Library of Congress

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

minimize

Legal Blawgs Web Archive Collection

This is an archived Web site from the Library of Congress

http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/

Archived: 10/02/2008 at 17:51:43

first First (09/06/2007)    previous Previous  #15 of 37  Next next    Last (12/01/2009) last entry



Big Names

The Volokh Conspiracy
Mirror of Justice
SCOTUS
QandO
Jurist
InstaPundit
How Appealing
Concurring Opinions

Worthy Reads

SW Virginia Law
Va Poli Blogs
BNN (Va)
WindyPundit
Japundit
day by day
Gruntled Center
The Policeman's Blog
Diary of a Police Officer
Law and Disorder
Nota Bene
Decision of the Day
Clever WoT
Staunch Moderate
I repectfully dissent
Lex Communis
Legal Scholarship
The Agitator
Women Lawyers
The Faculty Lounge
School Law
Lawpundit
California Blog of Appeal
The BLT
Point of Law
Ron's Insanity
Legally Brunette
f/k/a
9th Circuit
6th Circuit
Cox & Forkum
Bank Lawyer
Ex Post
Point of Law
The Legal Reader
Dvorak Uncensored
Baby Barista
SC Appellate
Leslie's Omnibus
Transblawg
Justice & Drugs
Legal Assistance
The Briefcase
A Stitch in Haste
Cleveland Law Library
Rabid Sanity
Rambling
Bench Conference
Vancouver Law Librarian
Internet Cases
Catholic Sensibility
Disputations
Flos Carmeli
Pro Ecclesia
Kentucky Law Blog
Law Notes
Rule Of Law
Boldly Ride
KG2V's Ramblings
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
Legal Profession
Legal History
KG2V
Jac
JAABLOG
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
Less Than the Least
Rabid Sanity
grey-at-law
Court-o-rama
Bank Lawyer
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

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


Email Ken

Prosecution
Seeking Justice
Ubjeckshin
Western Justice
Harris Co. Crim Justice

Defense
Simple Justice
Defending People
Blonde Justice
Hostis Civitas
Crime & Federalism
Arbitrary & Capricious
WV Criminal Law
a public defender
Austin Defense
Plea Bargaining
Norm Pattis
Underblawg
Public Defender Dude
In the Moment
ipse dixit
Iowa Champion
ECILCRIME
Preaching to the Choir
Matlock
Between a Laugh & a Tear
Underdog
Indefensible
A Public Defender's Life in Alaska
Woman of the Law
Southern District of Fla.
Criminal Defense
Trials & Tribulations
Not Guilty
Bad Court Thingy
Woman in Black
Philly Crim Def Lawyer
Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
DUIblog
That Lawyer Dude
Of a Public Defender's Life

Appellate
Judging Crimes
Judgment Day
Have Opinion, Will Travel

Profs
Sentencing Law and Policy
CrimProf
Juries
White Collar Crime Prof

Info
Women in Crime Ink
The Smoking Gun
Law of Criminal Defense
FourthAmendment
Sex Crimes
Capital Defense Weekly
4th Circuit
Indignant Indigent(NY)
ElectricLawyer(Ca)
Backgate
Pardon Power
Crime and Consequences

THIS
AIN'T
LEGAL
ADVICE.

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 in your county, city, or State probably don't operate as described herein. Feel free to be inspired, but YOU MUST ALWAYS DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH OR HIRE A COMPETENT ATTORNEY TO DO SO because I haven't.


Tech &
Vlogs
This Week in Tech
Spill.com
TWIT Live
Buzz Out Loud
BOL Stream
Buzz Report
Tekzilla
DL.TV
Geeks are Sexy
CNET Live
Bloggingheads.tv
Ask a Ninja
Tiki Bar
Mahalo Daily
DadLabs
Vlase
commandN
Sleepydad
Veronica Belmont
Gogela
Odeo
Slashdot
Gizmodo


Archive

January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008



eXTReMe Tracker




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.

Copyright

Everything herein is copyrighted by Kenneth Frank Patrick Lammers Junior. License for use of particular posts is granted so long as this site is linked to and credited. Serial republishing of all or the majority of posts on a separate website from CrimLaw is forbidden.
Oct 2, 2008
Here is the New Award
By popular demand, here's the award for being a top five on LX:

Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Oct 1, 2008
Cat Burglar Caught
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 30, 2008
If Pot Doesn't Cure What Ails You . . .
. . . there's always heroin.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Theft at Police Station
You really shouldn't sneak away from your lawyer and into a police LT's office to steal her pistol.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

I May Need to Move to Wall Street
"The biggest growth industry on Wall Street these days is the white collar criminal law firm."
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 1 comments

More Protection for Have-a-Go-Heroes
Tories trying to push greater protections for those who help.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Lawyer Threatens Doctor Over Drugs
To keep them flowing.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Guilty on Drugs But Not Frozen Girlfriend
She was on dry ice.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Study: Students Link Flirting and Rape
Northern Ireland.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 29, 2008
Breast Implant Murder Plot
Y'know, as a guy, I admire certain aspects of the female anatomy too, but I just can't see plotting this . . .
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

ID'ed Juror Out
Judge lets man out of service because his friends figured out he was serving.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Mass. Marijuana
Will it be legal?
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Fluffy Marijuana
Did he blow dry it?
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Elephant Heroin Addict
A methadone treatment that worked.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

LX cast up: Fave Five
Yep, I changed the name.

