Library of Congress

Note: External links, forms and search boxes may not function within this collection

« Back to Law Archives

minimize

Legal Blawgs Web Archive Collection

This is an archived Web site from the Library of Congress

http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/

Archived: 11/01/2007 at 18:52:13

first First (09/06/2007)    previous Previous  #3 of 37  Next next    Last (12/01/2009) last entry







Prosecutors &
Lawmen
~~~~~~~~~~
Prosecutor Post-Script
Patterico's Pontifications
Brian Patton
Judging Crimes
The Policeman's Blog
Diary of a Police Officer
Law and Disorder
SnapShawt



For the Defense
~~~~~~~~~~
Blonde Justice
Arbitrary & Capricious
Defending People
a public defender
FourthAmendment
...
Simple Justice
Underdog
CrimProf
Austin Defense
White Collar Crime Prof
Public Defender Dude
...
Sentencing Law and Policy
Of Counsel
Indefensible
The Law of Ealing Broadway
Law of Criminal Defense
Southern District of Fla.
Criminal Defense
...
Indignant Indigent
Capital Defense Weekly
Curia Advisari Vult
Malum in Se
Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
DUIblog
That Lawyer Dude
ElectricLawyer


Email Ken



In case anyone out there needs this warning: This ain't legal advice. Everything in the blog is off the cuff and no one goes back and reads all the cases and statutes before blogging. The law may have changed; cases misread and misunderstood two years ago can still lead to a clinging misperception. Courts probably don't even operate as described herein. In fact - just in case someone is stoned enough to start quoting this blawg as authority to a judge - It is hereby stated that everything in this blog is pure fiction.

THIS
AIN'T
LEGAL
ADVICE.



Virginians
~~~~~~~~~~
SW Virginia Law
Dappled Things
Va Poli Blogs
BNN (Va)
...
Richmond Magazine
skepticalobservor
TwoConservatives
...
Va. Virtucon
Waldo Jaquith
Bearing Drift
Ninomania
...
Brian Patton
Save Richmond
Moral Contradictions
...
Cafe Hayek
yourish
CatHouse Chat
Design Nine



Interesting Reads
~~~~~~~~~~
WindyPundit
Japundit
day by day
Nota Bene
...
QandO
Gruntled Center
Decision of the Day
Clever WoT
Staunch Moderate
I repectfully dissent
Lex Communis
Stop the Bleating!
...
Legally Brunette
9th Circuit
6th Circuit
Cox & Forkum
Bank Lawyer
Ex Post
Point of Law
The Legal Reader
Dvorak Uncensored
...
Baby Barista
SC Appellate
Transblawg
Justice & Drugs
Legal Assistance
...
The Briefcase
A Stitch in Haste
Cleveland Law Library
...
Vancouver Law Librarian
Internet Cases
Catholic Sensibility
Disputations
Flos Carmeli
Pro Ecclesia
Kentucky Law Blog
Law Notes
...
Rule Of Law
H,M & S
Suburban Ecstasies
Master of None
The Common Scold
Diggers Realm
Al Nye the Lawyer Guy
...
Lileks' Bleats
On Point
Wonkette
daleynews
Nuclear Free Zone
LawPundit
lesterblog
...
Country Store
BeldarBlog
boingboing
Scrivener's Error
In the Agora
Adam Smith Esq.
...
FARK
Na Han
(Legal) Underground
Professor Bainbridge
A Season of Mists
...
We Win, They Lose
Anonymous Lawyer
...
Ca. Employment Law
the imbroglio
De Novo
Vice Squad
Legal Theory
...
Supreme Court Tech Law
Blog 702
Illinois Trial Practice
Illinois Personal Injury
...
Direct Appeal (10th Cir)
Fla Asset Protection
Real Lawyers
Grits for Breakfast
Begging the Question
ACS Blog
May It Please The Court
...

Tales of a Wandering Mind
WSJ Blog
Smyth County Conservative
Catholic & Enjoying It!
The Western Confucian
...
Deliberations
Opino Juris
Sports Law
...
Side Notes & Detours
Brain Injury Law Blog
Power Line
HughHewitt.com
Some Poor Schmuck
Peace For Our Time
...
Wil Wheaton
Law of War
Magic Cookie
...
Infinity Ranch
PrawfsBlog
Sleepless in Midland
Jurist: Paper Chase
The Corner
The Yin Blog
Modulator
Just Askin'
KEMPLOG
...
A Stitch in Haste
Singing Loudly
The Niqabi Paralegal
IsThatLegal?
beSpacific
...
Samantha Burns
Joe's Eclectic Thoughts
The Buck Stops Here
Outside the Beltway
Declarations and Exclusions
Ernie the Attorney
Bag & Baggage
...
Screaming Bean
Jeremy's
TalkLeft
Say What?!
...
The Indiana Law Blog
Brian Peterson (WV)
German American Law
Abstract Appeal (FL)
The Legal Reader
13th Juror
Corporate Counsel
Patently O
beSpacific
...
Legal Ethics Forum
The Stopped Clock
Greatest Am. Lawyer



NOTICE
Be advised that all
e-mails received are subject to inclusion in the Blawg. If you do not wish your name published with that e-mail make certain that you notify me in it.





Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

;



Who Links Here





Blog Flux Directory



Archives
Things Police Officers Wish They Could Say
31 October 2007   
Ken Lammers

1. I'm sorry Ma'am, but with an unlicensed gun concealed in your purse, plus the DWI, you are a real criminal.

2. Hey John, get out of the car and come over and say "Thank You". We stopped the guy who pays our salary!

3. Yeah, I do have bank robbers to catch, but that might be dangerous, so I'm going to play it safe and write you this ticket.

4. Hurry it up? Sure, I'll hurry it up! I'll just go back to the cruiser and write the citation. Do you have food and water in the car? This shouldn't take more than six hours.

5. Do you know why I stopped you, or do you think like you drive?

6. What do you mean I won't believe you? Just because you've got 3-kilos of Smack and two bodies in the trunk, it doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly reasonable explanation.

7. No, you've got that wrong. I'm even tougher without the badge and gun.

8. Of course, you didn't do it. You just happened to start your wind sprints in the department store, the VCR was a training weight, and the security guards provided motivation.

9. She started it? That's the best you can do? My 4 year old does better than that when I ask why his sister is crying.

10. You have the right to remain silent. Do you have the ability?

Vacated (for a moment)
30 October 2007   
Ken Lammers

Sorry folks, last week was vacation (tho' not much of one - on day two I came down with a stomache flu) and the first couple days this week are jammed (as always after a week of not being in).

Now back to our regularly scheduled show.

The Governator and Pot
Ken Lammers

"It's not a drug, it's just a leaf."

And then the spin.

From the Front Lines of the Pot Rebellion
Ken Lammers

In Oregon the medical marijuana excuse program spins madly out of control.

Deserves Jail Time
Ken Lammers

Mom takes her 1 year old to a heroin party.

So Far, Scotland Yard is Stumped
Ken Lammers

The great miniature pony caper has left them all puzzled.

Deserves Prison Time
Ken Lammers

Woman puts heroin in baby's carriage in order to sneak it into a prison.

STEAL THIS BOOK
Ken Lammers

Ok, he took your invitation, what do you do now? Can you even file criminal charges?

They Suppressed the Coke
Ken Lammers

But he pled guilty anyway.

I Thought Jail Breaks Like This Only Happened on TV or in Comics
Ken Lammers

However, they also apparently happen in Belgium.

Eat a diamond . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . and they will get it out of you, one way or another.

Mona "The Hammer" Shaw
23 October 2007   
Ken Lammers



Yes, she broke the law, but sometimes it's just worth it.

Yep, I Changed the Template (yet again)
21 October 2007   
Ken Lammers

It's starting to get cold. I think I'm going to grow the hair back, so (in order to avoid false advertising) I took the picture down and that led to the 743,495,298th reworking of the template; you can go to wayback if you want to count for yourself.

I also went completely thru the links and those which hadn't had a post for 40 days or so got cut. A few had been abandoned and picked up by link farmers. More disturbing (at least to me) were those where the blog had been replaced entirely by an advertisement for the attorney which had originally authored it. Anyway, the links have been weeded and should all be good now.

P.S. I've even fixed it now so that it looks right on Firefox. Sorry bout that folks. I use Opera and it looked good on my browser. I checked it against the usual suspect, Explorer, and it looked good there. I didn't think that Firefox might be screwed up - previously, it had always seemed that if it worked on Explorer it worked on Firefox.

