DOCSLIB.ORG

Outline1 Presented by Paul Grech, Jr.2 and Michael A. Robbins 1. a Crime Is Reported

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Outline1 Presented by Paul Grech, Jr.2 and Michael A. Robbins 1. a Crime Is Reported It’s a Crime (maybe) Outline1 Presented by Paul Grech, Jr.2 And Michael A. Robbins 1. A crime is reported – A crime is reported to the police department. a. It might be by the victim. b. It might be by mandated reporter. For example, a minor working on a movie set tells the teacher on the set. See, Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law (CANRA), Penal Code §§ 11164-11174.3. c. Generally, a patrol officer is sent out to create a report. d. Generally, the initial report is followed up by a detective. e. This may be followed up by a pretext call (a supposed victim calling at the direction of police and recorded). f. The case is submitted to prosecution for review (e.g., District Attorney, Attorney General). i. Counsel may wish to speak with prosecutor before filing decision is made. ii. Counsel may wish to disclose information to prosecutor favorable to the accused. g. If a determination is made to arrest the accused, negotiations with the prosecutor may include: i. Surrendering the accused without fanfare. (The prosecuting agency might not be telling the truth about this). ii. Pre-arrange posting of bail. (new bail statute enacted August 2018, effective October 2019). 1 © Paul Grech Jr. and Michael A. Robbins. 2018. 2 Paul Grech, Jr., Certified Specialist in Criminal Law, The Germania Building, 7095 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, CA 92506. (951) 682-9311. [email protected]. Michael A. Robbins, EXTTI, Incorporated, 153 Stagecoach Rd., Bell Canyon, CA. 91307. (818) 712- 0203. [email protected]. It’s a Crime (maybe) iii. The arresting agency may issue a press release. h. Law enforcement advises the victim there is no requirement that they speak with anyone else. 2. A complaint is raised to the employer – The employer determines to conduct an investigation (either internally or externally). a. The police or law enforcement instruct the employer not to conduct an investigation. If the employer nevertheless conducts the investigation, this is not obstruction of justice. See, California Penal Code §148 (to resist, obstruct, or delay a peace officer in the performance of his/her duties). Be mindful of 18 USC 1503 et seq. re: federal obstruction of justice. b. The employer’s affirmative obligations under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Calif. Gov’t Code §§12940 (j) and (k) require an investigation of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. c. The employer’s affirmative obligations under Title VII. 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(f) require an investigation of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. d. If the police have advised the victim not to talk to anyone else, the employer still can attempt to interview the complaining party/victim. This is not obstruction of justice. e. If the police have not yet been contacted, should the employer contact the police? (See, mandated reporter, above). 3. A criminal attorney may become involved – a. To represent the accused. b. To assist the employer with the criminal process. For example, with issues like: i. Possible arrest of the accused. ii. Loss of reputation (of the accused and/or employer). iii. Negative publicity. iv. Perp walk. v. Expenses of bail. Page | 2 It’s a Crime (maybe) vi. Expenses relating to the criminal defense. c. To represent shareholders, partners, corporate officers, Board of Directors. 4. The employer determines to conduct an investigation – a. This could be internal or external. Conducted by an attorney or nonattorney. b. The investigator attempts to obtain the police report. [Generally not released]. c. The investigator attempts to meet with the Complaining Party. i. Law enforcement prefers that the complaining party not meet with the investigator. ii. The complaining party is a current employee and is instructed/ordered to cooperate with the employer. It is not obstruction of justice for the employer to attempt to meet with the complaining party/victim. It is not obstruction of justice for the employer to require or order the victim to meet. iii. However, criminal issues aside, if the issues in the investigation could relate to an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act, a nonsupervisory employee cannot be required to cooperate in the investigation. See, Johnnie's Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770, 774-775 (1964). d. May the investigator / employer record the conversation? i. California requires the consent of all parties before the recording of a confidential conversation (CA is an “all party consent state – Penal Code §§ 633 and 633.5). It is a misdemeanor to record without the consent of all parties. ii. Federal law and some other states (e.g. Nevada, Texas) require only one-party consent to record. 