LX is larger here.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 25, 2008
Virginia Supreme Court Decisions
(includes Spam decision)
Logan v. Commonwealth (No. 072342) 4th Amendment - Probation

A person on probation is charged with a crime. The charge is dismissed after the Virginia Court of Appeals, en banc, decided that the search violated the 4th Amendment. The Commonwealth did not appeal this (because, if you can't win in our Court of Appeals en banc you can't win anywhere). Then the Commonwealth filed a probation violation against the person. The trial judge allowed the evidence of the fruits of the search into the probation hearing. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction stating that the 4th Amendment does not apply to probation hearings.

Held: The 4th Amendment does apply to probation hearings. Reversed.

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

McMorris v. Commonwealth (No. 072247) Robbery - Principle in the Second Degree

Defendant took part in the mass beating of an individual. During the beating the individual's wallet was stolen. He was convicted by the trial judge of robbery because "This was all contemporaneous." The Court of Appeals refused to hear an appeal on the conviction stating that "the evidence established that McMorris shared the criminal intent of those who did steal Ottey's telephone and other items."

Held: Taking part in a mass beat down does not have as "a natural and probable consequence of the intended wrongful act" the intent to rob. Reversed.

There's a very good discussion in this case of what a principle in the second degree is in Virginia.

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

Jaynes v. Commonwealth (No. 062388) Internet Spam - Jurisdiction - 1st Amendment - Standing - Trespass - Narrow Tailoring - Overbreadth - Narrow Construction

Out of State Defendant convicted of violating Virginia's anti-spam statute.

Held: (1) Jurisdiction is valid because all of AOL's servers are in Virginia and this is common knowledge.

(2) The Virginia Supreme Court quotes the Commonwealth's own stipulations during a prior argument before the federal supreme court and finds that Virginia cannot limit access to constitutional protections to fewer people than the federal government allows.

(3) While trespass may be a valid theory in a civil suit, it does not apply in a case involving the government because governments must answer to the 1st Amendment.

(4) The mere fact that someone sends an anonymous email cannot be illegal because anonymous political speech is protected political discourse. Unlike other States, Virginia has not limited this statute to commercial speech. Therefore, the statute is not sufficiently narrowly drawn.

(5) While mere overbreadth is not enough, this statute is substantially overbroad. It "would prohibit all bulk e-mail containing anonymous political, religious, or other expressive speech. For just being published today example, were the Federalist Papers via e-mail, that transmission by Publius would violate the statute."

(6) The Supreme Court refuses the Commonwealth's invitation to narrow the application of the statute so that it only applies if the internet service provider objects or the emails contain criminal activity, defamation, or obscenity. Rewriting a statute is the province of the General Assembly and mere construction of this statute cannot reach as far as the Commonwealth urges.

Reversed.

Wow. This case is a tour de force by the Virginia Supreme Court. It's 28 pages and not an inch of fluff in it (the federal supreme court would have wasted at least 75 pages on something like this). I don't like the result, but really can't argue with the reasoning.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 1 comments

Sep 24, 2008
It's time to play . . .
. . . name that crime!
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 22, 2008
CLTV 41: Hubris, Heller, & Harvie (Wilkinson)
Reviewing a law review article by Judge Harvie Wilkinson (4th federal circuit) in which he equates Roe and Heller.

Larger version here at CLTV.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 18, 2008
RIAA to Court: That Bad Old Attorney Was Mean to Us!!!
How does the RIAA react to an attorney who defends people it charges and defeats it? And then has the gall to publish parts of the PUBLIC court file on his blog?

Why it sues him, of course. He's "vexatious."

In other words, he won and has made the RIAA look bad (like it needed any help).

You've got to be kidding me. Admittedly, I don't know all that much about federal civil procedure, but if I remember back to law school, aren't cases filed in bad faith supposed to be sanctionable? Couldn't an attorney filing a case in bad faith also end up with an ethics violation at his State Bar?

BTW, the attorney being sued is Ray Beckerman and his blog is "Recording Industry vs. The People."
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 16, 2008
Review: Raising the Bar



Before this show hit the air there was a lot of buzz about it in the crimlaw blawgosphere because of the involvement of David Feige. Then the pilot aired. I didn't write a review at that time because I missed it when aired and had to watch it later. Additionally, when I finally watched it, the pilot was bad. It was very bad. All the important characters were ridiculous and the soap opera built into it was just silly. I decided to wait until I'd seen a few episodes (there's nothing else worth watching at that time period since Middleman went off the air) before I wrote a review.