Why do we change the names?
18 October 2007   
Ken Lammers

An argument I had with defense counsel yesterday started me thinking about a strange thing that happens in legal terminology: the tendency of legal language to migrate toward obfuscation.

I had to prove that a person can be guilty of a misdemeanor as a principal in the second degree; he can't be an accessory and usually can't be convicted of conspiracy (there are statutory exceptions), but can be a principal in the second degree. The issue is so well settled that when I went to get a case to prove the issue the primary case was Hodge v. Winchester from 1929. The only bit of difficulty is that the case referred to "aiding and abetting" rather than being a principal in the second degree, which took a little bit of explaining.

Thinking about this, I started to wonder why in the world you would stop using a descriptive phrase "aiding and abetting" in favor of a phrase that is meaningless unless you either have training or have spent the time researching what "principal in the second degree" means. I can remember talking to clients about this concept when I was a defense attorney and I almost always had to switch to the "aid and abet" language for them to understand it.

Of course, there is an argument in favor of certain obtuse terms. Terms of art can be necessary because they are more precise. There is also a preference to keep language consistent so that meanings are understood. However, I don't really think that these are the reason for most of the obtuse language we use.

I suspect that most of the time obtuse language is used because that is what the lawyer has been trained to use and it's just easier for us to keep using the language once we've learned it. An example of the tendency to continue using the same language even after it has become improper is the continued use of lawyers and judges and lawyers in Virginia of nolle prosequi. A couple years back nolle prosequi in Virginia meant dismissed without prejudice while "dismissed" meant dismissed with prejudice. It had been so since the beginning of time. However, someone who hadn't been taught this in law school made a motion to dismiss when he should have made a motion for nolle prosequi and a case was lost. Consequently, the General Assembly changed the law. Now, per 19.2-265.6, a dismissal is not permanent unless it is a dismissal with prejudice. Effectively, this has made nolle prosequi and dismissal the same thing. However, none of the paperwork has been changed to reflect "dismissal with prejudice" and I've not yet seen a single defense attorney ask for it; they just keep asking for dismissal, expecting the same result and protections their clients received before. Personally, I believe a system wherein the two options are dismissal without prejudice or dismissal with prejudice as options is better than one that uses Latin and I think that's basically where we are now at. However, the courts and lawyers have not adapted to this changed reality.

Now, don't get me wrong, while I think the new language supra is less obtuse, it is the exception which proves the rule and it wasn't put in place by the General Assembly to make the language more understandable, it was done because someone lost a case on a technicality. In general, even common sense changes aren't made. Why do we use "capias" in Virginia rather than the more understandable "bench warrant?" More generally, why are lawyers the only people in the entire world that use impracticable to mean "not practical" when its synonym impractical is used by everyone else and carries the exact same meaning? It isn't because the terms are more precise, or because they are more understandable, or because they have magical powers (although, they can be fun to use in certain circumstances). Mostly legal language doesn't change because of inertia in the legal system and habit of the lawyers and judges.

Still, that doesn't explain the change from "aid and abet" to a more obtuse phrase. I must be missing something. Anyone got an idea?

Someone Thinks Bruce Wayne is a Bat?
16 October 2007   
Ken Lammers

Torn from the pages of BOL . . .

Scale of Punishment - Further Developed
Ken Lammers



Note: This is Virginiacentric. Remember that in Virginia there are truly discretionary sentencing guidelines (judge doesn't have to follow them and they cannot be grounds for an appeal). Also, if a jury trial is taken juries not only find guilt or innocence, they sentence. Juries do not get to see the sentencing guidelines and they cannot suspend part of a sentence. If the sentencing range is 20-Life a judge can (and usually does) suspend part of the 20 years; a jury cannot do this. Thus, the guidelines may call for a range of 7-9 years active sentence, but the jury has to impose the 20 years. A judge can suspend part of this, but most judges are hesitant to do so.

----------

Immoral but Legal (IL) - Things which the majority view as wrong, but do not make illegal. Sometimes this includes matters in which we would point someone to a civil remedy - i.e. 18 year old girlfriend talked 85 year old grandpa into changing his will so that she gets everything instead of his children and grandchildren. However, quite often the actions are too small or the person involved doesn't have the resources to pursue a civil remedy. It also includes things which don't have a civil remedy - i.e. Bob calling Joe on the phone and telling him he is a "thug" (and hurting Joe's feelings). Sometimes an act may be IL because of the circumstances surrounding it; in Virginia a threat against a non-family member can result in a conviction for assault, however a threat against a family member cannot because the domestic statute requires both assault and battery.

Tolerated Illegal (TI) - These are things which the majority of citizens tolerate as being illegal, but only so long as the punishment is not onerous. A lot of the crimes herein are "for your own good" statutes. They are tolerated, but not truly accepted by a large enough portion of populous. On the lower end they are things like fines for not having the proper tags on a car or general speeding. On the upper end are things like underage possession of alcohol or possession of marijuana - both of which (at least in Virginia) have the option for a first time offender to allow the defendant to complete some sort of probation and not get convicted.

Minor Punishment (MP1) - A little time in jail or some secondary effect on the rights of the convicted. The people you see coming and going from misdemeanor criminal court every day are facing these punishments. A weekend in jail, 8 days of trash pickup, 10 days with work release - all the way up to a few months in jail or a driver's license restricted or suspended. This is where the majority of misdemeanors are going to end up and where a lot of first time, non-violent felonies are going to be (probation, no incarceration).

Moderate Punishment (MP2) - 6 months to 3 years. Usually, this is a plateau reached by people who have received a number of minor punishments, whether they proceeded from misdemeanors or felonies or (most likely) a combination of both. However, some non-violent felonies start out toward the bottom of this range, such as possession with intent to distribute cocaine (which Virginia's guidelines start at 7 months). As well, some violent acts which are felonies fall within this range, such as battery of a police officer (for which the statute mandates 6 months in jail, but the guidelines begin at 7 months).

Heavy Punishment (HP) - 3 years to 8 years. This is where more serious or multiple conviction non-violent felonies end up. It is also where a lot of first time violent felonies (malicious wounding) are located.

Serious Punishment (SP1) - 8 years to 20 years. Combination of violent felonies (robbery, abduction, & use of firearm in a felony). Often, this level is reached because the defendant's prior record is significant. Non-violent felonies can reach this high if aggravated (massive prior record or multiple convictions for drug sales).

Severe Punishment (SP2) - 20 years to Life. Almost always serious violent felonies. In Virginia punishment at this level is often because the defendant demanded his jury trial and got sentenced by a jury to more than the sentencing guidelines call for or a judge would have given. A few non-violent felonies make it this far. In Virginia an example of this would be distribution of cocaine 3d offense, which carries up to life in prison.

Death - Self explanatory. Currently reserved for aggravated murders. May be extended to rape in the near future.

----------

The amount of time for MP2, HP, SP1, and SP2 are approximations based upon the reactions I've observed from defendants to potential and actual sentences. While there would obviously be variations from case to case, these are the levels where I noticed different reactions. MP2 does not draw extreme reactions in most cases; most defendants seem to see this just as part of their lives or perhaps as a cost for doing business. HP is where pushback begins. The Defendant figures that 3 years will probably mess up his life and 5 years definitely will. He will weigh his options much more carefully and is more likely to take a trial if he thinks there is a chance of winning. SP1 is where irrational pushback begins, particularly in the younger defendants. Older, more court/prison savvy defendants are more likely to make rational choices here. It's always the 18 to 24 year olds that think 10 or 15 years is an impossibly long period of time to do in prison and demand the jury trial despite being warned that the evidence is overwhelming and that the jury will probably punish him in the SP2 range. SP2 is where it is often rational to go to trial no matter what. If a 30 or 40 year old has guidelines which call for 30 years in prison he is facing a life sentence whether the sentence is technically "Life" or not. Often - perhaps the majority of the time - an SP2 sentence is the result of a defendant who would have gotten HP or SP1 if he had taken a plea offer or even made a bald plea of guilty, but chose to take a jury.

Punishment Scale
15 October 2007   
Ken Lammers



It's a work in progress. Comments?

They're Back
14 October 2007   
Ken Lammers


Some Days It's Great to Be In the Bluegrass
13 October 2007   
Ken Lammers


A Jury Trial
09 October 2007   
Ken Lammers

John Smith is charged with felony habitual offender, This means that he was caught driving twice after Virginia took his license away. It's a no brainer which is a sure conviction but I wasn't drooling over the prospect of trying the case. However, Smith was adamant that he wanted his jury trial.

