Reflex lost market share, gave their spokesperson a bonus and promised to "avoid ballot initiatives" by blocking voter access to the ballot and "create positive environment for renewals and expansion" by increasing the use of front groups to support automated ticketing machines"--wow, the Aussies want to screw with our electoral process over red light enforcement cameras?
.
(2) In Vista, California, a judge threw out a Redflex camera system based citation where the defense lawyer alleged that "unsupervised civilians access to private DMV information was a violation of 21455.5 because that section does NOT authorize such disclosure"--keep notes folks!!
.
Blogger Bob's comments: I won a case in a superior court appellate department on more traditional foundation and hearsay grounds (People v John Macias). I also argued in my briefing the DMV issue but got no where with the three judge panel I was in front of (Powell, Kohn and Brisco as I recall). Too bad the constitution is so badly butchered by some judges and we do not have uniform interpretations. On another note, didn't the City of Victorville authorize the unbridled access to DMV records as well and Angeles Valles and Ryan McEachron signed a new contract authorizing that--great people to consider when you vote for your next Congressman!!
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
A New One--to try and get a new trial, plead your sentence was too light?? Only in Cook County!!
An Elgin man who pleaded guilty to murder has won a new trial with an unusual legal argument — that his 30-year prison sentence was too soft.
"Benny Deanda Jr.'s position that his sentence was too lenient is almost unheard-of for obvious reasons, but in this case Deanda wanted another trial so he could put on a self-defense case for the 2001 slaying, said his court-appointed attorney Levi Harris.
"Ninety-nine out of 100 times, it would be inadvisable to do it," said Harris, an assistant defender with the state appellate defender's office. "Here, he wanted another shot (at a trial)."
Deanda, 26, now faces up to life in prison if he's found guilty at trial. Harris said his client is aware his sentence could more than double".
Chicago Tribune article link: Convicted murderer wins new trial by arguing sentence too light
"Benny Deanda Jr.'s position that his sentence was too lenient is almost unheard-of for obvious reasons, but in this case Deanda wanted another trial so he could put on a self-defense case for the 2001 slaying, said his court-appointed attorney Levi Harris.
"Ninety-nine out of 100 times, it would be inadvisable to do it," said Harris, an assistant defender with the state appellate defender's office. "Here, he wanted another shot (at a trial)."
Deanda, 26, now faces up to life in prison if he's found guilty at trial. Harris said his client is aware his sentence could more than double".
Chicago Tribune article link: Convicted murderer wins new trial by arguing sentence too light
Friday, November 11, 2011
WHY ISN'T RAMOS INVESTIGATING NURSERY PRODUCTS & the COUNTY OFFICIALS INVOLVED??
.
Nursery Products (the proponent of the sludge-to-agricultural-grade-composting operation) argues in a declaration filed in Case No. BCVBS 09950 they cannot pay their legal obligations to the Center for Biological Diversity [an attorney fee judgment (reduced to a settlement agreement) arising from the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) litigation involving the sludge to agricultural grade compost operation they want to put upwind from Hinkley and Barstow].
.
There is apparently a judgment debtor exam scheduled--that should be interesting!!
.
The issues as Blogger Bob sees it ???
.
1. Why did the County approve this apparently undercapitalized operation dealing with waste products? [if there is a spill or a release of contaminants, they don't have apparently the money, so did they lie in their application to the county, not that Mitzelfelt who told the Sun he wanted to find Nursery Products a location in Hinkley after they got booted out of Adelanto, would care??]
.
2. Who is paying for their lawyers to constantly fight this? [since paying legal fees is not what their business lender (reference to a "Small Business Association" loan)can pay--who are the shadowy characters behind this? Isn't it illegal to use surrogates in the permit application process where public health and safety issues are involved and financial capacity is a major issue??
.
3. Who is really behind this sludge dumping operation? Someone has to have paid for the multiple sets of lawyers hired and if the HelpHinkley.org and Center for Biological Diversity lawyers' fees were roughly $400,000 for one set of lawyers, who is paying Nursery Products' three sets of lawyers (fees could be in the millions)??