5. The investigator meets with the Complaining Party – a. Are records of the interview (notes or recordings) admissible in the criminal proceeding? b. The criminal defense attorney can subpoena information relating to the investigation – including notes and recordings. The attorney might do this to show inconsistencies in the complaining party’s/victim’s story. Page | 3 It’s a Crime (maybe) c. If the investigation was conducted by an attorney (or under the direction of an attorney), the employer can claim attorney-client or work product privilege. In the civil litigation, the employer will be faced with a choice – either to waive the privilege and turn investigation materials over to plaintiff’s counsel or to maintain the privilege and forgo the ability to even mention that an investigation took place. Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. App. 4th 110, (1997) and Johnson v. Rauland-Borg Corp., 961 F. Supp. 208 (N.D. Ill 1997). d. If the privilege was waived in the civil litigation, the employer will have no recourse if the investigation materials are subpoenaed by defense counsel. e. If the privilege was not waived in the civil litigation, then a conflict would arise between the accused’s 6th Amendment right to confront his/her accuser versus the attorney-client privilege. f. If the report contains only statements of a witness this may not be an attorney client communication. The report may nevertheless still be subject to a work-product privilege. Investigator and Company counsel may wish to include opinions along with raw reporting of statements. Consider stamping document as attorney- client and work-product privileged to indicate intent of company counsel. g. If privilege prevails evidence of innocence – such as inconsistent statement of accuser may be unavailable to criminal defense counsel. 6. The investigator meets with witnesses – a. The police or law enforcement suggest that witnesses not meet with the employer. However, witnesses are current employees and the employer instructs/orders them to meet. This is not obstruction of justice. b. The employer instructs witnesses not to cooperate with the police. This is obstruction of justice. c. Generally, employers cannot tell nonsupervisory employees to maintain confidentiality of the investigation.3 Banner Health System d/b/a Banner Estrella Medical Center and James A. Navarro, 358 NLRB No. 93 (2012); reissued, Banner Health System d/b/a Banner Estrella Medical Center and James A. Navarro, 352 NLRB No. 137 (2015). See also, Los Angeles 3 There are some exceptions. Page | 4 It’s a Crime (maybe) Community College District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2404-E (PERB adopted the Banner Health holding). d. The employer can suggest to witnesses that they may not wish to talk to individuals outside of work relating to the investigation (of course, except for the witnesses’ counsel or union). As long as this is not a requirement or an order, this is not obstruction of justice. e. As above, the criminal defense attorney can subpoena records of these interviews and the same conflict between the 6th amendment and attorney- client privilege will arise. f. As to witnesses, the prosecution also might want records of the interviews. This is discussed in the next section. g. Do not destroy records as this may constitute obstruction of justice. (10- year offense 18 USC §1503) 7. The investigator attempts to meet with the Accused – who is represented by criminal defense counsel – a. What advice does the defense attorney give to the Accused as to whether to meet with the employer’s investigators? i. Practical issues in representing the sophisticated client. ii. The accused individual believing they can persuade. iii. Actors acting / Politicians / Sports Figures / Celebrities b. If the Accused meets with the investigator, with the defense attorney present? i. In a workplace investigation, the accused does not have a right to counsel. TRW, Inc. v. Superior Court, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1834 (1994); rev. den., 1994 Cal. LEXIS 5080 (1994); cert. den. 513 U.S. 1151 (1995). ii. However, an attorney cannot bypass counsel. See, ABA Model Rule 4.2; California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 2-100 Communication with a Represented Party (Effective November 1, 2018, Rule 4.2). c. If the accused meets with the investigator, he/she has