DOCSLIB.ORG

Minor Crimes, Massive Waste the Terrible Toll of America’S Broken Misdemeanor Courts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste the Terrible Toll of America’S Broken Misdemeanor Courts Minor Crimes, Massive Waste The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS April 2009 Supported in part by grants from the Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation. COPYRIGHT © NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS This report is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Work license (see http://www.creativecommons.org ). It may be reproduced, provided that no charge is imposed, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is ac - knowledged as the original publisher and the copyright holder. For any other form of re - production, please contact NACDL for permission. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS 1660 L Street NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-872-8600; Fax: 202-872-8690 Minor Crimes, Massive Waste The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts By Robert C. Boruchowitz Malia N. Brink Maureen Dimino JOHN WESLEY HALL EDWARD A. M ALLETT President, NACDL President, FCJ Little Rock, AR Houston, TX NORMAN L. R EIMER KYLE O’D OWD Executive Director, NACDL Associate Executive Director Washington, DC For Policy, NACDL Washington, DC NACDL Indigent Defense Committee Rick Jones William Wolf Co-Chair Co-Chair New York, NY Chicago, IL Anthony Cotton E. Gerry Morris Geneva Vanderhorst Vice-Chair Immediate Past-Chair Vice-Chair Waukesha, WI Austin, TX Washington, DC TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS . 4 ABOUT THE FOUNDATION FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE . 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 7 INTRODUCTION . 10 Methodology . 10 The Misdemeanor Courts . 11 The Volume of Misdemeanor Offenses . 11 Rights of Defendants in Misdemeanor Cases . 11 Right to Counsel in Misdemeanor Cases . 11 Why Are Lawyers Needed in Misdemeanor Cases? . 12 Consequences of a Misdemeanor Conviction . 12 PROBLEMS IN MISDEMEANOR COURTS . 14 Absence of Counsel . 14 Uninformed Waiver of Counsel . 15 Eligibility Limitations for Counsel . 16 Conferring Directly with Prosecutors . 16 Recommendations — Absence of Counsel . 17 Deterrents to Asking for Counsel . 18 Delay . 18 Application Fees . 19 Recommendations — Deterrents to Asking for Counsel . 19 Misdemeanor Caseloads . 20 The Meaning of the Caseload Numbers . 22 Excessive Caseloads Put Lawyers in Jeopardy . 22 Recommendations — Excessive Caseloads . 24 Why Are Misdemeanor Caseloads So High? . 25 Overcriminalization . 25 Misdemeanor Indigent Defenders Take Brunt of Budget Shortages . 26 Minor Crimes, Massive Waste Recommendations — Causes of Excessive Caseloads . 27 Misdemeanor Defense in Practice . 30 Meet and Plead . 31 Denial of Bond/Inability to Make Bail and the Pressure to Plead . 32 Prosecutorial Pressure to Plead . 33 Impact of Increased Collateral Consequences on Misdemeanor Caseloads . 34 Early Disposition Projects . 34 3 Effect of Excessive Caseloads on the Clients . 35 Recommendations — Misdemeanor Defense in Practice . 36 Misdemeanor Defenders Lack Access to Support Services . 38 Recommendations — Lack of Support Services . 39 Inexperienced Counsel in Misdemeanor Courts . 39 Lack of Training . 39 Lack of Supervision . 40 Recommendations — Inexperienced Counsel in Misdemeanor Courts . 40 Lack of Standards . 41 Recommendations — Lack of Standards . 41 Inadequate Compensation for Defenders in Misdemeanor Courts . 42 Recommendation — Inadequate Compensation . 43 Judicial Conduct in Misdemeanor Courtrooms . 44 Disparate Treatment of Indigent Defendants . 44 Judges Face Discipline for Not Honoring Right to Counsel . 45 Recommendations — Judicial Conduct in Misdemeanor Cases . 45 Lawyer Burnout in Misdemeanor Courts . 46 Recommendation — Lawyer Burnout . 46 Disproportionate Effect on Minority Communities . 47 Recommendations — Disproportionate Impact on Minority Communities . 48 CONCLUSION . 48 The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts Table of Contents ABOUT THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS he National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is the preemi - nent organization in the United States advancing the goal of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due process for persons charged with a crime or wrong - Tdoing. NACDL’s core mission is to: Ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime … Foster the integrity, independence and expertise of the criminal defense pro - 4 fession … Promote the proper and fair administration of criminal justice. Founded in 1958, NACDL has a rich history of promoting education and reform through steadfast support of America’s criminal defense bar, amicus advocacy, and myriad proj - ects designed to safeguard due process rights and promote a rational and humane crim - inal justice system. NACDL’s 12,000 direct members — and more that 90 state, local and international affiliates with an additional 40,000 members — include private crim - inal defense lawyers, public defenders, active U.S. military defense counsel, and law professors committed to preserving fairness in America’s criminal justice system. Rep - resenting thousands of criminal defense attorneys who know firsthand the inadequacies of the current system, NACDL is recognized domestically and internationally for its ex - pertise on criminal justice policies and best practices. The research and publication of this report was made possible through support of indi - vidual donors and foundations to the Foundation for Criminal Justice. This report would not have been possible without the specific support of the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Institute. For