The Gauntlet
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System
A GUIDE TO MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM A SYSTEMS GUIDE FOR FAMILIES AND CONSUMERS National Alliance on Mental Illness Department of Policy and Legal Affairs 2107 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 Helpline: 800-950-NAMI NAMI – Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System FOREWORD Tragically, jails and prisons are emerging as the "psychiatric hospitals" of the 1990s. A sample of 1400 NAMI families surveyed in 1991 revealed that 40 percent of family members with severe mental illness had been arrested one or more times. Other national studies reveal that approximately 8 percent of all jail and prison inmates suffer from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorders. These statistics are a direct reflection of the failure of public mental health systems to provide appropriate care and treatment to individuals with severe mental illnesses. These horrifying statistics point directly to the need of NAMI families and consumers to develop greater familiarity with the workings of their local criminal justice systems. Key personnel in these systems, such as police officers, prosecutors, public defenders and jail employees may have limited knowledge about severe mental illness and the needs of those who suffer from these illnesses. Moreover, the procedures, terminology and practices which characterize the criminal justice system are likely to be bewildering for consumers and family members alike. This guide is intended to serve as an aid for those people thrust into interaction with local criminal justice systems. Since criminal procedures are complicated and often differ from state to state, readers are urged to consult the laws and procedures of their states and localities. -
CLE Cover Sheet
Special Committee on Criminal Justice Roundtable “Pandemic in the Criminal Justice System: Are We Better or Worse Off?” CLE Course Number 5226 Level: Intermediate Approval Period: 6/3/21 – 12/31/22 CLE Credits Certification Credits General 5.0 Appellate Practice 5.0 Ethics 1.0 Criminal Appellate Practice 5.0 Technology 1.0 Criminal Trial Practice 5.0 Juvenile Law 5.0 The Florida Bar’s Special Committee on Criminal Justice is comprised of a diverse group of lawyers, judges, and non-lawyer members representing a number of criminal law-related associations as well as the Legislature. The COVID-19 pandemic has manifestly changed how the justice system has operated, especially in the criminal justice realm. We are currently examining what changes will become permanent, and what processes have negatively affected the rights of criminal defendants. The panels include many of the leading Florida criminal justice practitioners, and will discuss a variety of issues including court administration, funding issues, technology challenges, and constitutional issues. Biography of Moderators/Panelists 12:00 – 12:15 Greeting *Co-Chair Michelle Suskauer, Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A., West Palm Beach Michelle Suskauer a criminal defense attorney and the managing partner of the West Palm Beach office of Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A., a law firm that focuses on criminal defense and finance fraud with offices in West Palm Beach, Miami, Naples, Los Angeles and New York. Michelle began her legal career as an assistant public defender in West Palm Beach. She has been practicing in Palm Beach County since 1991 with a focus in criminal law in both state and federal courts. -
Charles M. Sevilla 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1825 San Diego, California 92101-4902 619-232-2222-Tel
Charles M. Sevilla 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1825 San Diego, California 92101-4902 619-232-2222-tel www.charlessevilla.com EDUCATION LL.M., George Washington University, Washington D.C., 1971 J.D., University of Santa Clara, Santa Clara, California, 1969 B.A., San Jose State University, San Jose, California, 1966 ADMITTED TO PRACTICE: California: Supreme Court of California; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; U.S. District Court for Southern District of California; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Washington, D.C.: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; Supreme Court of the United States EMPLOYMENT: Law Office of Charles Sevilla, 2004 - present Partner, Cleary & Sevilla, LLP, 1983 - 2004 Chief Deputy State Public Defender, 1979 to 1983 Chief Assistant State Public Defender, Los Angeles, 1976 to 1979 Federal Defenders, San Diego, California; trial attorney, 1971 to 1972; Chief Trial Attorney, 1972 to 1976 Washington, D.C., private practice, 1971 VISTA Legal Services, Urban Law Institute, Washington, D.C., Staff Attorney, 1969 to 1971 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS: “Antisocial Personality Disorder: Justification for the Death Penalty?” 10 Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 247, University of San Diego School of Law (1999). "Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Search for Truth," 20 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 519 (Winter 1997). "April 20, 1992: A Day in the Life," 30 Loyola Law Review 95 (November 1996) “Redefining Federal Habeas Corpus and Constitutional Rights: Procedural Preclusion,” 52 National Lawyer’s Guild Practitioner 33 (1995). "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents: The Death Penalty Case of Robert Alton Harris," 40 U.C.L.A. -