The judge hits the bench and we are all given the list of jurors just before the jury is brought in. 20 jurors are sitting in the box and as I look them over I recognize pretty much every one of them. The jury pools here are kinda small and they seem to stay the same for a long time so, if you try a couple juries you recognize everyone. Before a single voir dire question is asked, I look at them and know three whom I will strike and one whom the Defense Counsel will strike. The judge asks all the regular, generic questions: “Is everyone over 18? Has anyone been convicted of a felony?” Then he turns the jury over to me for questioning.

I stand up in front of the jury and say something like “I don't think that I'm going to have many questions today because I think I've asked you all the questions I've got last time we were here. And I'm sure Mrs. Greene (the Defense Counsel's ex-partner's sister-in-law and good friend) and Mr. Jones (ex-police officer) will be glad to hear that they won't be questioned all day like they were last time.” I watch the panel's reaction and, for the most part, they chuckle. The I ask the only two real questions I have. “Has anyone had any dealings with Trooper Lopez before?” Mr. Jones raises his hand, but I don't ask any follow-up; everybody in the room (including him) knows he is going to be struck by Defense Counsel; the poor guy keeps getting called to the courthouse just to be the first strike for each defendant. “A lot of this case is going to be about court records. Does anyone have a problem with part of the case being proven by paperwork, such as orders of the court?” Nobody has a problem with that, so I thank them and sit back down. Defense Counsel is even quicker than I was. He has been in front of these jurors before as well, so the only question he asks is if anyone can think of a reason they would be prejudiced against his client. No one raises their hand.

Now it's time to do the peremptory strikes. The Defense Counsel gets up and walks out of the courtroom with his client and goes to the witness room across the hall; I stay seated at the prosecution table with Trooper Lopez. The deputy hands me a list of the jurors and I cross one thru and label it P1. Then the deputy goes across the hall and the defense attorney marks one thru and labels it D1. We go back and forth this way until both I and Defense Counsel have marked out 4 each. Then Smith and his counsel retake their seats in the court and the clerk reads the name of the 8 people; they go back to the jury room leaving us with 12 jurors.

I think I surprised Defense Counsel by leaving his ex-partner's sister-in-law in the jury. It was a calculated risk. She seemed to be smarter than the average bear, has been around lawyers, and knows Defense Counsel well. But wait, you say, Ken, if she is good friends with Defense Counsel shouldn't you strike her? Normally, yes. However, there are two things going on here. First, the vibe I get from her is that she will go out of her way to be scrupulously fair. Second, Defense Counsel is what I've referred to before as an “aw shucks” lawyer. He is blessed with one of those winning personalities which no one can dislike and juries tend to transfer that like from him to his clients. If we were going to be stereotypical, I'd say he's one of those people that Yankees come down here and think they can take advantage of – until the day he separates them from every penny they have, all their property rights, and the right to name their first born son. I figure that ex-partner's sister-in-law has been exposed enough to be immune to the effects of his charm.

Next we start opening statements. The lights are dimmed and I bring up a slide presentation. I knew Defense Counsel was going to use powerpoint in his opening so I had to have a presentation of my own. When I moved here, into the first jurisdiction where I've seen powerpoint presentations used in everyday criminal prosecutions, I quickly learned that if the other side uses it and you don't they get a large advantage (BTW, I actually use OpenOffice.org Impress which does everything I've seen powerpoint do and has the advantage of being free).

My opening is pretty simple. I show them the timeline that I plan to present and the document which shall prove each point of the timeline. I tell them that I will show them order declaring Smith a habitual offender, the warrant/order from the general district court convicting him of misdemeanor (first offense) driving as a habitual offender, and an order from the court giving Smith a six month restricted license (which Smith got three days after his first conviction). I then tell them that Trooper will get on the stand and testify that Smith came around a curve, saw a checkpoint, stopped in the middle of the road, backed back around the curve blind, and – after Trooper caught him - admitted he is a habitual offender. Then I sit down.

Defense Counsel gets up and starts his powerpoint presentation. He has put much more work into his presentation than I have (he's is a recent convert to technology in the courtroom and is showing a convert's zeal). The problem is that his presentation almost instantly becomes argument. I make a tactical decision to let him go on and he does. He goes on and on about how this is a status crime and how his client doesn't fit the status because he got his license restored by a judge. His argument is based almost entirely on this document:



The argument is creative. Looking at the order which gave the defendant a restricted license for six months Defense Counsel points out that it is styled “Order Restoring Driving Privilege – Habitual Offender” and under the section titled “It Is Therefore Ordered That”, while the section labeled “Petitioner is granted a restricted license” is checked, the judge noted restrictions to the license under the section above it that restores licenses with conditions (even though he didn't check that section). From this he argues that there is a reasonable doubt that, even though the defendant never went and got his license from DMV, his right to have a license was restored by the court and he was only driving without a license. Therefore, he couldn't be convicted of driving as a habitual offender because he no longer had that status. He tries to back this argument up with a letter DMV sent Smith after his first driving as a habitual offender conviction which tells him how many points the conviction takes from him and includes boilerplate language about how he should drive safely to protect his driving privilege.

It's a better argument than I had expected. I had thought that the argument would be that the defendant had gotten this order and thought that his license was restored and therefore didn't have the mens rea to be in violation of the statute. The status argument is a stretch. It would never work in front of a judge because a judge would know that the regular procedure is for a habitual offender to first get a restricted license and later return to the court a second time to get his license restored completely. However, it has a possibility of working in front of a jury which doesn't know the regular procedure in these matters. It also has the added advantages that if the jury believes it this argument makes the confession moot and doesn't require Smith to testify.

So we start the case. I get up and introduce the records I promised into evidence. I don't belabor them by having the document read because I've already shown the jury the pertinent parts in my opening presentation. At the same time Defense Counsel introduces his letter from the DMV. I call Trooper to the stand.

Trooper testifies that he and another trooper were working a license checkpoint. The checkpoint is up the street from a curve so that people will not see it until they have come around the curve but still have enough time to safely slow and come to a stop. Smith came around the curve and hit his brakes so hard that Trooper heard him and looked up to see that Smith had stopped his car in the middle of the road just on this side of the blind curve. Then Smith backed his car back thru the blind curve. Naturally, this caught attention of the troopers and they went after him. On the far side of the curve Smith had turned his car around and headed the opposite direction, but they caught him without much trouble and once they got behind him he pulled over. He had three kids in the car with him and told the officer a story about how he was getting ready to go fishing and had taken the kids to the store to get supplies. He also admitted he was a habitual offender.

Defense Counsel gets up and does a quick cross in which he gets Trooper to acknowledge that, because this case is over a year old and Trooper has handled thousands of cases since, Trooper has used his notes to refresh his memory. He then gets Trooper to admit it's possible that Smith told him something that he didn't write in his notes and doesn't remember – specifically, that Smith might have told him something about having some paperwork that says he wasn't a habitual offender. My rebuttal was basically two questions. “Wouldn't you, as a part of your regular procedure, note if the Smith had said something about having paperwork that proved he wasn't a habitual offender?” “Didn't Smith admit that he was a habitual offender that day?” Both answers were “Yes.”

With that I rest my case. Defense Counsel tells the judge that he has a motion and the judge has the jury go back to the jury room. Defense Counsel makes his motion to strike the evidence as being legally insufficient, which is basically the same argument that he made during his opening, but the judge refuses. Then the judge asks Defense Counsel if he has any evidence to present. Defense Counsel tells the judge that he needs a few minutes to talk to Smith and the judge lets them go out to the witness room. They're gone for ten or fifteen minutes. I am crossing my fingers that Smith will demand his right to testify. I know that Defense Counsel doesn't want him to, but I'm pretty sure Defense Counsel didn't want him to take a trial either and Smith demanded one anyway. If he testifies I have so much stuff on him that I will destroy him and Defense Counsel knows it. Eventually, they come back and Defense Counsel announces to the judge that he is not going to produce any evidence.

Then the judge brings the jury back out and reads them the jury instructions. We do our closings. Mine is basically a summary of the evidence presented. I point out that the order making Smith a habitual offender says he remains one until an order of the court restores his license and that the order only gave him a restricted license. Therefore, the only way he could be not guilty is if he mistakenly thought he had had his license restored and his actions on the day clearly indicated that he knew he is a habitual offender. Defense Counsel fires up the projector and does another powerpoint presentation covering much the same ground he did before. I think letting him get away with argument in the opening worked out tactically well because, while they politely listened, the jurors didn't seem to be affected much by his closing. Then the jury retires at 11:15. This is perhaps the quickest felony jury trial ever; we're going to be out of here by lunch.