not waved his/her right to self-incrimination. Page | 5 It’s a Crime (maybe) d. However, the prosecution may wish to obtain records about the accused’s interview. This includes notes and/or recordings. The prosecution can subpoena these records or obtain a warrant for the records. The employer is free to turn over the statements to the prosecution. e. The investigator and employer cannot interfere with or resist the enforcement agency (police, FBI, etc.) from seizing records obtained under warrant. However, the employer can petition the court for a protective order. This presents the same attorney-client and/or work product privileges discussed above. f. In addition, the prosecution may wish to call the investigator as a witness to certain statements made by the accused individual. For example, prior inconsistent statements to those made in court.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presumption of Innocence: Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings Social Fieldwork Research (FRANET)
    Presumption of Innocence: procedural rights in criminal proceedings Social Fieldwork Research (FRANET) Country: GERMANY Contractor’s name: Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte e.V. Authors: Thorben Bredow, Lisa Fischer Reviewer: Petra Follmar-Otto Date: 27 May 2020 (Revised version: 20 August 2020; second revision: 28 August 2020) DISCLAIMER: This document was commissioned under contract as background material for a comparative analysis by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) for the project ‘Presumption of Innocence’. The information and views contained in the document do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA. The document is made publicly available for transparency and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. Table of Contents PART A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1 PART B. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 4 B.1 PREPARATION OF FIELDWORK ........................................................................................... 4 B.2 IDENTIFICATION AND RECRUITMENT OF PARTICIPANTS ................................................... 4 B.3 SAMPLE AND DESCRIPTION OF FIELDWORK ...................................................................... 5 B.4 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lost in the Compromise: Free Speech, Criminal Justice, and Attorney Pretrial Publicity
    LOST IN THE COMPROMISE: FREE SPEECH, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND ATTORNEY PRETRIAL PUBLICITY Margaret Tarkington* INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1874 I. PREVIOUS APPROACHES ...................................................... 1878 A. The Supreme Court and Attorney Pretrial Publicity ......................................................... 1878 B. The Compromise Between Fair Trials and the First Amendment ................................................... 1881 1. The Model Rules and the ABA ............................ 1881 2. Applying In-Court Restrictions to Extrajudicial Speech ............................................. 1883 3. Freedman and Starwood’s Non-Compromise ...... 1884 C. The First Amendment Strongly Protects Attorney Pretrial Publicity .......................................... 1884 D. Structural Signaling ..................................................... 1885 E. Ignoring the First Amendment Problem ...................... 1886 II. THE ACCESS-TO-JUSTICE THEORY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT ....................................................................... 1887 III. REPRESENTATION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM .................................................................. 1890 A. Heightened Constitutional Significance of Life and Liberty ....................................................... 1891 B. Obligations to Undertake and Continue the Representation ............................................................. 1892 C. Duty Not to Disclose Information
    [Show full text]
  • Dissemination of Vaccine Misinformation on Twitter and Its Countermeasures