more information contact: THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS 1660 L Street NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-872-8600 This publication is available online at www.nacdl.org/misdemeanor Minor Crimes, Massive Waste ABOUT THE FOUNDATION FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE he Foundation for Criminal Justice (FCJ) is organized to preserve and pro - mote the core values of America ’s justice system guaranteed by the Consti - tution — among them due process, freedom from unreasonable search and Tseizure, fair sentencing, and assistance of effective counsel. The FCJ pursues this goal by seeking grants and supporting programs to educate the public and the legal profession to the role of these rights and values in a free society and assist in their 5 preservation throughout the United States and abroad. 5 The Foundation is incorporated in the District of Columbia as a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation. All contributions to the Foundation are tax-deductible. The affairs of the Foundation are managed by a Board of Trustees that possesses and exercises all powers granted to the Foundation under the DC Non-Profit Foundation Act, the Foundation ’s own Articles of Incorporation, and its Bylaws. For more information contact: FOUNDATION FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1660 L Street NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-872-8600 The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS he authors wish to thank the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Board of Trustees for the Foundation for TCriminal Justice for their support of this project. The research and drafting of this report was a collaborative effort between NACDL and 6 Professor Robert C. Boruchowitz of the Seattle University School of Law. Professor Boruchowitz served as lead researcher on the project. In addition to teaching in the Youth Advocacy Clinic, Professor Boruchowitz is the Director of The Defender Initia - tive, a project that works to document problems in public defense systems and to ad - vance efforts to improve public defense representation. The authors express their thanks to all those who assisted in the research of this report. E. Gerry Morris, Suzanne Spencer, Angela Ramage-Wolf, Shelley Stark, and Mark Rankin assisted with site visits in Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Lauren McLane and Mary Lyons, students at Seattle University School of Law, provided re - search and site visit assistance to Professor Boruchowitz. William Wolf provided guid - ance and support to NACDL staff. We also thank Stephen McConnell, Jeffrey Daman and their colleagues at Dechert LLP, Marvin Schechter, and Vic Walczak of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, all of whom con - ducted early site visit work in Pennsylvania that, in large part, led to the development of this project. We thank the Open Society Institute for supporting of the project, including hosting the conference on misdemeanor courts in New York City. We also thank the Ford Founda - tion for its support. We thank the Dean of Seattle University School of Law, Kellye Testy, as well as the Director of Continuing Legal Education, Jim Rosenfeld, and his col - leagues, Julie McClure and Rebecca Parker, who graciously hosted the conference in Seattle. We also express our appreciation to Seattle University Professor Deirdre Bowen, who reviewed our survey and recommended changes, Robert Spangenberg and David New - house of The Spangenberg Group, who offered information and advice, as well as par - ticipated in the conferences, and David Carroll of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, with whom the authors consulted on a number of aspects of this report. Finally, the authors offer their appreciation to the participants at the site visit locations across the country for their cooperation and candidness, as well as the numerous de - fenders who responded to our survey and follow-up questions. Minor Crimes, Massive Waste EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he explosive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Defense Counsel in Criminal Cases by Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report November 2000, NCJ 179023 Defense Counsel in Criminal Cases By Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D. Highlights BJS Statistician At felony case termination, court-appointed counsel represented 82% Almost all persons charged with a of State defendants in the 75 largest counties in 1996 felony in Federal and large State courts and 66% of Federal defendants in 1998 were represented by counsel, either Percent of defendants ù Over 80% of felony defendants hired or appointed. But over a third of Felons Misdemeanants charged with a violent crime in persons charged with a misdemeanor 75 largest counties the country’s largest counties and in cases terminated in Federal court Public defender 68.3% -- 66% in U.S. district courts had represented themselves (pro se) in Assigned counsel 13.7 -- Private attorney 17.6 -- publicly financed attorneys. court proceedings prior to conviction, Self (pro se)/other 0.4 -- as did almost a third of those in local ù About half of large county jails. U.S. district courts Federal Defender felony defendants with a public Organization 30.1% 25.5% defender or assigned counsel Indigent defense involves the use of Panel attorney 36.3 17.4 and three-quarters with a private publicly financed counsel to represent Private attorney 33.4 18.7 Self representation 0.3 38.4 lawyer were released from jail criminal defendants who are unable to pending trial. afford private counsel. At the end of Note: These data reflect use of defense counsel at termination of the case.