It was the right thing to do. The show has gotten better. I still don't like the characters, but the story in episode 3 was far closer to the actual courthouse experience and actually came much closer to hitting home. It's still a very imperfect show. Nevertheless, it seems to be moving in the right direction. I'm going to give it a rating of cautious approval. Right now its an adequate show. It may turn into a very good show; it may still tank.

The Episodes

1: SKIP THIS EPISODE. It doesn't really set anything up that you need to watch the next two shows and it could sour you for the others. We see several rather obnoxious characters acting in obnoxious ways, often unnecessary for the plot. i.e. Why the scene between the head prosecutor and the female prosecutor?

The basic story here is a judge forcing a rape case to trial despite the prosecutor and defense attorney agreeing to plea agreement. There's a very bad id procedure undertaken by the detective. The prosecutor's office also hides the fact that it has evidence that the accused rapist is innocent. In the end one honest prosecutor brings that evidence to light and the accused's defense attorney goes to jail in order to keep his client from being unjustly punished.

2: There are two legal stories in this episode. In the first, the evil prosecutor tries to keep a witness who is from outside the country from getting into the country because the witness would prove the defendant not guilty. In the second, a black kid is accused of accused of battery of a white kid over a situation an upset girlfriend had selfishly set in motion. The second story was by far the better because it felt like a real trial.

3: This episode felt the most like what actually happens in court. Again, there are two legal stories. In the first we see a defense attorney desperately trying to find some sort of treatment program for his mentally ill client in order to avoid trial. The second is a trial over some sort of disorderly conduct/battery by a frustrated woman on a guard at a social services/unemployment agency. I'm sure the first story struck home with anyone who has fought a desperate, frustrating and ultimately fruitless battle to do something to help a mentally disturbed defendant. The second story started out strong but faded. I kept expecting the defendant to try to manipulate the situation to her advantage and refuse the solution offered by the defense counsel because it wouldn't get her out of jail. It would have been more realistic.

Comments:

The Good: By episode 3 this has gotten far closer than I've seen anything get to how indigent defense works.

Concerns: I hope the background soap operas fade away. They are a distraction and do nothing to help the interesting parts. I fear they will actually become a greater part of the series, moving the series into a grittier version of LA Law.

The Bad: The series fails what I'm going to call the "My Cousin Vinny Test." If you've listened to the director's narration on My Cousin Vinny you've heard him explain that what he set out to do was to set up a situation wherein everyone was acting in good faith with honest belief.

No one in the PD's office is acting in bad faith. However, the same cannot be said of the judge or the prosecutor's office. An example of this is in the last episode's mentally ill storyline. A young prosecutor is concerned over whether he should prosecute the mentally infirm individual. The chief prosecutor basically tells him to suck it up and go convict the guy because it'll cause bad press and affect tourism if he does not. Really? Why couldn't the chief prosecutor give a more valid answer along the lines of "We don't have perfect tools. Our job is to protect the citizens of this city. If we can do that and help correct the defendant fine. If we cannot we must still protect the citizens, even if all we can do is just keep this guy put away where he can't harm anyone."? This underlying theme of bad faith hurts the stories.


The Characters:




Jerry is the primary protagonist. He is true believer, driven nearly mad by a system he sees as terribly flawed, and seems to get an inordinate number of innocent clients who are being ground under by an unjust justice system. So far not one of his clients was guilty. Not a single one.

In five years Jerry will be burnt out, or an alcoholic, or have left the office in disgust, or gone postal, or he'll be that guy who everyone in the Bar hates and avoids. In most cases a guy like Jerry hurts his clients because the judges stop listening to him and start punishing his clients just because they had the bad luck of having him appointed to represent him. However, in this series he is somehow successful.




Judge Kessler is venal, rude, self absorbed, and stoopid. Her main concern seems to be getting elected district attorney, not offending the voters or the judicial inquiry board, and making sure defendants (who are all guilty) go to prison for as much time as possible. We've all stood in front of judges whom we've given nicknames like "Hang-em High Harry", "Maximum Mike", or "No Chance Nader" these judges play the game well enough not to say things before even scheduling a sentencing hearing like "I warn you that I'm going to sentence your client to the maximum sentence." They just do it.

Oh, BTW, she's also having an affair with her clerk; said clerk is presented as calling all the real legal shots from behind the scenes - at least those which require any kind of thought or compassion.




The Gay Law Clerk - I can't even remember the name of this guy because he is imprinted in my mind with the title supra. He's sleeping with the judge and maneuvering to get her position on the bench after she becomes DA. He also seems to be the power behind the bench, steering the judge to her few sane moments. In his spare time he goes down to the local gay clubs and picks up random guys.