.
4. Who on the Board of Supervisors has taken campaign contributions from Meberg, Nursery Products or their lawyers in exchange for their votes (Supervisor Rutherford voted to approve Nursery Products' conditional use permit admitting she had not read the application package or the oppositions to it, so maybe she is just stupid and thinks its ok to require sludge to composting operations to be covered and biofiltered in her part of the court, but not for the High Desert)?
.
5. If Nursery Products can't pay their legal bills now, is it a stretch to imagine they can ever run this right!
Nursery Products (the proponent of the sludge-to-agricultural-grade-composting operation) argues in a declaration filed in Case No. BCVBS 09950 they cannot pay their legal obligations to the Center for Biological Diversity [an attorney fee judgment (reduced to a settlement agreement) arising from the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) litigation involving the sludge to agricultural grade compost operation they want to put upwind from Hinkley and Barstow].
.
There is apparently a judgment debtor exam scheduled--that should be interesting!!
.
The issues as Blogger Bob sees it ???
.
1. Why did the County approve this apparently undercapitalized operation dealing with waste products? [if there is a spill or a release of contaminants, they don't have apparently the money, so did they lie in their application to the county, not that Mitzelfelt who told the Sun he wanted to find Nursery Products a location in Hinkley after they got booted out of Adelanto, would care??]
.
2. Who is paying for their lawyers to constantly fight this? [since paying legal fees is not what their business lender (reference to a "Small Business Association" loan)can pay--who are the shadowy characters behind this? Isn't it illegal to use surrogates in the permit application process where public health and safety issues are involved and financial capacity is a major issue??
.
3. Who is really behind this sludge dumping operation? Someone has to have paid for the multiple sets of lawyers hired and if the HelpHinkley.org and Center for Biological Diversity lawyers' fees were roughly $400,000 for one set of lawyers, who is paying Nursery Products' three sets of lawyers (fees could be in the millions)??
.
4. Who on the Board of Supervisors has taken campaign contributions from Meberg, Nursery Products or their lawyers in exchange for their votes (Supervisor Rutherford voted to approve Nursery Products' conditional use permit admitting she had not read the application package or the oppositions to it, so maybe she is just stupid and thinks its ok to require sludge to composting operations to be covered and biofiltered in her part of the court, but not for the High Desert)?
.
5. If Nursery Products can't pay their legal bills now, is it a stretch to imagine they can ever run this right!
JUDICIAL ABUSE in GEORGIA...An Interesting Read
.
In Georgia, the Chief Judge of the Brunswick Judicial Circuit is being prosecuted for some incredible abuses of power.
Chief Superior Court Judge Amanda F. Williams was charged late Wednesday with "willful misconduct in office" and "tyrannical partiality."
Williams was charged in a 31-page "notice" with 12 counts alleging that Williams violated judicial canons by jailing defendants indefinitely and then lying to cover up her practice to the oversight commission about the practice.
The oversight commission's notice also accused Williams of improperly allowing members of her family to litigate cases in front of her, allowing her social and political relationships to influence her judicial conduct, and improperly endorsing a local candidate for district attorney.
The charges claim Williams issued ex parte orders on substantive legal matters without the knowledge or input of all parties involved in disputes, held hearings in chambers without a court reporter present, improperly jailed people who appeared before her, demonstrated an open bias against defendants and used "rude, abusive and insulting language" in court.
Sanctions—which would be handed down by the Georgia Supreme Court based on the recommendation of the judicial commission panel could range from a public reprimand to removal from the bench.
The breaking story can be found at
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?l=101319912111
[the DailyReportOnLine.com for Nov 11, 2011 & the Staff Reporter at DailyReportOnLine.com is R. Robin McDonald would can be reached at rmcdonald@alm.com]
Blogger Bob's comment: The article and case is worthy of a read and follow-up; as to the incarceration orders, where were the public defenders? As to the civil abuses, where are the legal aide folks? Endorsing a District Attorney in a race---mmh, that does not happen here when judges in San Bernardino County attend fund raisers for an incumbent? Does it?