    [Show full text]
  • NYCLA's 93Rd Annual Dinner Celebrates 160Th Anniversary of The
    January/February 2008 Visit us at www.nycla.org Volume 4 / Number 1 NYCLA’s 93rd Annual Dinner celebrates 160th INSIDE Anniversary of the New York Court of Appeals SPOTLIGHT ON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND NETWORKING 6 MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT Catherine A. Christian RESPECT 5 Seated (from left to right): Catherine A. Christian, NYCLA President; Hon. Judith S. Kaye, Chief Judge of the State of New York; Hon. Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, New York Court of Appeals; Hon. Robert S. Smith, New York Court of Appeals; Hon. Susan P. Read, New York MEMBER PROFILES Court of Appeals; Hon. Theodore T. Jones, New York Court of Appeals; Hon. Harold Baer Jr., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. Standing (from left to right): Hon. Richard C. Wesley, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and former Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals; Sylvia Fung Chin, member of the Annual Dinner Committee; Hon. Charles L. Brieant, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; Hon. Victoria A. Graffeo, New York Court of Appeals; Hon. Albert Rosenblatt, former Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals; Hon. George Bundy Smith, former Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals; Hon. Eugene F. Pigott Jr., New York Court of Appeals; Robert L. Haig, Annual Dinner Chair; Hon. Joseph W. Bellacosa, former Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals; Hon. Sol Wachtler, former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals; Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; and Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Supreme Court Adopts a Reasonable Juvenile Standard in J.D.B. V. North Carolina
    THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ADOPTS A REASONABLE JUVENILE STANDARD IN J.D.B. V NORTH CAROLINA FOR PURPOSES OF THE MIRANDA CUSTODY ANALYSIS: CAN A MORE REASONED JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR JUVENILES BE FAR BEHIND? Marsha L. Levick and Elizabeth-Ann Tierney∗ I. Introduction II. The Reasonable Person Standard a. Background b. The Reasonable Person Standard and Children: Kids Are Different III. Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida: Embedding Developmental Research Into the Court’s Constitutional Analysis IV. From Miranda v. Arizona to J.D.B. v. North Carolina V. J.D.B. v. North Carolina: The Facts and The Analysis VI. Reasonableness Applied: Justifications, Defenses, and Excuses a. Duress Defenses b. Justified Use of Force c. Provocation d. Negligent Homicide e. Felony Murder VII. Conclusion I. Introduction The “reasonable person” in American law is as familiar to us as an old shoe. We slip it on without thinking; we know its shape, style, color, and size without looking. Beginning with our first-year law school classes in torts and criminal law, we understand that the reasonable person provides a measure of liability and responsibility in our legal system.1 She informs our * ∗Marsha L. Levick is the Deputy Director and Chief Counsel for Juvenile Law Center, a national public interest law firm for children, based in Philadelphia, Pa., which Ms. Levick co-founded in 1975. Ms. Levick is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University School of Law. Elizabeth-Ann “LT” Tierney is the 2011 Sol and Helen Zubrow Fellow in Children's Law at the Juvenile Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • The Climate Necessity Defense: Proof and Judicial Error in Climate Protest Cases
    The Climate Necessity Defense: Proof and Judicial Error in Climate Protest Cases Lance N. Long Ted Hamilton* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 58 II. ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT THE CLIMATE NECESSITY DEFENSE ............. 61 III. THE COMMON AND STATUTORY LAW OF NECESSITY ...................... 69 A. Development of the Necessity Defense .................................. 69 B. Recent Uses of the Necessity Defense .................................... 74 IV. THE CASE FOR CLIMATE NECESSITY—AND WHERE THE COURTS ARE GETTING IT WRONG ........................................................................ 78 A. Choice of Evils ...................................................................... 81 B. Causation .............................................................................. 84 C. Imminence ............................................................................ 89 D. Reasonable Legal Alternatives ............................................... 96 E. Direct vs. Indirect Civil Disobedience .................................. 104 F. The Right to a Jury .............................................................. 108 1. The Right to Have Facts Heard by a Jury ....................... 108 2. The Right to Present a Complete Defense ...................... 110 V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 115 * Lance N. Long is a Professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law. Ted Hamilton is a co-founder and staff attorney
    [Show full text]
  • Right to Self-Defence in National and International Law: the Role of the Imminence Requirement