This has storyline disaster written all over it. It is the biggest threat to cause the soap opera to overwhelm the legal stories. There's already one guy he's slept with in position to blackmail him.




The Prosecutors.

The guy on the left is the honest, very talented, smart prosecutor. So far, he's been the one voicing ethical concerns and playing everything straight. I admit that I'm wondering how long that will last.

The gal in the middle was sleeping with Jerry in the first episode, but that all ended during the second episode when she went so far as to deport Jerry's witness because he was going to prove that Jerry's murder defendant was not guilty.

The guy on the right is the chief prosecutor. I don't think he's supposed to be the DA, but I'm not sure. He's a huge sexist, win-at-all-costs, evidence hiding, morally corrupt jerk. He hid the fact that there was evidence that the accused in episode 1 was not guilty of rape in order to protect a conviction and would have gotten away with it if the guy on the left hadn't know about it and passed the information along.




The Head PD. Not much to say about her so far. She's mostly just been filler so far and the object of the Rich Kid's lust.




The Rich Kid: His name is actually Richard and he is (or at least his father is) extremely wealthy. His legal stories have been the secondary stories. As such, there hasn't been as much license taken with them and they have come across closer to reality. I keep waiting to see defendants try to manipulate this guy. He just looks like the angst-driven, rich kid who they would decide they could manipulate because he doesn't have experience in their down and gritty world. He looks like low hanging fruit and it would be interesting to see him go through the experience of toughing up.


The Clients: So far, these may have been the most disappointing part of the show. They've all been grateful, cooperative, and friendly. In reality some defendants are like that. Others aren't. Where are the jailhouse lawyers with strange ideas who won't believe the attorney? Where are the guys who refuse to listen to advice? The ones who demand jury trials despite overwhelming evidence? The defendants who try to con the defense attorney with a bad story (or even out of his own money)? The ones who accuse the defense attorney of being on the side of the judge and prosecutor? The mothers, girlfriends, and others who blame the defense because the defendant gets convicted of a robbery he was videotaped doing (if we'd had a paid lawyer . . . ) Where's the guy who is so obviously trying to do things before and during his trial to set the defense attorney up for a habeas or Bar complaint?
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 3 comments

Sep 15, 2008
CLTV 40: Expungement and Innocence in Virginia
Taking the former discussion about innocence further, I discuss the expungement statute in Virginia and some bad case law which has strayed from the clear meaning of the statute.

Here it is in larger format over at CLTV.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 14, 2008
I Hate Explorer
Well, I wrote the page once and it worked with Opera, Firefox and even Chrome. Of course, it didn't work with Explorer. I don't know why. All I know is that I had to rewrite it in a different way to get it to work.

Hopefully, it's working well now. If anybody's having problems let me know.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Righteous Kill


5 Second Review: Fair to middlin'.

30 Second Review: Two veteran detectives find themselves under the microscope when someone starts killing any of their offenders who are not convicted. Two young detectives come in and start accusing one of the Vets of being the killer. Bedlam ensues.

2 Minute Review: Across the board, all the actors in this movie turn in excellent performances. However, the bait-and-switch is obvious and the end was obvious long before it came. I did not see exactly how the resolution would occur and something happens toward the end which is meant to be shocking, but was more perplexing than anything else. A character acts inconsistently with that character's prior actions and throws an extra, unnecessarily distracting element into what could have been a far more psychologically interesting ending. If you like these actors or this kind of movie go see it - if not save your pennies for another flick.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 12, 2008
What's That Mean?
I'm in the hall after a brief hearing in court. Defendant walks past me with his girlfriend and stops to ask me a question. I tell him twice that he shouldn't talk to to me and he needs to get a defense attorney to ask questions. He persists and I try a third time: "Look, I'm on the other side. Go talk to a defense attorney."

At which time, Girlfriend, who had walked on about 10 feet, whirls and says in a voice which could blister paint, "Don't talk to him!! You're paying for his kids' Christmas! We'll go talk to John Smith. His office is across the street."

Defendant looks embarrassed, tells me thanks, and turns, following Girlfriend out of the building.

As for me, I'm left standing there wondering how my (non-existent) kids are having their Christmas paid for by this guy.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 3 comments

Sep 11, 2008
Paying for the Vacation
Why? Why do I take a vacation? I know what the week after will be like and yet I still take the vacation. Oh well, who needs to get home before 8 p.m.?
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 10, 2008
Does This Make Me Poetry?
"Comes now the petitioner, Prose, and moves this court to . . ."

I feel like I ought to reply: "Comes now the respondent, Iambic Pentameter, and asks this court to . . . "
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 9, 2008
CLTV 39: Football Bryan Station and Centre College (and Field Hockey)
Sports as I watched them over the last weekend. I traveled to go watch my High School, Bryan Station, play and my college, Centre, play their first home football games. Then I tripped over a field hockey game on Sunday before I left.

And everyone loves trains.