At 1:00 the jury still hasn't come back with a verdict. We can hear them back in the jury room cracking up and having a grand old time, but they haven't come back yet. The judge calls them back in and sends them off to lunch. At 2:00 they come back and restart deliberations. 3:00 rolls by and by this time everybody is wondering what they're up to back there. At 3:15 the deputy comes to the court and announces that the jurors have a question. We all assemble in the courtroom.

The deputy brings the foreperson out (Defense Counsel's ex-partner's sister-in-law). She comes out and announces that they are having trouble deciding whether this is a felony or misdemeanor. Then she asks some question which isn't really clear about sections A thru G of the order which gave the Smith a restricted license (see above). This is kind of surprising because I know I told the jury – at least twice – that these sections aren't pertinent to whether he was driving as a habitual offender, they're just a description of how he became a habitual offender. Even Defense Counsel said the same sort of thing when he talked about the order. We both concentrated on explaining the “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED” section to the jury. The foreperson also asks for more clarification about the statute Smith is charged under. The judge tells her that the charging instruction is an explanation of the statute and the jury should proceed from there. She goes back to the jury room not looking very satisfied.

Half an hour later they come back: Smith is guilty of misdemeanor habitual offender. The judge calls the attorneys to the bench where we all look at each other a little befuddled because you can't get there from here. Part of the charging instruction is that if the prior conviction isn't proven the jury should convict of the misdemeanor. However, all you have to do to prove the prior conviction is introduce a copy of it and I'd done that; I'd even pointed it out the jury during closing argument. The judge asks if there is any objection but I don't because a jury has the right to find the lesser included if it's in the instructions.

I have to run downstairs to the office in order to quickly type up misdemeanor punishment instructions. When I get back the judge asks if I have any evidence and admits copies of Smith's prior convictions. Then we go up to do sentencing arguments. I read off Smith's convictions: 4 distribution of drugs from the early 90's, a perjury from a little later, a contempt of court, his prior driving as a habitual offender conviction, and a driving suspended conviction from earlier the same year he got this driving as a habitual offender charge. Then I argue that this is not a case that deserves to have just a fine or a week in jail. I don't give the jury an exact amount of time, but list off the aggravating factors: kids in the car, stopped at one end of a blind curve, backed thru a blind curve, had been given a break earlier the same year when someone only charged him with driving suspended. I don't go after the felonies all that much because they are removed so much in time but I must admit that I got a little worked up over the fact that he endangered three kids to try to save his own hide. I end by saying that I don't believe fines accomplish much, that he endangered children, and that Smith already caught a break when he wasn't charged as a felon a couple months before he was caught driving again; “He's caught his break. I ask you to make his sentence heavier rather than lighter.”

Defense Counsel argues to the jury that Smith is a family man and that sending him to jail will take him away from his family so that he can't support them. Yeah, I know, I could have objected, but what kind of idiot stands up and yells “Objection, your Honor, facts not in evidence!” when the wife is sitting on the front row.

The jury goes back out and comes back in fairly short order. 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The judge dismisses the jury, sentences Smith, and gives him until the next Tuesday to report to jail. Smith leaves the courtroom and I clean up the desk. As I leave the court to go back downstairs, Smith walks past me going back in. As we pass he says, “No hard feelings, man.” and the only thing I can think of to say is “Just doing my job.” Then I head back to the office at about 4:30.

Something Makes Me Think There Are Problems in Augusta
06 October 2007   
Ken Lammers



Football: Remember to Root for the Good Guys
04 October 2007   
Ken Lammers



Football tonight - And it's not too hard to choose sides when one side is a noble, and proud Wildcat and the other is an annoying, ugly bird with a profane knickname.

Y'know, a Prisoner Should Not Have a Say in Where He Will Be Held
03 October 2007   
Ken Lammers

However, it is counterintuitive to send the well behaved prisoners to another State (thus punishing them for behaving).

Leave your cell phone on . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . and the police can find you.

Justices Face the Crack Sentencing Disparity
Ken Lammers

Personally, not so much worried about this as I am that the court needs to open a dictionary and explain what the word "discretionary" means to federal appellate courts which continue to give all departures upward a pass and reject all downward departures.

Sniper: Malvo
Ken Lammers

Apology

My Riding Mower Gets Up To 5 mph
Ken Lammers

It might outrun a turtle, but not an officer.

Do Appellate Court Judges Lie For a Living?
02 October 2007   
Ken Lammers

Y'know, I've had petitions to appellate courts denied and come back with facts or law I thought extremely pertinent entirely ignored, but I'm not sure I've ever thought that an appellate judge posited a lie in order to deny my client his appeal.

Did Anybody Have Any Doubt What the ABA Would Say About Any Death Penalty?
Ken Lammers

Naw, they didn't in Ohio either.

Police Not There to Terrorize Your Child
Ken Lammers

Please don't do this.

Traffic Court
Ken Lammers

Joy of Joys

Reasonable Suspicion Attaches to the Person Patted Down
Ken Lammers

If someone walks into a second person's house he can't stop police from searching it, but he has a right not to be searched himself.

Robbery: It Pays the Bills
Ken Lammers

"Detectives determined that the robbery money was used to buy wedding rings, pay back rent and pay the woman's attorney for work done in a child custody case."

How Tazers Work
Ken Lammers

Haven't watched this yet, but it looks interesting:

US Supreme Court: Even More Moore
28 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

OK, while the rest of you have been obsessing on the federal supreme court accepting the lethal injection case, I noticed that a case which has been followed with some interest here has gained cert: Virginia v. Moore.

You'll recall that this is the case wherein the officers made an arrest which was not allowed under Virginia law and in the search subsequent found drugs. The trial court relied on Atwater and found that the arrest was illegal but not unconstitutional and therefore the search was constitutional. A three judge panel in the Virginia Court of Appeals overturned the trial judge relying on Knowles and saying that since there was no legally allowable arrest this was like a citation and therefore the search subsequent was unconstitutional. En banc, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that Atwater applied and the fact that the arrest was illegal but not unconstitutional meant that the search was constitutional. The Virginia Supreme Court took the appeal and ruled, 7-0, that the arrest was forbidden and the summons required was subject to the same rules as a citation per Knowles.

The federal supreme court accepted cert (06-1082).

---------- ---------- ----------

The difficulty here is that their is a continuum of activities which an officer can be allowed or required to do. As I see it, the continuum is something like this:

Citation - Required Summons - Discretionary Summons / Arrest - Required Arrest

Citations cannot give rise to a search incident. Arrests always give rise to the search incident. Summons aren't really a citation because the charge on the summons can lead to imprisonment (at least in Virginia). Summons aren't arrests because the officer does not take the offender into continuing custody (there is some custody in any involuntary police encounter - including those resolved with a citation).

I think I'm going to have to go back and reread the Virginia Supreme Court's decision in this matter. If the Va SCt found as a matter of State law that a summons under Virginia's statutory scheme is the same as a citation then cert may have been granted improvidently.

I'm reading the briefs for and against granting cert right now, so I hope to have more comment on this in the future - but probably not until after Monday because of a jury trial.

Here Are the Previous Posts on Moore (and Atwater)
Ken Lammers

Devenpeck - Just Plain Bad Reasoning

Reprecussions When Law Enforcement Breaks State Law

A Surprise From The Virginia Court of Appeals

Atwater 01

Atwater 02

More Moore

I am Evil Incarnate
26 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

You know you're a special kind of guy when the defendant's grandmother, in a case that I did nothing in except stand at the bench when the plea agreement was entered (all I really did was hand the paperwork to the judge), walks past you after a parole revocation hearing, turns, and hisses:

"I DON'T LIKE YOU!!"

The Nine
25 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

Book rating scale:

5: Touched by God - a work which makes Shakespeare look infantile
4: Amazing - Instantly began rereading it and quoting it to friends
3: Worth Every Penny - a solid, interesting read, inspiring some thought and discussion with people who share similar interests
2: I Paid For It So I Finished Reading It - Some interesting parts but if I lose the book I'm not buying another copy
1: Couldn't Force My Way Thru and Burnt the Book in order to send it to the Hell it deserves

I rate The Nine a 3: it is a well written but ideologically slanted look at the recent history of the federal supreme court.

********** ********** **********


I almost didn't write this review because of the 3 rules which govern this site.1 However, upon further consideration I thought I'd give it the old college try.