In Georgia, the Chief Judge of the Brunswick Judicial Circuit is being prosecuted for some incredible abuses of power.
Chief Superior Court Judge Amanda F. Williams was charged late Wednesday with "willful misconduct in office" and "tyrannical partiality."
Williams was charged in a 31-page "notice" with 12 counts alleging that Williams violated judicial canons by jailing defendants indefinitely and then lying to cover up her practice to the oversight commission about the practice.
The oversight commission's notice also accused Williams of improperly allowing members of her family to litigate cases in front of her, allowing her social and political relationships to influence her judicial conduct, and improperly endorsing a local candidate for district attorney.
The charges claim Williams issued ex parte orders on substantive legal matters without the knowledge or input of all parties involved in disputes, held hearings in chambers without a court reporter present, improperly jailed people who appeared before her, demonstrated an open bias against defendants and used "rude, abusive and insulting language" in court.
Sanctions—which would be handed down by the Georgia Supreme Court based on the recommendation of the judicial commission panel could range from a public reprimand to removal from the bench.
The breaking story can be found at
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?l=101319912111
[the DailyReportOnLine.com for Nov 11, 2011 & the Staff Reporter at DailyReportOnLine.com is R. Robin McDonald would can be reached at rmcdonald@alm.com]
Blogger Bob's comment: The article and case is worthy of a read and follow-up; as to the incarceration orders, where were the public defenders? As to the civil abuses, where are the legal aide folks? Endorsing a District Attorney in a race---mmh, that does not happen here when judges in San Bernardino County attend fund raisers for an incumbent? Does it?
Thursday, November 10, 2011
America’s Grand Jury System: A Blueprint for Reform
.
A press release by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers announced the release of a report suggesting some reforms for the grand jury system (in particular New York and Colorado). An interesting read with links for follow-up:
.
"America’s Grand Jury System: A Blueprint for Reform
.
Washington, DC (November 10, 2011) – National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ("NACDL") today releases a groundbreaking new report on restoring and reforming the grand jury system-- Evaluating Grand Jury Reform in Two States: The Case for Reform. This research reflects an in-depth study of grand jury reform in two states – New York and Colorado. In conducting this study, researchers Erin Crites, Jon Gould and Colleen Shepard of the Center for Justice, Law & Society at George Mason University studied the experiences prosecutors, defense lawyers and retired judges. Four key reforms recommendation emerge from the research: (i) defense representation in the grand jury room, (ii) production of witness transcripts for the defense, (iii) advance notice for witnesses to appear, and (iv) the presentation of exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
.
In order to return the grand jury system to the independent and legitimate function envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, there is much to be learned from the Colorado and New York systems. This report illustrates how reforms such as having a witness’s lawyer in the grand jury room and requiring prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury are viewed by both sides of the courtroom as increasing the accuracy, effectiveness and legitimacy of the grand jury. In addition, as the report’s findings uniformly demonstrate, NACDL’s proposed grand jury reforms have no harmful effects.
.
As former Deputy U.S. Attorney General Larry Thompson wrote in the foreword, “For an accusatory process that on its face emphasizes the role of the citizen, the grand jury is a patently un-democratic body…I say this having sought countless indictments before grand juries and having overseen the Justice Department’s work to promulgate uniform rules for federal prosecutions, including grand jury proceedings. Simply put, the federal grand jury exists today, for the most part, as a rubber stamp for prosecutors.”
.
NACDL Executive Director Norman L. Reimer explained, “The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that ‘[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment by a grand jury.’ Unfortunately, today’s federal grand jury system, and indeed that of many states, bears no resemblance to the independent body familiar to America’s founders.”
.
Evaluating Grand Jury Reform in Two States: The Case for Reform marks an important contribution to the public discourse and efforts to reform a broken grand jury system.
.
The full report is available here [http://www.nacdl.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=22943]. A podcast message from NACDL Executive Director Norman L. Reimer is available here [http://www.nacdl.org/multimedia/grandjurypodcast.mp3]".