Here it is large over at CLTV.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 7, 2008
Rating Chrome
So, Google has put out a new browser: Chrome. I won't bother linking to it because if you've used Google in the last week you've had the link pushed at you. I've tried it and now I'm going to inflict my opinion on ya'll.

The Good

The browser is the fastest I've seen. Flash videos even seemed to load and run more quickly. One podcast I listen to even said it tests better than the upcoming version of Firefox. It's pulldown/right-click menus are better than Firefox's; they are laid out more along the lines of Opera's menus.

The Bad

It's a true Beta. I know that Google is infamous for abusing the Beta label, but this time they mean it. Weird things happened when I used cut and paste functions. At one point, I was happily opening a bunch of sites with videos and it rebooted my entire computer. Now, I had both Firefox and Opera chugging along in the background and I've not been able to reproduce it, but nothing else I was running had ever done that before.

The Ugly

Sometimes I think the fine people at Google take their obsession with simplicity too far. This browser is simple looking and simply ugly. Admittedly, I was mostly interested in seeing how fast it would run and testing basic functionality so I didn't look to see if there are alternative skins. Still, it looks like they went out of their way to make this look bad.

Conclusion

After a few bugs are worked out this is going to be the best browser out there. Of course, the others will raise their game as well so everyone will benefit (except maybe Explorer users - I'll believe Microsft can put out a good browser when I see one). For now, I'm sticking with Opera; my bookmarks are all set up with it and I've got everything tweaked the way I want it. It's not worth the hassle to switch to a browser which is still buggy and won't import my Opera bookmarks. However, you can bet money I'll be checking back on Chrome in a few months to see what it's like after the bugs are worked out.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 1 comments

Sep 5, 2008
On the Road Again . . .
Just thank goodness you can't actually hear me singing the song. I'm traveling for the next couple days, so don't expect much in the way of posts.

First, I'm going to go watch my High School play it's first home game tonight in Lexington. Sadly, the team hasn't done well in umpteen years, but last week it beat Dunbar handily so maybe they've turned the corner.




And then I'm off to watch my college's first home game Saturday. I've no clue how well they'll do this year. You see, the problem is that our players actually have to go to class and don't get scholarships.

See you all soon!
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Tagged - Even on Vacation
So, I check to see who has linked here and I see that Gideon has tagged me.
The rules are simple: name 5 blogs I read and tag 5 blawgers. Note the subtle difference: 5 blogs, not blawgs.
Ok here goes:
BNN Virginia - Aggregator of Virginia Political Blogs
Japundit - Because Japanese do some of the most interesting things
Gruntled Centre - Very bright former Prof of mine from Centre College
Spill - Audio and video movie review blog
Blogging Heads - Political video blog

5 blawgers tagged: Ubjeckshin, Blonde Justice, Seeking Justice, HOWT, & Matlock
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 3, 2008
How You End Up With a Specialized Plate
So, you're at your local court clerk's office getting your license plate replaced. You see the picture of the special license plates up on the wall and it has your college on it; it's actually a fairly decent plate. Of course, there's a $25 charge for that specialized plate which you're not going to fork over.

The very nice lady who has been helping you fill out the paperwork (who is the local judge's wife) looks up and asks if you want any plate in particular. Showing some school pride, and figuring your school is 3 hours away and the nearest other alumnus is probably almost as far away, you say with a smile, "Not unless you've got a Centre plate." There's no way they'll have one of those laying around.

The Lady turns to a younger clerk, "Maggie, do we have a Centre plate?" Maggie hits the pile of plates next to her with Olympic speed and in 2.3 seconds - before you can quickly utter anything like "Don't worry about it" or "Just kidding" - she comes out of the pile with a Centre plate in hand. The clerks have been helpful, nice, and efficient. What do you do?

I bought the dang plate.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 2, 2008
Courthouse - Letcher County Kentucky
Even when I don't have to go and work at a courthouse I end up at one. I had some business today at the Letcher County Courthouse in Whitesburg, Kentucky.

Here's the road leading up to the courthouse.



Here's the courthouse.



Here's the entrance.




Here's the Memorial to those from the county who have died defending their country. The white board you see behind the statue has a placard for each lost son of the county. At the top of the board is an eagle and "Those who share the peace honor those who preserved it."



And, of course, as there is in every small town with a courthouse - The Courthouse Cafe. Ate lunch there and it was pretty dang good. Cheeseburger, fries, pie, and ice tea all for about $9.00. The place was pretty classy. Wooden chairs and tables along with an honest to goodness wood floor - all used enough to look like they'd been there for 50 years and belonged there for the next 50 (classy old always trumps classy new). The topper was when I opened the menu and they had a selection of wines, beers (from Kentucky, who knew?), and some really nice bourbons. You gotta love Kentucky because people know their bourbons - it even had Blantons.

Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

The Clock





The Clock was the first masked hero/crime-fighter to ever appear in a comic book. In those days he wore a three piece suit and the above is a somewhat reimagined, modern version. There are a number of sources who think he is an inspiration for The Spirit. Whenever the Clock solved a crime he left a calling card behind which said:



Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Sep 1, 2008
Blogging the Political
Dawgonit, yet another crimlaw blawg is falling into political mode. Well, there's only one real solution for this.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 1 comments

Aug 31, 2008
Ken Want
With the price of gas in the modern day, I've looked around at scooters/mopeds a little bit. An interesting thing out there is the 3 wheelers.

I pretty much fell in love with the Piaggio MP3 at first site.



The nearest quality competition is the Brudeli 625L. It's not as cool looking as the Piaggio, but it looks sturdier and the articles claim it has more power. Of course, it's $25,000 as opposed to the $8,000 ticket on the Piaggio.



However, it doesn't look like I'd be able to afford either one of them so the Bonzai looks like it might be closer to my price range ($2,000). I like the concept of this vehicle and it's supposed to be street legal. However, since I'm not a mechanic, it probably isn't a good choice.



Of course, there are any number of two wheel vehicles selling for about $700, but none are quite as interesting as the above. Honestly, I doubt that a scooter/moped would get me over the mountains on my way to work unless I buy one of the ones with a powerful engine and I don't think I'm going to find that on this side of $5,000. Oh well, I guess I'll stick with the Jeep.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Aug 30, 2008
Why is Facebook Trying to Marry Me Off?
Every time I get on Facebook it tries to set me up with someone.





Now, not to be too cynical about things, but girls who looked like that weren't too interested in me when I was young and in far better shape. I suspect they aren't going to be more interesting nowadays unless I win the lottery and become a multi-millionaire.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 3 comments

Saturday Funnies: the Accused








From Cartoonstock. There are more; I just grabbed the ones which most tickled my fancy.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Saturday Funnies: Defense Attorney




Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

SF: Why Defense Attorneys Aren't Allowed to Argue for Jury Nullification
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Saturday Funnies: Judge
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Saturday Funnies: The Prosecutor


Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Aug 29, 2008
Animotoing
I've been playing around with Animoto. It's a site to which you upload pictures and it mixes them with music and effects. Here's an example using various logos I've used over the years:










The effects used are chosen by the web site and don't always turn out perfectly. However, it does allow you to remix using the same pictures if you are not satisfied. The above was the video I thought the best; below are two videos the were not quite as good, but show other effects which might manifest themselves.



















Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 1 comments

Aug 27, 2008
Should Juries Be Able to Declare a Defendant Innocent?
In yesterday's CLTV, I proposed that juries be given three options: guilty, not guilty, and innocent. Scott doesn't cotton to this idea at all.
It shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant, where a verdict of innocent would require that the defendant prove "actual innocence" while the prosecution tries to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ken's lightened the load a bit, suggesting that only 10 out of 12 jurors need agree on actual innocence. It's a kind thought, but still not enough.

And it suffers from yet another infirmity. It is quite possible that a wholly innocent defendant be placed into a position of appearing more likely guilty than not (the preponderance standard), when an eyewitness identifies the defendant as the perpetrator of a crime that he simply did not do. This is compelling evidence, even though it's of dubious value given the frequency of false identifications and the problems inherent in eyewitness testimony. But even when it may not be sufficient to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, rarely would a jury reject it so completely as to conclude the defendant to be innocent.
First, let me say that I recognize my idea is not a perfect - it's just better than the system as currently laid out. Currently, even if the jury thinks the charges are the most bogus, unsubstantiated pile of malarky, all it can do is find someone not guilty. Ironically, in Virginia the only way get a finding of "innocent" is to be convicted, file for a writ of actual innocence, and have it granted. I suspect this is similar to other States, although most of them probably do this in habeas proceedings where the defendant can find himself right back in murky waters. Is a defendant innocent or just not guilty if his conviction is overturned because of ineffective assistance of counsel?

In any event, I accept that in some cases the jury will find someone not guilty when he is actually innocent - just like juries now wrongly find some people not guilty or guilty. As long as we human beings are involved the system will never be perfect. However, that does not relieve of of the obligation to try to make it better.

And this system would be better. I suspect that the number of people found innocent rather than not guilty would be a small percentage. I could be wrong in this. Faced with legal mumbo-jumbo about whether someone is merely not guilty or innocent jurors may default to innocent (thus making Scott a happy man). Either way, a number of people who are now being found not guilty would find themselves completely cleared of the charge.

As to the burden of proof, I disagree with Scott. There is no burden shifting under the system as I envision it. I envision what we call around here a "waterfall instruction." It would go something like this:
If you find that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt you must then decide whether the prosecution has proven its case by a preponderance of the evidence. If 10 jurors agree that the prosecution has failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence you shall find the defendant innocent. Otherwise, you shall find the defendant not guilty.
That puts no burden whatsoever on the defendant to prove anything. In fact, in most cases it would just add ammo to the defense attorney's arguments: "Not only do they have to prove Mr. Smith "not innocent", which the prosecution has failed to do, they must climb even higher and reach beyond a reasonable doubt. Since they've failed to prove him "not innocent" they've failed abysmally in their attempt to reach that hallowed level of proof."