It is well written and an easy read. The narrative has something of a gossipy quality to it and I found myself often wondering if the author wasn't engaging in some creative attempts at mind reading. Perhaps he was trusting the statements of others (most likely clerks) who were themselves engaging in some inferring (inferation, inferment?) as to their Justice's feelings. It's impossible to know for certain as the author interviewed unspecified Justices and clerks and wrote without attributing anything to them (by design).

There are clearly good guys and bad guys in this book and they are defined by where they fall on the ideological spectrum. As you read The Nine you cannot help but notice this. However, it is so blatantly obvious where the author stands that, if you have a smidgen of sense and a little bit of a stiff upper lip, even if you are of a different viewpoint than the author you can still find the book an interesting read. If you are of the same viewpoint as the author it will all be a no brainer and solid book.

Nevertheless, do not walk into this thinking there will be important revelations. There's not much of that here. There's no indepth review of competing legal philosophies and the portrayal of the justices is far from complete.2 This is a book claiming to (and trying) to outline the decisions of justices in the court and their interactions as they make the decisions. It has a kind of shallow and newspaperish tone wherein the opinions are not discussed with subtlety and the ideals in which each Justice believes are distilled to left or right. Opinions delivered by the court are either A or Z, there's not a whole lot of room for the possibilities between. Judges may migrate one way or the other on the left-right spectrum, but they aren't seen as having a particular jurisprudence which cuts across both (as the reality often is). However, I'm not sure if the author could do these things without publishing a 9 tome history of the modern court. It's probably too much to ask of an author trying to write a popular book.

All-in-All, it's a good book, worth a read and an interesting spark for a discussion on the modern court. It's not going to become a must have book for those who want to understand the court; it's not The Brethren or Closed Chambers. Still, if you have an interest in the court you will find this book interesting.


========== ========== ==========


1 1) No politics. 2) Civility. 3) No politics.

2 Noting what seems to be a lack of information about certain Justices, I suspect that he got frozen out in certain quarters.

Bully for Arizona!
24 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

The Arizona Supreme Court has held that federal lawyers without Arizona licenses are the same as all other lawyers without Arizona licenses. They don't have the privilege of walking before a State judge whenever they want to.

Dumb Criminals of the Month
Ken Lammers

Stealing copper from a building the police are using in a K-9 exercise might not be the brightest thing in the world. However, I think the lady who wore the fake bomb to the airport is stupider.

What Can a Man Do?
Ken Lammers

This poor guy keeps getting arrested because a thug out there has the same name and date of birth.

Should You Buy the Hype?
Ken Lammers

A close look at the San Fran use of cameras in high crime areas.

The Pot Rebellion: Santa Cruz
Ken Lammers

Okay, you can smoke pot, but only in this particular tent.

Nine Inch Nails
Ken Lammers

Steal our music.

India: Supreme Court Overturns Contempt Charge
Ken Lammers

The Indian Court admonishes its lower courts for being too sensitive.

Australia: Murdered Often Have Drugs & Alcohol in Their Systems
Ken Lammers

I suspect this is universal.

Things Are Different on the Other Side of the Pond
Ken Lammers

"A SERIAL offender caught selling above-average strength heroin on a Southampton street has begun a two-year jail sentence."

Geez, Rich People Are Spoiled
Ken Lammers

If your kid commits burglary (breaking into a school to steal tests) should you get upset if all he's facing is a misdemeanor without the threat of jail?

DUH!
Ken Lammers

Commit murder, lose your license to practice law.

Priests are Sinners Too
Ken Lammers

Of course, that's just common sense. Nevertheless, you do not expect one to break a bottle of wine over a woman's head.

No Parole For You!!!
Ken Lammers

The Connecticut governor stops parole for all violent offenders.

Law Trumps Doctors
Ken Lammers

A court says that no matter what the State medical board says, if the law says a doctor must be present at an execution a doctor must be present at an execution.

If you get on a bus and tell your daughter to fight another girl . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . you will spend time in jail.

Is It Enough for a Mistrial?
Ken Lammers

The officer said that a prior internal affairs investigation "exonerated" her while the final result was that the complaint was "not sustained." Defense counsel moves for a mistrial.

Fake Bomb at Airport: Art or Stupidity?
Ken Lammers

Well, she's an MIT student, so she shouldn't be too dumb. However, wearing a fake bomb to an airport makes you wonder if she was trying for a Darwin award.

239 Page "Brief"
Ken Lammers

Not Even.

Polling
Ken Lammers

We've all polled juries before and whatdoyaknow here's an occaission it actually worked.

KL: KrimLaw?
21 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

Y'know, looking at the new graphic with my initials behind CrimLaw, it strikes me that I could have called this KrimLaw.

Hmmm . . .

Naw, too late now.

Death by Rodrigo
20 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

Book rating scale:

5: Touched by God - a work which makes Shakespeare look infantile
4: Amazing - Instantly began rereading it and quoting it to friends
3: Worth Every Penny - a solid, interesting read, inspiring some thought and discussion with people who share similar interests
2: I Paid For It So I Finished Reading It - Some interesting parts but if I lose the book I'm not buying another copy
1: Couldn't Force My Way Thru and Burnt the Book in order to send it to the Hell it deserves

I rate Death by Rodrigo a 1.8: it had a core story which could have gotten very interesting if it had been explored - instead it concentrated on peripheral clutter and the story died.

The story is about two lawyers who get themselves in trouble when they agree to represent a foreign drug dealer in federal court, basically taking a lot of money on the promise that they would get him a bond. They can't and credible death threats follow. They also have a local client whom they represent who has his entire criminal enterprise rolled up and is extremely interested in keeping them alive.

At its core, this is a very interesting concept. The problem is that it ends up being an excuse. The focus is on the dysfunctional attorneys. We spend far, far too much time being told of the homosexual lifestyle problems of the primary attorney. I kept wanting to scream "I don't care, get back to something pertinent to the story!" We spend nearly as much time reading about the other attorney's relationships with women. The way the lawyers are described was offensive - one failed the bar twice, the other only failed it once and neither of them bother to keep tabs on the law or write their own briefs (and these were attorneys who looked down their noses at the court appointed attorneys). What they're good at is manipulating the judge. The ads for this book talk about how funny it is, so I guess this stuff was supposed to be caricaturized and bigger than life to add humor to the book It did not work.

I think that this is supposed to be the first book in a series. Hopefully, in the future the author will back away from the descriptions of the characters' lives and concentrate on the story at the core. I kept waiting for it to happen in this book. I knew that, as in all books of this type, I was going to have to wade thru some setup as the characters were introduced. I almost didn't make it, but I kept looking forward tot he moment the story would actually break thru and I'd be reading about the dealer who has threatened to kill them and the local crime lord who is trying to keep them alive and how all that would play out (especially with a smart crime lord who gets an ace in the hole). Had this book been edited to throw out about half the personal stuff and the author been pushed to elaborate on the drama at the core it could have been very good.

Ever Wonder What it Takes To Become a Bounty Hunter?
17 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

Not much.

You expect this at a place with a name that ends in Mart
Ken Lammers

Not at Tarjay (that's Target for those who don't pretend that they know French or that Target is a snooty place to shop).

Ever Wanted to Know How Much You Are Worth?
Ken Lammers

Well, your information is worth $550.

You Can't Make 14 Year Olds Marry and Have Sex
Ken Lammers

At least, you can't do it legally.

Email Request for Help
14 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

This request was in my email when I opened it this morn:
Hi Ken

I came across your blog today in researching reckless driving, specifically the charge: 46.2-852.

Do you know how I can research case law on overturned or dismissed reckless driving cases for this Virginia code section? What I did was not reckless driving and I would like to argue this myself. I just don't have the funds to pay for an attorney to defend me on this.

I know I want to read Powers v Commonwealth and Kennedy v Commonwealth, but do you know how I can find more cases to help me build a defense?

Sincerely

John Smith
My answer:

John,

Please be advised that I am now a prosecutor and you should take anything I take with a grain of salt. Also, (I have to say this) THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, I have neither done any research nor spoken to anyone about the facts which will be determinative in your case. This is entirely off the cuff and you may want to ask a defense lawyer before you proceed.