    "I KNOW NOT WITH WHAT WEAPONS WORLD WAR Im WILL BE FOUGHT, BUT WORLD WAR IV WILL BE FOUGHT WITH SUCKS AND STONES." EINSTEIN1 THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE IN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE ROLE OF THE IMMINENCE REQUIREMENT Onder Bakircioglu* This article explores the doctrine of self-defence within the context of the challenges directed at the imminence requirement, from the perspective of both national and international law. The article will attempt to illustrate that the requirement of imminence underlines the political character of the self-defence doctrine wherein private force may only be resorted to in the absence of institutional protection. This study will argue that the imminence rule can not merely be regarded as a "proxy" for establishing necessity; rather, the elements of imminence, necessity, and proportionality are inextricably connected to ensure that defensive force is only resorted to when national or international authorities are not in a position to prevent an illegal aggression, and that the defensive lethal force is not abused. INTRODUCTION The September 11 attacks aroused controversy as to whether anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defence 2 is allowed under customary international law, and if so, under what circumstances. Following the devastating attacks on New York and Washington, the 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) made it clear that the United States would act unilaterally to protect its security against "emerging threats before they are fully formed."3 This approach signified a radical departure from the collective security system by the sole existing super power. Indeed, while the right to national self-defence has been recognized as an inherent right of states since the very emergence of international law, * Onder Bakircioglu, Lecturer in Law, Queen's University Belfast.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing Officer" Really a Judge?: the Presumed Role of "Judges" in the Unconstitutional New York Housing Court
    City University of New York Law Review Volume 5 Issue 1 Summer 2002 Is a "Hearing Officer" Really a Judge?: The Presumed Role of "Judges" in the Unconstitutional New York Housing Court Harvey Gee Follow this and additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Harvey Gee, Is a "Hearing Officer" Really a Judge?: The Presumed Role of "Judges" in the Unconstitutional New York Housing Court, 5 N.Y. City L. Rev. 1 (2002). Available at: 10.31641/clr050101 The CUNY Law Review is published by the Office of Library Services at the City University of New York. For more information please contact [email protected]. Is a "Hearing Officer" Really a Judge?: The Presumed Role of "Judges" in the Unconstitutional New York Housing Court Acknowledgements Professor Jack Chin at the University of Cincinnati School of Law provided the topic for this article. This article has also benefited from the ideas and suggestions offered by Professor Russell Engler at the New England School of Law. This article is available in City University of New York Law Review: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr/vol5/iss1/2 IS A "HEARING OFFICER" REALLY A JUDGE?: THE PRESUMED ROLE OF "JUDGES" IN THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL NEW YORK HOUSING COURT Harvey Gee* The Civil Court.. .includes the Housing Part, which disposes of hundreds of thousands of matters annually yet isn't even a con- stitutional court. -Chief Judge Judith Kaye1 I. INTRODUCTION Since its creation in 1972, the New York Housing Court (here- inafter "housing court") has been "widely regarded as an ineffec- tive institution that has not fulfilled its mandate of preserving the City's housing stock."2 "Despite the Legislature's broad delegation of power to the housing court, it has never been accorded the stat- ure or resources essential to fulfill its vital role." 3 This fact has not escaped the attention of legal scholars who have recently addressed problems of the housing court.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislating the Necessity Defense in Criminal Law
    Denver Law Review Volume 52 Issue 4 Article 4 March 2021 Legislating the Necessity Defense in Criminal Law Lawrence P. Tiffany Carl A. Anderson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Lawrence P. Tiffany & Carl A. Anderson, Legislating the Necessity Defense in Criminal Law, 52 Denv. L.J. 839 (1975). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. LEGISLATING THE NECESSITY DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL LAW By LAWRENCE P. TIFFANY,* CARL A. ANDERSON** INTRODUCTION The necessity, or choice of evils, defense has not been raised very frequently. This is, no doubt, partly due to the relative rarity of such situations and to the fact that police and prosecutors screen out most of those cases that do come to their attention. The importance of this body of law, however, may increase as recodification of criminal law spreads. About 24 new criminal codes have been adopted in the past dozen years, and almost as many are in the legislative process. Many of these new codes have a section dealing with the necessity defense. This analysis is based largely on these new statutes and proposals, whether or not they have been enacted, as they are likely to be interpreted in light of the existing, but rather meager, case law of this defense.' *Professor of Law, University of Denver College of Law; A.B., 1961, LL.B., 1963, Washington University; S.J.D., 1967, University of Wisconsin.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Defense Without Imminence
    ARTICLES SELF-DEFENSE WITHOUT IMMINENCE Fritz Allhoff* ABSTRACT The doctrine of self-defense allows that otherwise criminal force can be justi®ed so long as the actor reasonably believes its use necessary to protect against imminent and unlawful attack. Supposing that the force is necessary to dispel the attack, why the further requirement that the attack is imminent? The restriction precludes the use of force which, ex hypothesi, is the only way that the actor could defend himself. This Article surveys and critiques the rationale for the imminence requirement, arguing that it should be jettisoned in favor of a more expansive conception of self-defense. While the focus is on domestic law, the paper concludes by gesturing towards implications for international law as well, particularly with regards to preventive war (i.e., war against non-imminent threats). I. IMMINENCE AND NECESSITY Self-defense has long been taken to justify an otherwise illicit use of force. William Blackstone, characterizing the eighteenth-century common law of England, provided: [I]f the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray. For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and ... makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to * Fritz Allhoff, J.D., Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Western Michigan University.