It'd be a pain in the posterior region. However, sometimes such a pain is acceptable if it makes the system more just.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 2 comments

Aug 26, 2008
CLTV 38: Levels of Proof & Presumptions
Why presumption of innocence is a poor concept, levels of proof, and allowing jurors to decide innocence.

Larger CLTV version here.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

Aug 25, 2008
Never Wanted to be a LawProf so Much . . .
How much does it pay?
"Salaries for full professors vary widely and remain undisclosed by most private schools. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean annual salary in 2006 for law teachers was $94,290. The median associate law professor salary, according to www.Salary.com, is $101,558. Salaries for full professors at the most elite law schools can range from $250,000 to $300,000 annually."
Just in case anybody out there an "elite" law school is wondering: Yes, I can be enticed away from my current job. Heck, I'll even give you a little bit of a discount and agree to come in for only 200,000.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 1 comments

Giving Officers Contradictary Duties
Previously on CrimLaw:
2) Should the Denver Chief of Police be fired for enforcing the laws he's sworn to enforce?
-----
Comment:
well that Denver comment is certainly pure sound-byte spin. are you saying the citizens of a city should have no say in the order of priorities for law enforcement?
Okay, here's the oath a Denver police officer takes:
I do solemnly swear by the ever-loving God that I will support the Laws and Constitution of the United States and of the State of Colorado, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City and County of Denver; and that I will faithfully perform the duties of the office of Police Officer of the City and County of Denver, to which I have been appointed.
And here's the State's statute making marihuana illegal:

18-18-406. Offenses relating to marihuana and marihuana concentrate.

(1) Any person who possesses not more than one ounce of marihuana commits a class 2 petty offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars.

(2) Whenever a person is arrested or detained for a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the arresting or detaining officer shall prepare a written notice or summons for such person to appear in court. The written notice or summons shall contain the name and address of such arrested or detained person, the date, time, and place where such person shall appear, and a place for the signature of such person indicating the person's written promise to appear on the date and at the time and place indicated on the notice or summons. One copy of said notice or summons shall be given to the person arrested or detained, one copy shall be sent to the court where the arrested or detained person is to appear, and such other copies as may be required by the law enforcement agency employing the arresting or detaining officer shall be sent to the places designated by such law enforcement agency. The date specified in the notice or summons to appear shall be at least five days after such arrest or detention unless the person arrested or detained demands an earlier hearing. The place specified in the notice or summons to appear shall be before a judge having jurisdiction of such class 2 petty offense within the county in which the class 2 petty offense charged is alleged to have been committed. The arrested or detained person, in order to secure release from arrest or detention, shall promise in writing to appear in court by signing the notice or summons prepared by the arresting or detaining officer. Any person who does not honor such written promise to appear commits a class 3 misdemeanor.

(3) (a) (I) Any person who openly and publicly displays, consumes, or uses not more than one ounce of marihuana commits a class 2 petty offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, at a minimum, by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars or, at a maximum, by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars and, notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1.3-503, by fifteen days in the county jail.

(II) Open and public display, consumption, or use of more than one ounce of marihuana or any amount of marihuana concentrate shall be deemed possession thereof, and violations shall be punished as provided for in subsection (4) of this section.

(b) Except as is otherwise provided for in paragraph (a) of this subsection (3), consumption or use of marihuana or marihuana concentrate shall be deemed possession thereof, and violations shall be punished as provided for in subsections (1), (2), and (4) of this section.

(4) (a) Any person who possesses more than one ounce of marihuana but less than eight ounces of marihuana commits:

(I) A class 1 misdemeanor; or

(II) A class 5 felony, if the violation is committed subsequent to a prior conviction in this or any other state, the United States, or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of a violation to which this subsection (4) applies or would apply if convicted in this state.

(b) Any person who possesses eight ounces or more of marihuana or any amount of marihuana concentrate commits:

(I) A class 5 felony; or

(II) A class 4 felony, if the violation is committed subsequent to a prior conviction in this or any other state, the United States, or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of a violation to which this subsection (4) applies or would apply if convicted in this state.

(5) Transferring or dispensing not more than one ounce of marihuana from one person to another for no consideration shall be deemed possession and not dispensing or sale thereof.

(6) The court may utilize treatment, probation, and deferred prosecution or deferred sentencing for any person who violates subsection (4) of this section.

(7) (a) Any provision of this article to the contrary notwithstanding, any person eighteen years of age or older who transfers or dispenses more than one ounce of marihuana for consideration to any person under eighteen years of age but at least fifteen years of age or any amount of marihuana concentrate, with or without consideration, to another person under eighteen years of age commits a class 4 felony and, in addition to the punishment prescribed in section 18-1.3-401, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars. For offenses committed on or after July 1, 1985, the fine shall be in an amount within the presumptive range set out in section 18-1.3-401 (1) (a) (III).