That said, if your county has one, I'd advise going to your local law library and getting a look at one of the books containing statutes (or maybe a law school library). They usually have short synopses of cases after the statute which give information about how courts have done things in the past. If you don't have a law library near, you might look through Virginia's free listing of cases (which can be found thru FindLaw) or you might try one of the online legal services. WestLaw and LexisNexis are probably too expensive (might as well hire a lawyer) but I think that a service like Versuslaw might be affordable (the only reason I site it by name is because I used it when in private practice, there are others which might be better, I don't know); you would probably have to search for "reckless driving" and spend time slogging through a whole bunch of cases. Personally, I would recommend going to a library if at all possible.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may want to ask for a court appointed attorney. The advantage there is that he knows the law and the judge and the prosecutor. He'll know if the argument you want to make has been tried 17 times and shot down by the judge each and every time, or if the judge has kicked out 3 cases in the last week for the exact same reason as you think yours should be thrown out. That kind of knowledge can't be gained through research, you just have to be the person who's in court every day.

ken

Found on Craigslist
12 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

Hello,
I have 420 shrubs for sale. They are from Arizona and have a very nice pungent smell and citrus like flower to them. Available by the quarter acre plot for 60, half acre plot for 100 and whole acre plot for 180. Also would consider BARTERING for finer shrubs. No phone. Please email.
Thank you
Juan
Four twenty, four twenty
Location: near Trenton, NJ

Why not just put an ad in saying "Please come arrest me." Police can read and use the internet, y'know.

We're in Good Company
Ken Lammers

It looks like human males aren't the only ones who do stupid, dangerous, and illegal things to impress females. Chimps steal in order to give gifts to and get attention from "females of reproductive age."

Botswana: Looking forward to 2016 . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . when there will be no crime.

$2,000,000,000,000 in Organized Crime
Ken Lammers

Twice the world's combined defense budgets.

Northern Ireland Stops Jury Trials
Ken Lammers

While sorting out a jury selection problem.

They're Rewriting the Iowa Criminal Code
Ken Lammers

Because, unlike Virginia, they didn't perfect it prior to the signing of the constitution.

Infinite Creativity
11 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

Hiding heroin under the stamps of letters sent to the jail.

So, I Killed My Husband . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . what's that got to do with my wanting custody of the children?

Street Cameras
Ken Lammers

They may lower the rate of crime in an area, but they're not much use in court.

Religion in the Jury Room
Ken Lammers

is not reason to overturn the sentence of death.

Confession is Privileged
Ken Lammers

As long as it is to your priest, but not if it is to God by way of a journal.

Accidently Poisoning an Officer
Ken Lammers

An officer arrested a McDonalds worker after she "spilled" so much salt on his hamburger that it made him sick.

I don't know if it's provable, but we all know why the officer arrested her. Officers and criminal attorneys get paranoid about where they eat. As recently as yesterday I was warned not to get food from restaurant X and last week I stopped going to my favorite breakfast place because of one person now employed there (the same sort of thing used to happen when I was a defense attorney). If you ask around, I pretty much guarantee that you can scare up stories about offender Smith working at restaurant X and putting stuff in food meant for an officer or attorney.

Officer/Thief - Thief/Officer
Ken Lammers

Both this one and that one stepping into the place of the other.

Copper Theft
Ken Lammers

$1 million in damage.

It Takes More Than Tats
Ken Lammers

Malum just isn't impressed by the guy he's representing.

Don't sleep in your car . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . when you've got 90 packets of heroin in it.

A Unique Bounty
Ken Lammers

Catch the thief, get free ice cream.

When you make your getaway . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . you probably shouldn't leave a reciept behind.

We Didn't Know It Was Pot, Officer
Ken Lammers

Two workers didn't know the crop they were harvesting was marijuana.

Yeah . . . Riiiiigghht.

Overruling the Jury: Federal Sentencing for Not Guilty Offenses
Ken Lammers

Yeah, I know, it sounds pretty dang unconstitutional to me too. Especially now that it seems abundantly clear that "discretionary" federal sentencing means the discretion to increase a sentence, but not decrease it.

Hmmm . . . Don't Judges Have Sovran Immunity?
Ken Lammers

I must admit, I've never considered suing a judge because he made a ruling against me.

Stones
Ken Lammers

Gotta have 'em if you are going to investigate the Prime Minister.

NY Governor on the Lam
Ken Lammers

Holding late night meetings in cars to avoid having a record.

5 Elderly Chicago Mobsters Convicted
Ken Lammers

Does this mean 5 younger guys will replace them?

Recent Meme: It's too expensive to punish those who break the law
Ken Lammers

Y'know, the same folks who are griping today about the rate and cost of incarceration will being screaming bloody murder 15 years from now after the sentencing laws have loosened and the crime rate increases.

Thief With a Conscience
Ken Lammers

Never seen any case wherein the thief gets a case of the guilts and returns the stuff (without being caught).

FREEZE!!! You're Under Arrest! (oops, our bad)
10 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

The police didn't do anything wrong here, but if somebody called and reported I was a bank robber, I'd want to know who and why.

No Religion in Prison
Ken Lammers

Ordered to remove all the religious literature unless it is "approved."

Hmmmm . . . Is that a prohibition on "the free exercise thereof?"

Can't Order People to Go To AA
Ken Lammers

Because, Heaven forfend, it includes reference to a higher power.

Taping Attorney-Client Conversations
Ken Lammers

The article is a little unclear, but it appears a prosecutor ordered the jail to tape all the defendant's conversations. There's no clarification whether the prosecutor meant to get the attorney-client conversations or whether he just assumed the jail would know he meant tape all legally tapeable conversations.

Gotta say that the remedy I see here is a special prosecutor, not a dismissal.

Judge Humphreys is da Man!
07 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

Jay Martelino, with whom I used to practice in many of the same courts, called me yesterday with the good news - He had finally gotten a court to listen to reason in its interpretation of Virginia's burglarious tools statute.

Despite its moniker, this statute criminalizes more than just burglary tools. It was a most annoying statute because it also criminalized tools, implements, and outfits used in a larceny. Consequently, every shoplifter who stuck a shirt in a plastic bag got charge with both the larceny and possession of a burglarious tool (the plastic bag). Although the majority of burglarious tools charges were bargained away fairly quickly by the prosecutors, I can remember arguing (back when I was a defense attorney) several times that the statute didn't apply to items of general use (such as a shopping bag), but items of specific purpose (such as a screw driver). Usually, the prosecutor would point to the one case from the court of appeals in which an offender was convicted of burglarious tools because of his pants. I would point out that the pants were specifically altered and that's the reason for the conviction. I lost every time. Unfortunately, I was never able to get that statute before an appellate court on appeal.

Jay did. And he convinced Judge Humphreys, who wrote an amazing opinion which is spot on.1 It was almost the exact same argument I made over and over in court, except the portion about legislative history. That part was pretty obscure and a good catch by whoever found it.2




1 Yeah, I know, I shouldn't be happy about this now that I'm a prosecutor, but you have no idea how much the application of this statute annoyed me. Anyway, nobody out here uses it, so we're not losing a common charge like we did when obstruction of justice was gutted in Jordan.

2 No, I'm not saying I now agree with legislative intent arguments (which is what a legislative history argument basically is). I just think that somebody through through hard work or luck - probably a little of both - made a good catch which strengthened the textual argument.

I know real doctors try to bill courts and lawyers for fees they're not entitled to . . .
06 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

. . . but a fake doctor trying to get paid for his time in court on a speeding ticket?

via Magistrate's Blog

Ah, the Joy of a Happy Client
Ken Lammers

Who sends his attorney flying across the defense table.

Civil Remedial Fees
Ken Lammers

Lawyers Weekly links thru to several stories.

UK: DNA Them All, Let God Sort Them Out
Ken Lammers

After all, the only people it'll used against is the criminals and if you're not a criminal you don't have anything to worry about.

Or do you?

HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?
Ken Lammers

If you commit the perfect murder, you do not write a "fictional" book explaining how you did it.

8th Circuit: Self Defense is a Defense to Illegal Use of a Firearm
Ken Lammers

Even if it's not spelled out in the statute.

Federal Judge: No Retroactive Application of Ohio's Sex Offender Restrictions
Ken Lammers

The judge says that offenders convicted before the law went into place can't be kept from living in places the law forbids.

Japanese Girls Can Take Care of Themselves
Ken Lammers

At least this one could.

Barney Fife Commits a Crime
Ken Lammers

And shoots himself in the leg.

Simple Justice is Upset
Ken Lammers

Because apparently he thinks that defense lawyers are trial lawyers too.

UK: Anonymous Witnesses
Ken Lammers

From whom? The press? The defendant?

Stealing Pot From a Cop's Car
Ken Lammers

Not a good idea.

A Map of Death Penalty States
Ken Lammers

Color coded by method.

Calling All Con Artists
Ken Lammers

Apparently, Japan may be your new Mecca.