“You Have the Right to an Attorney,” but Not Right Now: Combating Miranda's Failure by Advancing the Point of Attachment
DEARBORN_LEAD_MACRO 6/6/2011 9:18 PM “You Have the Right to an Attorney,” but Not Right Now: Combating Miranda’s Failure by Advancing the Point of Attachment Under Article XII of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights D. Christopher Dearborn1 I. INTRODUCTION Over forty years’ worth of popular culture has led most Americans to believe that they have a “right to an attorney” upon arrest.2 We have watched this familiar scene unfold in countless movies and television shows: the police close in on the lone (and undoubtedly guilty) suspect, pin him against a wall, slap on the cuffs, and triumphantly recite his “Miranda warnings,” which apparently include the right to counsel. Technically, officers here are referring to a suspect’s limited Fifth Amendment right, upon “clearly” and “unambiguously” invoking it,3 to the presence of an attorney before custodial interrogation by the police.4 This idea would probably strike most people as extremely sensible—that, upon arrest, you should have the opportunity to speak with a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. However, the “right” guarantees neither access to a lawyer to explain the procedural complexities of a criminal case, nor unbiased, professional advice on whether it is prudent to waive any constitutional protections.5 Rather, Miranda only guarantees the right, once affirmatively invoked, to not be asked questions by the police outside the presence of an attorney.6 As a practical reality in Massachusetts, 1. Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School. I want to thank my colleagues Frank Rudy Cooper and Ragini Shah for their valuable insights. -
The Ethical Limits of Discrediting the Truthful Witness
Marquette Law Review Volume 99 Article 4 Issue 2 Winter 2015 The thicE al Limits of Discrediting the Truthful Witness: How Modern Ethics Rules Fail to Prevent Truthful Witnesses from Being Discredited Through Unethical Means Todd A. Berger Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Courts Commons, and the Evidence Commons Repository Citation Todd A. Berger, The Ethical Limits of Discrediting the Truthful Witness: How Modern Ethics Rules Fail to Prevent Truthful Witnesses from Being Discredited Through Unethical Means, 99 Marq. L. Rev. 283 (2015). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol99/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ETHICAL LIMITS OF DISCREDITING THE TRUTHFUL WITNESS: HOW MODERN ETHICS RULES FAIL TO PREVENT TRUTHFUL WITNESSES FROM BEING DISCREDITED THROUGH UNETHICAL MEANS TODD A. BERGER* Whether the criminal defense attorney may ethically discredit the truthful witness on cross-examination and later during closing argument has long been an area of controversy in legal ethics. The vast majority of scholarly discussion on this important ethical dilemma has examined it in the abstract, focusing on the defense attorney’s dual roles in a criminal justice system that is dedicated to searching for the truth while simultaneously requiring zealous advocacy even for the guiltiest of defendants. Unlike these previous works, this particular Article explores this dilemma from the perspective of the techniques that criminal defense attorney’s use on cross-examination and closing argument to cast doubt on the testimony of a credible witness. -
The Difference in Criminal Defense and the Difference It Makes
Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2003 The Difference in Criminal Defense and the Difference It Makes Abbe Smith Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/215 11 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 83-140 (2003) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications February 2010 The Difference in Criminal Defense and the Difference It Makes 11 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 83-140 (2003) Abbe Smith Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/215/ Posted with permission of the author The Difference in Criminal Defense and the Difference It Makes Abbe Smith* In 1894 I opened an office and went into private practice .... When I began, it was with the intention of trying only civil cases .... I had never had anything to do with criminal cases, and, like most other lawyers, did not want to take them .... -Clarence Darrowl Strange as it may seem I grew to like to defend men and women charged with crime. It soon came to be something more than winning or losing a case. [It] meant more than the quibbling with lawyers and juries, to get or keep money for a client so that I could take part of what I won or saved for him: I was dealing with life, with its hopes and fears, its aspirations and despairs. -
John Leo Brady: the Defense Lawyer's Best Friend