    [Show full text]
  • Section Viii of Liberty and Necessity
    SECTION VIII OF LIBERTY AND NECESSITY PART I IT might reasonably be expected in questions which have been canvassed and disputed with great eagerness, since the first origin of science, and philosophy, that the meaning of all the terms, at least, should have been agreed upon among the disputants; and our enquiries, in the course of two thousand years, been able to pass from words to the true and real subject of the controversy. For how easy may it seem to give exact definitions of the terms employed in reasoning, and make these definitions, not the mere sound of words, the object of future scrutiny and examination? But if we consider the matter more narrowly, we shall be apt to draw a quite opposite conclusion. From this circumstance alone, that a controversy has been long kept on foot, and remains still undecided, we may presume that there is some ambiguity in the expression, and that the disputants affix different ideas to the terms employed in the controversy. For as the faculties of the mind are supposed to be naturally alike in every individual; otherwise nothing could be more fruitless than to reason or dispute together; it were impossible, if men affix the same ideas to their terms, that they could so long form different opinions of the same subject; especially when they communicate their views, and each party turn themselves on all sides, in search of arguments which may give them the victory over their antagonists. It is true, if men attempt the discussion of questions which lie entirely beyond the reach of human capacity, such as those concerning the origin of worlds, or the economy of the intellectual system or region of spirits, they may long beat the air in their fruitless contests, and never arrive at any determinate conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Defences, Mitigation and Criminal Responsibility
    Chapter 12 Defences, mitigation and criminal responsibility Page Index 1-12-1 Introduction 1-12-2 Part 1 - Defences 1-12-3 General defences 1-12-4 Intoxication/drunkenness due to drugs/alcohol 1-12-4 Self defence 1-12-4 Use of force in prevention of crime 1-12-5 Mistake 1-12-5 Duress 1-12-6 Necessity 1-12-6 Insanity 1-12-6 Automatism 1-12-6 Other defences 1-12-7 Provocation 1-12-7 Alibi 1-12-7 Diminished responsibility 1-12-7 Consent 1-12-7 Superior orders 1-12-7 Part 2 - Mitigation 1-12-9 Part 3 - Criminal responsibility 1-12-10 Intention 1-12-10 Recklessness 1-12-10 Negligence 1-12-10 Lawful excuse or reasonable excuse – the burden of proof 1-12-11 Evidential burden 1-12-11 Lawful excuse 1-12-11 Reasonable excuse 1-12-11 JSP 830 MSL Version 2.0 1-12-1 AL42 35 Chapter 12 Defences, mitigation and criminal responsibility Introduction 1. This chapter is divided into three parts: a. Part 1 - Defences (paragraphs 4 - 28); b. Part 2 - Mitigation (paragraphs 29 - 31); and c. Part 3 - Criminal responsibility (paragraphs 32 - 44). 2. This chapter provides guidance on these matters to those involved in the administration of Service discipline at unit level. Related chapters are Chapter 9 (Summary hearing and activation of suspended sentences of Service detention), Chapter 6 (Investigation, charging and mode of trial), and Chapter 11 (Summary hearing - dealing with evidence). 3. This is not a detailed analysis of the law on the most common defences likely to be put forward by an accused, but when read in conjunction with the chapters mentioned above, should provide enough information for straightforward cases to be dealt with and ensure that staffs can identify when a case should be referred for Court Martial (CM) trial.
    [Show full text]