How Many Incarcerated in Britain and Wales?
Ken Lammers

A rough guesstimate.

DC Swamped with Criminals
Ken Lammers

And, no, I don't mean Congress.

Court to Feds: You WIll Play Nice
Ken Lammers

You are deemed to have done what the cooperation agreement implies you would do, even if you didn't.

Sex Offenders
Ken Lammers

Yet another study showing sex offenders are less likely than most offenders to reoffend.

Mark talks about how all this has caused an irrational - and probably unhealthy - shift in the way children are taught to deal with men and men learn to behave toward children. He blames this, at least in part, on a misperception of what a male is.

I have a hard time judging all this. I know that my experience in criminal law has colored the way I view the world. Personally, I used to love to babysit and play with kids; now, I still love playing with kids, but I don't feel comfortable being left alone without at least one (preferably two) adult witnesses nearby.

Use of the Internet Does Not Automatically Mean It was Interstate
Ken Lammers

Ummmm . . . Okay . . .

I guess it's possible that information packets only traveled within the State. Highly, incredibly unlikely, but possible.

Craigslist Lets Officers Bag More Prostitutes
Ken Lammers

They got more online than they did on the streets.

You leave your drug junk around to be found and chewed on by a toddler . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . you deserve every second of your incarceration.

Crack Users Hooked for a Decade
Ken Lammers

And it looks like use is going to get worse.

Blind Quadriplegic Murderer
Ken Lammers

They may take equal rights for the disabled a little far in Canada.

Forget My SUV, I want Rover back
Ken Lammers

Steal my car - steal my dog?

UK: Man Avoids Prison: Newspaper Doesn't Make it Clear Why
Ken Lammers

Because he'd been arrested and held in jail on other charges he can't get time on this charge?

Anybody know why? Had an SOL run?

Ear Thieves
Ken Lammers

They couldn't find anything else to steal.

Grand Jury Mistakes = Case Dismissals
05 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

As many as 35.

The mistakes?
[The prosecutor] rushed the grand jurors by saying that, while there are no time limits, grand jury deliberations generally take "anywhere between 30 seconds and 5 minutes." Berk also improperly implied that prosecutors might have damaging evidence against defendants that the grand jury was not hearing and said that defendants were not given immunity in the grand jury because "these are people who our office has made a decision have committed some wrongdoing."

The Mounties May Have Found Your Pot
Ken Lammers

"Anybody missing their plants are welcome to contact the Vernon RCMP."

The Handcuffs Should Have Been a Clue
Ken Lammers

That it was a cop car you did the smash-n-grab on.

Copper Theft Gets 5 Years
Ken Lammers

It's a way not to be homeless for a while.

Pony Theft
Ken Lammers

Okay, as someone who grew up watching Westerns, I know the appropriate way to handle horse thieves involves a hangin'.

If it's a pony are we only supposed to hang-em half way?

Catnapping Extortion
Ken Lammers

Give me money or I'll take Fluffy.

You Mean the Spam Drug Offers I Get Every Day Aren't Real?
Ken Lammers

Fake drugs are flourishing.

Suckered: $180 and the Informant Didn't Get Drugs
Ken Lammers

Somebody in the drug enforcement division took a lot of ribbing for turning in 5.9 grams of bread crumbs to the lab.

Thieves Get a $10,000 Bicycle
Ken Lammers

No, not a motorcycle, a bicycle.

For $10,000 a bike had best pedal itself and make the owner irresistible to the opposite sex.

The BLADE MENACE
Ken Lammers

What happens when they take away the guns? The "Blade Menace" replaces the gun problem.

What happens when they take away the knives? The "Stick Situation" replaces the blade menace.

What happens when they take away the sticks? "Ferocious Fists."

Et cetera

Assault by Client
Ken Lammers

And he even finished the case.

I must say I admire that, but wonder if it doesn't set up a perfect habeas.

.
Ken Lammers

Killing 4 people gets a homeless guy a permanent home.

Fighting over cheap wine and bad beer
Ken Lammers

Another moment in the life of an officer.

Ummm . . . Smooth Move Slick
Ken Lammers

Calling the judge and threatening him before the sentencing doesn't get you a new judge - it could, however, convince the judge that you are a danger to society who needs to spend a long time in prison.

Copper Theft
Ken Lammers

Caught after $30,000 in damages.

Belgians want to Illegalize Scientology
Ken Lammers

Because, I guess, this proscutor wants to spend all his money defending the 200,000 lawsuits they'll file against him.

Preacher Robbed
Ken Lammers

Because the sin of theft wouldn't get the offender condemned to H3ll quick enough - he wanted the upgrade.

Another PD Locked Up
Ken Lammers

After losing the argument with the judge.

Breathalyzer Software Turned Over
Ken Lammers

And, boy would I hate to have these folks evaluate the html I've written over the years for this blog.

Powerless Felons and Their Community
Ken Lammers

What happens when a convicted felon goes back to his community?

APD not equal ADA
Ken Lammers

At least not in the wallet.

They're Upset That these Idiots Confessed on YouTube?
04 September 2007   
Ken Lammers

"Jinky, wee man, get back to Norfy before we murder ye like Willie Smith, ye dafty, do you want to get put in a box an’ all?"

It's Like a Illegal Substance Drug Market
Ken Lammers

Cocaine and Meth are up. Marijuana is steady.

No More "Missing Staple" Appeals
Ken Lammers

Yes, it is time to say goodbye to the cherished ability to appeal a case because a staple was missing.

Crime Up in Ireland
Ken Lammers

Both drugs and theft.

If you are making drugs in your house . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . you should probably keep your sex offender registration up to date.

DNA Clears Death Penalty Convicts
Ken Lammers

The DNA evidence was excluded at trial, but the Thai Supreme Court isn't having it.

Fourth Amendment.com
Ken Lammers

Three interesting posts:

Corroborating non-illegal details is not enough to say that the illegal part of a statement is true - search warrant bad.

If you put the person you are questioning in the police car it becomes an arrest.

Can't search someone when you are only able to issue a civil citation.

What Happens When You Cause Trouble in Snap's Jail?
Ken Lammers

He stays late and makes your stay less pleasant.

Nude Dancing and Booze, Together Again
Ken Lammers

In the 6th Circuit.

A Man Who Loves His Wine
Ken Lammers

Enough to grab it from the thief and beat him over the head with it.

Keep Me in Jail - PLEASE
Ken Lammers

Stop me from stealing to support my habit.

The Kidnapping, Rape, & Baby Sale Business
Ken Lammers

Can't get too much lower than this.

Metal Theft
Ken Lammers

Stealing gas tubes, irrigation pipes, and getting caught by a dog.

Al Gore and Car Breakins
Ken Lammers

"It’s your stuff, but those theft reports generate paper and according to my calculations if we reduced thefts from cars as much as 30%, we’d save an average of 16 trees each month. This means that the greenhouse effect would be, uh, effected and Al Gore would have to make another movie because all the numbers would be skewed."

Fake Robberies . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . get you real jail.

Yard Sign: My Neighbor Deals Drugs
Ken Lammers

It might drive him out. Then again, it might bring every druggie in town to your street.

Underwear Gnomes
Ken Lammers

Bigger, Badder, and not just in South Park anymore.

Grand Theft Bird
Ken Lammers

Not satisfied with $10,000 in electronics, the thief took the bird too.

Return Address Adress
Ken Lammers

If you have your picture published in the newspaper because the police are looking for you,it might not be a good idea to put a return address on the envelope when you write the editor to complain.

Persistence Doesn't Pay Off
Ken Lammers

3 times they've charged her with murder and three times the judge has shot it down.

Texas: Loosening the Law, but Maybe Not Enforcement
Ken Lammers

Just because you give the officers an option to issue a summons doesn't mean they will.

The Pot Rebellion Continues
Ken Lammers

New Mexico.

The governor is not happy.

Not Terribly Shocking: Murder Victims Usually Have Records
Ken Lammers

I know that, to those of us who work in criminal law, this seems as much a truism as "water is wet" or "ice is cold." However, apparently it's a revelation to USA Today.

Figure the odds of ever seeing this as the first line of an article in a US paper
Ken Lammers

"POLICE bungling has forced a judge to throw out video evidence of a man telling Perth police it was possible he had done something to the eight-year-old girl he is accused of raping and murdering."

Holy crud! Not so fond of the police in Australia.

Australia: Prisoners Can Vote
Ken Lammers

At least some of them can.

Brazil: The Courts Are a Little Different Here
Ken Lammers

The Supreme Court indicts 40 people on corruption charges.