John Leo Brady: The defense lawyer’s best friend By: Denis M. deVlaming The holding in Brady v. Maryland1 dates back to 1963. It has been the law ever since then yet is incredibly underutilized by the defense bar throughout the United States. That court holding along with United States v. Bagley2 and Kyles v. Whitley3 have predominately dictated the requirements of the prosecution to turn over all material that include the following: (1) all information that would exonerate the accused; (2) all exculpatory information; (3) all information that would lessen the punishment; (4) all material impeachment of the government’s evidence or witnesses; and (5) any evidence that would support a valid defense. But the defense has to ask for it. The facts in Brady are worth discussion. John Leo Brady was on trial for first-degree murder in the state of Maryland. His lawyer conceded guilt (as the evidence was overwhelming) but sought to save him from capital punishment. He was charged with a codefendant named Boblit. Brady was found guilty and sentenced to death. After all appeals and post-conviction matters were concluded, Brady learned that the state had withheld a statement made by his codefendant which, although implicated Brady in the crime, excluded him as the actual killer. Brady argued that this statement violated due process by not being turned over to his former defense team. His position was that had the jury learned that he did not do the actual killing, that the jury would have voted to spare his life. The United States Supreme Court did not reverse his conviction but did reverse for a new sentencing hearing. -
Speechless: the Silencing of Criminal Defendants
SPEECHLESS: THE SILENCING OF CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS ALEXANDRA NATAPOFF* Over one million defendants pass through the criminal justice system every year, yet we almost never hear from them. From the first Miranda warnings, through trial or guilty plea, and finally at sentencing, most defendants remain silent. They are spoken for by their lawyers or not at all. The criminal system treats this perva- sive silencing as protective, a victory for defendants. This Article argues that this silencing is also a massive democratic and human failure. Our democracy prizes individual speech as the main antidote to governmental tyranny, yet it silences the millions of poor, socially disadvantaged individuals who directly face the coercive power of the state. Speech also has important cognitive and dignitary functions: It is through speech that defendants engage with the law, understand it, and express anger, remorse, and their acceptance or rejection of the criminal justice process. Since defendants speak so rarely, however, these speech functions too often go unfulfilled. Finally, silencing excludes defendants from the social narratives that shape the criminal justice system itself, in which society ultimately decides which collective decisions are fair and who should be punished. This Article describes the silencing phenomenon in practice and in doctrine, and identifies the many unrecog- nized harms that silence causes to individual defendants, to the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, and to the democratic values that underlie the process. It concludes that defendant silencing should be understood and addressed in the con- text of broader inquiries into the (non)adversarialand (un)democraticfeatures of our criminal justice system. -
"Thinking Like a Lawyer" Or Acting Like a Judge?: a Response to Professor Simon David N
Hofstra Law Review Volume 27 | Issue 1 Article 2 1998 "Thinking Like a Lawyer" or Acting Like a Judge?: A Response to Professor Simon David N. Yellen Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Yellen, David N. (1998) ""Thinking Like a Lawyer" or Acting Like a Judge?: A Response to Professor Simon," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 27: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol27/iss1/2 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Yellen: "Thinking Like a Lawyer" or Acting Like a Judge?: A Response to P "THINKING LIKE A LAWYER" OR ACTING LIKE A JUDGE?: A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR SIMON David N. Yellen* Professor William Simon argues that the principal professional re- sponsibility of all lawyers should be to "seek justice."' He defines this as pursuing the client's rights, but not the client's interests, if those in- terests are incompatible with the "truth." As a concrete example of this approach, Professor Simon states that it would normally be inappropri- ate for a lawyer to subject a vulnerable, but accurate, witness to cross- examination intended to create the impression that the witness' testi- mony was mistaken.2 In my view, Professor Simon's position would not really further "justice" at all. In these brief comments, by focusing on the likely im- pact of his ideas on criminal defense practice (from which many of the compelling examples in the debate about lawyers working against the truth are drawn), I suggest that Professor Simon's ideas are misguided. -
The Effect of Defense Counsel on Murder Case Outcomes Abstract