(b) Any person eighteen years of age or older who transfers or dispenses any amount of marihuana, with or without consideration, to any person under the age of fifteen years commits a class 4 felony and, in addition to the punishment provided in section 18-1.3-401, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars. For offenses committed on or after July 1, 1985, the fine shall be in an amount within the presumptive range set out in section 18-1.3-401 (1) (a) (III).

(c) Any person commits a class 3 felony, if the violation is committed subsequent to a prior conviction in this or any other state, the United States, or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of a violation to which this subsection (7) applies or would apply if convicted in this state, and, in addition to the punishment provided in section 18-1.3-401, the court shall sentence the defendant to the department of corrections for at least the minimum term in the presumptive range. For offenses committed on or after July 1, 1985, the fine shall be in an amount within the presumptive range set out in section 18-1.3-401 (1) (a) (III).

(8) (a) (I) No person knowingly shall cultivate, grow, produce, process, or manufacture any marihuana or marihuana concentrate or knowingly allow to be cultivated, grown, produced, processed, or manufactured on land owned, occupied, or controlled by him any marihuana or marihuana concentrate except as authorized pursuant to part 3 of article 22 of title 12, C.R.S.

(II) Any person who violates the provisions of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a) commits:

(A) A class 4 felony; or

(B) A class 3 felony, if the violation is committed subsequent to a prior conviction in this or any other state, the United States, or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of a violation to which this subsection (8) applies or would apply if convicted in this state.

(b) (I) Except as is otherwise provided in subsection (7) of this section and except as authorized by part 3 of article 22 of title 12, C.R.S., or by part 2 or 3 of this article, it is unlawful for any person knowingly to manufacture, dispense, sell, distribute, or possess with intent to manufacture, dispense, sell, or distribute marihuana or marihuana concentrate; or attempt, induce, attempt to induce, or conspire with one or more other persons, to manufacture, dispense, sell, distribute, or possess with intent to manufacture, dispense, sell, or distribute marihuana or marihuana concentrate.

(II) As used in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b), "dispense" does not include labeling, as defined in section 12-22-102 (16), C.R.S.

(III) Any person who violates any of the provisions of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b) commits:

(A) A class 4 felony; or

(B) A class 3 felony, if the violation is committed subsequent to any prior conviction in this or any other state, the United States, or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of a violation to which this subsection (8) applies or would apply if convicted in this state.

(9) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2003, p. 1428, ยง 12, effective April 29, 2003.)

(10) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any person who possesses, uses, prescribes, dispenses, or administers any drug classified under group C guidelines of the national cancer institute, as amended, approved by the federal food and drug administration.

(11) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any person who possesses, uses, prescribes, dispenses, or administers dronabinol (synthetic) in sesame oil and encapsulated in a soft gelatin capsule in a federal food and drug administration approved drug product, pursuant to part 3 of article 22 of title 12, C.R.S.

(12) In addition to any other penalty imposed by this section, upon each conviction, entry of plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or receipt of a deferred sentence for a nonfelony violation of this section or adjudication as a delinquent for an act that would constitute a nonfelony violation of this section if committed by an adult, any driver's permit or minor driver's license held by the offender shall be suspended as provided in section 42-2-127.3, C.R.S.


Good gracious, that is a huge statute; Virginia's anti-marijuana statute is all of a single paragraph.

Anyway, you have officers which swear an oath to federal, State and local laws. In case there's any confusion here, federal trumps State and State trumps local. Even if Colorado has walked away from the Dillon Rule (IDK), the fact that the State has set out a law makes that the law of the entire State. It does not matter if
"[i]n Denver, voters . . . voted to legalize personal possession of marijuana" and "voted in majority numbers for a failed statewide legalization initiative."
The law of the State remains the law of the entire State and the responsibility of police to enforce.

Now, as to this:
"[Denver voters] voted to make marijuana enforcement police's lowest priority."
Really? Do you think that police are salivating at the mere thought of enforcing simple possession of marijuana violations? Most every marijuana possession I've seen comes out of something else. These "lower enforcement" ordinances probably aren't legal and whether they are or not, they are basically just propaganda.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 2 comments

When is a Rockefeller Not a Rockefeller?
When he's Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, a German who tried to kidnap his daughter.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

No Dissent for You
The problem with refusing to let a Supreme Court Justice publish his dissent is that there are plenty of other places to publish it and it gets more attention than it ever would have.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

BritGov Loses Prisoner Info
for 130,000 prisoners.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments

The Virtual Boyfriend Plot
If you plan to kidnap your virtual boyfriend you probably shouldn't leave your real dog behind.
Ken Lammers . . . Permalink . . . 0 comments