Fingerprints were his, but the cocaine was his brother's
Ken Lammers

. . . or at least that's what the jury found.

Drunk, Tavern Hopping, Hearse Theft
Ken Lammers

The title says it all.

Donated Phone and 911 Crank
Ken Lammers

Ever wonder why some places send an officer first before they deploy other emergency vehicles and personnel? It's because people like this guy placing 2,000 fake 911 calls using a phone donated to the homeless.

Double Jeopardy and the Hung Jury
Ken Lammers

Three days of deliberation isn't enough. There must be proof that the jury hung or double jeopardy applies.

Sue the Guy in Prison
Ken Lammers

Two officers sue the kid who stabbed them while he's in the middle of his imprisonment.

ZDo you think the lawyer is working for a percentage? Probably not much money there.

Naked Hula Beer Theft
31 August 2007   
Ken Lammers

I kid you not.

Can't Pay for that Lap Dance . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . with cocaine.

Is Sex Part of Faith Healing?
Ken Lammers

Nope.

Guatemala: Politicians: We'll be tough on crime!
Ken Lammers

It's a universal political promise. After all, who's going to say they want to be pro-crime? It's like saying you're anti-puppy.

A Lesson for Officers
Ken Lammers

Guys, I know how frustrated you get with persistent offenders, but you cannot drag him around town behind your motorcycle (even if it is an effective deterrent). It may make you locally popular, but there's somebody up the chain of command who's going to fire you. Especially if there are pictures taken.

Trooper in Pa. Charged with Rape
Ken Lammers

Gotta admit, I'm suspicious here. I guess biting someone on the inner thigh while choking her to keep her from screaming is possible, but . . .

As a side note, guys, I don't care how much she says it turns her on, those bites have come back to haunt more than one person. Might want to think twice about it. 'Course, many a guy might not be thinking at all at that point . . .

Pedophile and "Evil"
Ken Lammers

Why in the world would Reuters think it had to put quotation marks around "Evil" when describing a guy who admitted to 89 acts.

Copper Thief Combusts
Ken Lammers

Before you go tot steal the wire from a house, maybe you should turn off the breaker.

4th: Letters
Ken Lammers

If you didn't send it and it isn't addressed to you, you don't have standing to make a 4th Amendment challenge.

What Other Defense Can You Try?
Ken Lammers

Everybody else is employing illegals, why are you picking on me?

Via iP

Wales, Coalfields, and Heroin
Ken Lammers

Heroin users are twice as likely to live in former coal mining areas in Wales.

Is the California Pot Rebellion Faltering?
30 August 2007   
Ken Lammers

Laguna Hills votes to ban medical marijuana dispensaries.

It take a special kind of ice-heartedness . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . to steal from a guy who's missing an arm and a leg.

Officer, I was trying to Return the Pellet Gun
Ken Lammers

I don't care if store security says I was stealing it and physically held me in a bear hug until you arrived.

20+ Years Later a Djudge Decides the Confessions were Bad
Ken Lammers

Here's something you don't hear about every day: The man confessed to the same crime twice, was found guilty by an 8 to 6 vote of the jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment. 20 years later an appeals judge lets him go.

Copper Theft
Ken Lammers

Around here they steal wire and sell it for the copper, they haven't (to my knowledge) gone so far that they are causing houses to explode.

Make Date Rape Drugs . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . and the US will extradite you from Scotland.

Chicago: Da' Outfit
Ken Lammers

Imagine this: You are the leaders of the Mob. Over the years all sorts of people who were willing to testify against you had "accidents." What happens when the guy who has caused the accidents decides to testify against you?

Attempt to kidnap the Dead
Ken Lammers

Personally, I'm not going to pay too much money for a corpse.

Gotta Admit, This is Different . . .
Ken Lammers

You just don't run into too many people trying to break into jail.

An Afghan Opium Market
Ken Lammers

How it is first aggregated for later shipment to Europe.

A Call for Tighter Reins on Cayman Banks
Ken Lammers

Because, really, who wants to launder money in a place where you can't ski?

UK: A Call for Less Imprisonment
Ken Lammers

Because the prisons are over-full.

UK: Prison Guards Return to Work
Ken Lammers

After they are ordered to by the judge.

What does it say about your church . . .
Ken Lammers

. . . if the members are so familiar with the criminal justice system that they start singing about Heaven as a court and Jesus as defense attorney/judge?

Cocaine Use Trends
Ken Lammers

Down among those who graduate high-school and steady among those who don't.

How Does Media Attention Effect Kidnappings?
Ken Lammers

Copycats.




The Big Names
~~~~~~~~~~
The Volokh Conspiracy
Mirror of Justice
SCOTUS
Jurist
InstaPundit
How Appealing
Concurring Opinions



Tech & Vlogs
~~~~~~~~~~
This Week in Tech
DigitalLife TV
Buzz Out Loud
Bloggingheads.tv
Ask a Ninja
Tiki Bar
...
commandN
Revision3
10
Rocketboom
...
Gogela
Odeo
Slashdot
Gizmodo

Back When I Was A Defense Attorney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why I was

Life as a Defense Attorney ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FEB03
Jury
Jury
JUN03
A Week in the Life
A Week in the Life
JUL03
A Week in the Life
OCT03
A Week in the Life
DEC03
A Week in the Life
JAN04
5 Events
A Needed Sign
A Week in the Life
Trial Desperation
A Week in the Life
A Week in the Life
Quick Panic
FEB04
Supress Motion
A Week in the Life
A Week in the Life
MAR04
A Week in the Life
Closing Argument
APR04
A Week in the Life
A Week in the Life
A Week in the Life
A Week in the Life
MAY04
A Week in the Life
A Week in the Life
A Week in the Life
JUN04
Chocolate Chip Marijuana
A Week in the Life
High School Critique
JUL04
A Week in the Life
Cripple v. Cop
01 Long Week
02 Long Week
03 Long Week
04 Long Week
05 Long Week
I'm a Narc
AUG04
Frustrating Day
Damn Yankee Defense
A Week in the Life
SEP04
Angry Relative
01 Long Week
OCT04
01 Long Week
02 Long Week
03 Long Week
04 Long Week
-----
01 Long Week
02 Long Week
03 Long Week
NOV04
Client Families
DEC04
01 Long Week
02 Long Week
03 Long Week
04 Long Week
05 Long Week
06 Long Week
Surprise at Prelim
Confronted
JAN05
A Sentencing Hearing
Sales Lady Visits
FEB05
Purse Search Brief
Violent Insane Client
MAR05
Affidavit of Truthfulness
Juvenile Detention Visit
Moments in the Life
Fail to Visit
APR05
Trial of the Century
MAY05
Transcript: Court Argument I Won
A Day in Court
Moments in the Life
Angry Jury Day
Angry Jury 02
JUN05
Eureka Sentencing Moment
My Own PI
Innovative Jail Phone Call
A Moment in Court
A Moment in Court
JUL05
Huh?
Raccoon Attack
AUG05
Picking on a Prosecutor Intern
Moments in the Life
SEP05
Victory by Speedy Trial
OCT05
Kicking Myself
A Day in the Life
Insane Client & 15 Deputies
Torture by Judge
A Federal Habeas
NOV05
Invisolawyer
Petition Freak Out
Moments in the Life
Moments in the Life
State Habeas
DEC05
Moments in the Life
JAN06
Jury Trial Fizzle
FEB06
A Bench Trial
Bittersweet "Victories"
A Prosecutor Tries to do Right
MAR06
What Just Happened?
Va. Worse than Conn.
Illness as a Defense Attorney
Failed Prison Visit
APR06
Heard in a Courthouse
Appellate Court Argument 01
Va. Court of Appeals
MAY06
Heard in Court
JUN06
Bad Press
Entire History of a Trial
Bad Press 02
JUL06
I Must be too Good
AUG06
Announce Becoming Prosecutor
The Last Life in a Week
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday

Theory
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Va. Mayhem
Va.'s 4 Versions of Mayhem
Writ of Spite & Hatred
Requirement of Defense Attorneys
Various Riot Acts
Heavy Sentences
Heavy Sentences 02
Felony Murder in 2d Degree
Should Lawyers Make Clients Confess?
Tazers

Client Communication
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CYA Letter: Felony Client
CYA Letter: Appeal
-----
Dear Mr. Jailhouse Lawyer
Conversation between Inmates about Lawyers
Innocent Client Pleads Guilty
Client Parents

Me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justice Ken
My Hero
My Booze
My Dinosaur
The Web
CrimLaw