154.ANDERSON&HEATON.217 - UPDATEDVERSIONFORPRINTER.doc10/11/2012 3:31:11 PM James M. Anderson & Paul Heaton How Much Difference Does the Lawyer Make? The Effect of Defense Counsel on Murder Case Outcomes abstract. One in five indigent murder defendants in Philadelphia is randomly assigned representation by public defenders while the remainder receive court-appointed private attorneys. We exploit this random assignment to measure how defense counsel affect murder case outcomes. Compared to appointed counsel, public defenders in Philadelphia reduce their clients’ murder conviction rate by 19% and lower the probability that their clients receive a life sentence by 62%. Public defenders reduce overall expected time served in prison by 24%. We find no difference in the overall number of charges of which defendants are found guilty. When we apply methods used in past studies of the effect of counsel that did not use random assignment, we obtain far more modest estimated impacts, which suggests defendant sorting is an important confounder affecting past research. To understand possible explanations for the disparity in outcomes, we interviewed judges, public defenders, and attorneys who took appointments. Interviewees identified a variety of institutional factors in Philadelphia that decreased the likelihood that appointed counsel would prepare cases as well as the public defenders. The vast difference in outcomes for defendants assigned different counsel types raises important questions about the adequacy and fairness of the criminal justice system. authors. James M. Anderson, J.D., is a behavioral and social scientist at the RAND Corporation, and Paul Heaton, Ph.D., is an economist at RAND. Many thanks to Marcy Bloomfield, Paul Conway, Richard McSorley, and numerous anonymous judges and lawyers with whom we spoke and who provided invaluable data and guidance regarding the functioning of the Philadelphia court system. -
Moving Beyond Miranda: Concessions for Confessions
HOWE (DO NOT DELETE) 6/24/2016 11:29 AM Copyright 2016 by Scott W. Howe Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 110, No. 4 MOVING BEYOND MIRANDA: CONCESSIONS FOR CONFESSIONS Scott W. Howe ABSTRACT—The law governing police interrogation provides perverse incentives. For criminal suspects, the law rewards obstruction and concealment. For police officers, it honors deceit and psychological aggression. For the courts and the rest of us, it encourages blindness and rationalization. This Article contends that the law could help foster better behaviors. The law could incentivize criminals to confess without police trickery and oppression. It could motivate police officers involved in obtaining suspect statements to avoid chicanery and duress. And, it could summon courts and the rest of us to speak more truthfully about whether suspect admissions are the product of informed, intelligent, and voluntary decisions. States could promote these outcomes by providing valuable sentencing concessions to those who confess. AUTHOR—Frank L. Williams Professor of Criminal Law, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University. For assistance of various kinds and at various stages of this project, I thank my colleagues at Chapman, Donald Kochan, Michael Lang, and Larry Rosenthal. For assistance of the most important and pervasive kind, I thank Jetty Maria Cascante Howe. 905 HOWE (DO NOT DELETE) 6/24/2016 11:29 AM N O R T H W E S T E R N U N I V E R S I T Y L A W R E V I E W INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 906 I. POLICE INTERROGATION AS COMPULSION ................................................................ 912 A. -
Jack B. Zimmermann
ZIMMERMANN LAVINE & ZIMMERMANN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 770 SOUTH POST OAK LANE, SUITE 620 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056 713-552-0300 FAX 713-552-0746 WWW.TEXASDEFENSELAWYERS.COM JACK B. ZIMMERMANN PERSONAL < Bachelor of Science from United States Naval Academy, 1964 < Master of Science in Industrial Administration from Purdue University, 1970 < Doctor of Jurisprudence from University of Texas, 1975 < In Vietnam earned two Bronze Star Medals for heroism, and the Purple Heart. Commanded two artillery batteries < Retired as a Colonel, United States Marine Corps Reserve on July 1, 1994. Served in several capacities: General Court-Martial Trial Judge; Commander of Inspector Detachment for Marine Reserve ground forces; Infantry Battalion Commander; Air Wing Staff Judge Advocate; Deputy Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps < Married for over fifty years to Ilene < Daughter, Colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, Criminal Defense Attorney; son, former Marine Captain, Special Agent with the FBI LEGAL BACKGROUND < Partner, Zimmermann Lavine & Zimmermann, P.C. < Board Certified in Criminal Law by National Board of Trial Advocacy and Texas Board of Legal Specialization < Formerly, on active duty in the United States Marine Corps, served in three assignments: Chief Defense Counsel, then Chief Prosecutor, then Trial Judge < Former Partner, Haynes & Fullenweider, P.L.C. < Named a “Super Lawyer” by Texas Monthly Magazine (top 5% in State), every year from 2003 to 2018 < Named Lawyer of the Year by the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association and Texas Criminal