.
Also for more information contact: Ivan J. Dominguez @ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 1660 L St., N.W., 12th Fl, Washington, D.C. 20036 * Tel. 202-872-8600 * Fax 202-872-8690 for further information.
---
A press release by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers announced the release of a report suggesting some reforms for the grand jury system (in particular New York and Colorado). An interesting read with links for follow-up:
.
"America’s Grand Jury System: A Blueprint for Reform
.
Washington, DC (November 10, 2011) – National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ("NACDL") today releases a groundbreaking new report on restoring and reforming the grand jury system-- Evaluating Grand Jury Reform in Two States: The Case for Reform. This research reflects an in-depth study of grand jury reform in two states – New York and Colorado. In conducting this study, researchers Erin Crites, Jon Gould and Colleen Shepard of the Center for Justice, Law & Society at George Mason University studied the experiences prosecutors, defense lawyers and retired judges. Four key reforms recommendation emerge from the research: (i) defense representation in the grand jury room, (ii) production of witness transcripts for the defense, (iii) advance notice for witnesses to appear, and (iv) the presentation of exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
.
In order to return the grand jury system to the independent and legitimate function envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, there is much to be learned from the Colorado and New York systems. This report illustrates how reforms such as having a witness’s lawyer in the grand jury room and requiring prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury are viewed by both sides of the courtroom as increasing the accuracy, effectiveness and legitimacy of the grand jury. In addition, as the report’s findings uniformly demonstrate, NACDL’s proposed grand jury reforms have no harmful effects.
.
As former Deputy U.S. Attorney General Larry Thompson wrote in the foreword, “For an accusatory process that on its face emphasizes the role of the citizen, the grand jury is a patently un-democratic body…I say this having sought countless indictments before grand juries and having overseen the Justice Department’s work to promulgate uniform rules for federal prosecutions, including grand jury proceedings. Simply put, the federal grand jury exists today, for the most part, as a rubber stamp for prosecutors.”
.
NACDL Executive Director Norman L. Reimer explained, “The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that ‘[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment by a grand jury.’ Unfortunately, today’s federal grand jury system, and indeed that of many states, bears no resemblance to the independent body familiar to America’s founders.”
.
Evaluating Grand Jury Reform in Two States: The Case for Reform marks an important contribution to the public discourse and efforts to reform a broken grand jury system.
.
The full report is available here [http://www.nacdl.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=22943]. A podcast message from NACDL Executive Director Norman L. Reimer is available here [http://www.nacdl.org/multimedia/grandjurypodcast.mp3]".
.
Also for more information contact: Ivan J. Dominguez @ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 1660 L St., N.W., 12th Fl, Washington, D.C. 20036 * Tel. 202-872-8600 * Fax 202-872-8690 for further information.
---
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Is a Life Sentence for Minors Cruel & Unusual Punishment? SCOTUS to Decide It Seems...
The United States Supreme Court agreed to decide a pair of cases[Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs] challenging the constitutionality of life sentences for juveniles convicted in slayings committed when they were 14. The certiori writ claims the sentences of life without parole are cruel and unusual punishment and petitioners seek to expand on the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Graham v. Florida that held sentences of life in prison without parole are unconstitutional for juveniles who have not been charged with murder.
One of the youths in the new cases accepted by the court, Evan Miller of Alabama, received a life sentence after he and another youth beat a neighbor in 2003 and set fire to his home. The neighbor died of smoke inhalation. In the other case, Kuntrell Jackson of Arkansas was convicted for his part in the robbery and shooting death of a video store clerk in 1999. Jackson has maintained he was the lookout.
One of the youths in the new cases accepted by the court, Evan Miller of Alabama, received a life sentence after he and another youth beat a neighbor in 2003 and set fire to his home. The neighbor died of smoke inhalation. In the other case, Kuntrell Jackson of Arkansas was convicted for his part in the robbery and shooting death of a video store clerk in 1999. Jackson has maintained he was the lookout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)