    Dissertation Dissemination of Vaccine Misinformation on Twitter and Its Countermeasures Christine Chen This document was submitted as a dissertation in March 2021 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted of Luke Matthews (Chair), Sarah Nowak and Jeremy Miles. The external reader was Jennifer Golbeck. This dissertation was generously supported by the Anne and James Rothenberg Dissertation Award. PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL For more information on this publication, visit http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSDA1332-1.html Published 2021 by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. is a registered trademarK Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademarK(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is reQuired from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help maKe communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND MaKe a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Abstract Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases have continued to affect many parts of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download
    CONTENTS Preface xxiii Acknowledgments xxvii CHAPTER ONE THE “IDEAL” ORGANIZATION 1 How organizations are supposed to run (in theory) Chapter Objectives 1 Key Terms 1 Introduction 2 Max Weber and Bureaucracy 2 Characteristics of Bureaucracy 3 Law in the Real World: The Blockbuster Movie 6 Jobs vs. Careers 7 Law in the Real World: Steve Jobs and Apple, Inc. 8 Professional Associations and Organizations 9 Control of Workers and Management Styles 10 McDonaldization of Organizations 12 Law in the Real World: Southwest Airlines 14 Labor Markets 15 Laws and Regulation in Organizations 16 Law in the Real World: California’s SB 1342 17 Summary 18 Case Study: Keeping Employees Happy: Twitter® 19 Glossary 21 References and Suggested Readings 23 ix Contents CHAPTER TWO HOW ORGANIZATIONS REALLY RUN 25 What can go wrong that can lead to white collar or corporate crime Chapter Objectives 25 Key Terms 25 Introduction 26 Defining Malfeasance and White Collar Crime 27 Fear and Greed 28 Iron Cage of Bureaucracy 29 Chain of Command Issues 31 Innovation 32 Law in the Real World: Challenger Shuttle Disaster 32 Bounded Rationality 33 Ceremonial Evaluations 34 Leadership Gone Haywire: The Autocrat and Micromanager 35 Alienated Workers 36 Law in the Real World: The U.S. Postal Strike, 1970 37 Irrationality of McDonaldization 39 Gender Politics 40 Whistleblowers 40 Law in the Real World: Jeffrey Wigand and Big Tobacco 42 Unforeseen Disasters 44 Law in the Real World: Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Bankruptcy 46 Corporate Violence 47 Organizational Death 48 Summary 49 Case Study: What Happens in Hollywood (and New York) Doesn’t Necessarily Stay in Hollywood: The Weinstein Scandal 50 Glossary 55 References and Suggested Readings 57 x Contents CHAPTER THREE WHAT YOU KNOW VS.
    [Show full text]
  • Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
    Innocent until proven guilty? The presentation of suspects in criminal proceedings Innocent until proven guilty? About Fair Trials Fair Trials is a global criminal justice watchdog with offices in London, Brussels and Washington, D.C., focused on improving the right to a fair trial in accordance with international standards. Fair Trials’ work is premised on the belief that fair trials are In Europe, Fair Trials coordinate the Legal Experts one of the cornerstones of a just society: they prevent lives Advisory Panel (LEAP) – the leading criminal justice from being ruined by miscarriages of justice and make network in Europe consisting of over 200 criminal defence societies safer by contributing to justice systems that law firms, academic institutions and civil society maintain public trust. Although universally recognised in organisations. More information about this network and its principle, in practice the basic human right to a fair trial is work on the right to a fair trial in Europe can be found at: being routinely abused. www.fairtrials.org/legal-experts-advisory-panel. @fairtrials @fairtrials Fair Trials fairtrials.org Suspects in Restraints This report is produced as part of the project “The Importance of Appearances: How Suspects and Accused Persons are Presented in the Courtroom, in Public and in the Media”, coordinated by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (the “Project”) with partners Aditus Foundation (Malta), Fair Trials, Human Right House, Zagreb (Croatia), Mérték (Hungary), Rights International Spain, and the University of Vienna. Contact: Laure Baudrihaye-Gérard Alex Mik Senior Lawyer (Europe) Campaigns & Networks Director +32 (0)2 894 99 55 +32 (0)2 895 59 42 [email protected] [email protected] Illustrations: Darya Novatorova With thanks to Hogan Lovells, our pro bono partner, without whose time, expertise, Project coordinated by global network of offices and commitment, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee the global survey of law and practice in this report would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Shaming Revisited: an Essay for Bill Klein
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2005 Corporate Shaming Revisited: An Essay for Bill Klein David A. Skeel Jr. University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Repository Citation Skeel, David A. Jr., "Corporate Shaming Revisited: An Essay for Bill Klein" (2005). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 692. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/692 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Corporate Shaming Revisited: An Essay For Bill Klein David A. Skeel, Jr.t Introduction ...................................................................................................... 107 I. What "Shaming" Means and How It Works ............................................. 108 II. The "Tone at The Top" and Shaming within the Firm ............................. 110 III. The Wall Street Perp Walk ....................................................................... 112
    [Show full text]
  • Language and Jury Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Doing Death in Texas: Language and Jury Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials Author: Robin Helene Conley Document No.: 236354 Date Received: November 2011 Award Number: 2009-IJ-CX-0005 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Doing Death in Texas: Language and Jury Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology by Robin Helene Conley 2011 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoaxers, Hackers, and Policymakers How Junk Science Persuaded the FBI to Divert Terrorism Funding to Fight Hackers
    SI M-A 2006 pgs cut 1/23/06 2:50 PM Page 31 Hoaxers, Hackers, and Policymakers How Junk Science Persuaded the FBI to Divert Terrorism Funding to Fight Hackers Hoaxers warned of an imminent and deadly electronic Pearl Harbor. Consequently, the FBI diverted resources and attention away from terrorism and toward fighting hackers. This may have contributed to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Use of critical inquiry and the scientific method could have avoided this misdirection. CAROLYN MEINEL SKEPTICAL INQUIRER March / April 2006 31 SI M-A 2006 pgs cut 1/23/06 2:50 PM Page 32 Stir into this media frenzy a feud between Louis Freeh, the eginning in late 1996, Fred J. Villella, calling himself head of the FBI, and President Clinton’s terrorism and cyber- the former “executive secretary to the national secu- space czar, Richard A. Clarke (Freeh 2005). Consequently, rity adviser,” squired “Dr. Mudge” and “Se7en,” to Freeh habitually froze Clarke out of the loop. All Clarke could Bmeetings where they warned federal policymakers of a loom- have known about Maiffret’s supposed al Qaeda adventure was ing electronic Pearl Harbor (Richtel 1998, Radcliff 1998). what he saw in the news. Their adventures appeared in many news stories, and for good Even other parts of the FBI had little or no knowledge of reason. This was back when the Internet and the Dot Com what was going on. Department of Justice regulations known revolution were big and scary and most people had no idea as “The Wall” kept agents who worked the foreign intelligence what it all meant.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrest and Protest
    Printed using recycled fiber Guinea Fowl Page 24 Middleburg’s Only Locally Owned and Operated Newspaper Volume 7 Issue 9 www.mbecc.com December 16, 2010 ~ January 27, 2011 Christmas in Middleburg Arrest and Protest Page 12 Dan Morrow mors, and on-line speculation on the eve of Christmas in Middleburg, Council Member he December regular meeting of the Kathy Jo Shea added an amendment to the Middleburg Town Council opened last item on the Council’s regular December with Mayor Betsy Davis praising meeting agenda. In addition to discussing a Middleburg Eccentric Editor Dee routine appointment to a Town committee, Dee Hubbard for her leadership role in this the Council would also discuss the actions Tyear’s “Christmas in Middleburg” celebra- of the Town’s Police Chief on or around No- tion, and ended with a closed-session dis- vember 30. cussion of the role of the Middleburg Po- The Charges lice Chief, Steve Webber, in her arrest by State Police, her “perp walk”, and transport The Hubbard case is rooted in com- in irons to the County Detention Center in plaints of embezzlement lodged with the Leesburg. Middleburg Police by Jack J. Goehring of Hubbard, 67, had been called to a McLean, Virginia. meeting in a local restaurant on Novem- For roughly twenty years Hubbard ber 30 by Police Chief Webber, ostensibly had managed some 20 to 25 properties, in- to talk about traffic and security prepara- cluding private homes, offices, and retail tions for the December 4 “Christmas in stores, for Goehring and a partner John Ben- Middleburg” parade which she has nison.
    [Show full text]
  • Perp Walks and Prosecutorial Ethics
    PERP WALKS AND PROSECUTORIAL ETHICS Ernest F. Lidge III* "The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talks or public print." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes1 I. INTRODUCTION The perp walk has been defined as: "[t]he deliberate escorting of an arrested suspect by police in front of the news media, especially as a means of pressuring or humiliating the suspect."' Law enforcement personnel have been using perp walks for many years,3 and the procedure has been used in some high-profile cases in recent decades.4 The perp walk has two potential effects: * Professor of Law, The University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law; B.S. Ed., Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, 1976; M.A., University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, 1981; J.D., University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois, 1984. I would like to thank my research assistant David Calfee. I would also like to thank the University of Memphis School of Law for providing a grant that supported the research for this Article. I Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907). 2 The AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4th ed. 2000). 1 A New York Times article notes: The term [perp walk] has been used for at least five decades by New York police and photogra- phers and some experts point to images of protowalks captured long before photography. In paintings of the expulsion from Eden, Adam and Eve are modestly trying to cover their bodies from public view, and the sword-wielding angel's stem expression anticipates the look on a homicide detective walking an accused cop-killer.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee Meeting Of
    Committee Meeting of ASSEMBLY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE "Testimony concerning the recent increase in the price of gasoline in New Jersey from invited representatives of the petroleum products industry and academic experts" LOCATION: Committee Room 11 DATE: September 15, 2005 State House Annex 11:00 a.m. Trenton, New Jersey MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE PRESENT: Assemblyman John S. Wisniewski, Chair Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli Assemblyman Upendra J. Chivukula Assemblyman Gordon M. Johnson Assemblyman David R. Mayer Assemblyman Michael J. Panter Assemblyman Vincent Prieto Assemblyman Brian P. Stack Assemblywoman Linda Stender Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi Assemblyman Francis L. Bodine Assemblyman John C. Gibson Assemblyman Kevin J. O'Toole ALSO PRESENT: Maureen McMahon Christopher Jones Jerry Traino Nancy M. Lipper Assembly Majority Assembly Republican Office of Legislative Services Committee Aide Committee Aide Committee Aides Meeting Recorded and Transcribed by The Office of Legislative Services, Public Information Office, Hearing Unit, State House Annex, PO 068, Trenton, New Jersey TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Clinton James Andrews, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Director Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers University 9 Tyson Slocum Research Director Public Citizen Washington, D.C. 33 Kimberly Ricketts Director Division of Consumer Affairs New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 59 Jim Dieterle State Director AARP, and Vice President Board of Director New Jersey Shares 74 Jim Benton Executive Director New Jersey Petroleum Council 79 John Felmy, Ph.D. Chief Economist American Petroleum Institute 79 William Dressler Executive Director New Jersey Gasoline Retailers Association 80 Mark Salisbury Representing Mohawk Oil Company 80 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Eric DeGesero Executive Vice President Fuel Merchants Association of New Jersey 81 Paul Riggins Representing Riggins Oil Company 81 Pat Fiumara Associate Director New Jersey Gasoline Retailers Association 81 Carol J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Presumption of Innocence and Its Role in the Criminal Process
    Criminal Law Forum (2016) 27:131–158 Ó The Author(s). This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com 2016 DOI 10.1007/s10609-016-9281-8 PAMELA R. FERGUSON* THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND ITS ROLE IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS ABSTRACT. Many international instruments proclaim that those who face crimi- nal prosecution ought to be afforded a ‘presumption of innocence’, and the impor- tance and central role of this presumption is recognized by legal systems throughout the world. There is, however, little agreement about its meaning and extent of application. This article considers the purposes of legal presumptions in general and explores various, sometimes contradictory, conceptions of this most famous one. It is equated by many scholars to the requirement that the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, it is merely a rule of evidence (albeit an important one), with no application pre- or post-trial. The article advocates adoption of a broader, normative approach, namely that the presumption reflects the relationship which ought to exist between citizen and State when a citizen is suspected of breaching the criminal law. As such, it should be promoted as a practical attitude to be adopted by the key protagonists in the justice system, for the duration of the criminal process. I INTRODUCTION In August 2014 the Mayor of London suggested that UK criminal law be amended to deal with the dangers posed by the jihadist group ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS). In relation to British citizens who travel to certain ‘war areas’ such as Syria and Iraq: ‘The law needs a swift and minor change so that there is a ‘‘rebuttable presumption’’ that all those visiting war areas without notifying the [UK] authorities have done so for a terrorist purpose.’1 In response to such calls for a ‘presumption of guilt’, recourse is often had to the rhetoric of the ‘presumption of innocence’, yet there is rarely any attempt to artic- ulate what this means, or why such a presumption should operate * Professor of Scots Law at University of Dundee, Scotland, UK.
    [Show full text]