Fight ‘Em ‘Til We Can’t

This is a test.

On a 5-minute tape of the call, obtained by the Free Press, Sanchez told an emergency dispatcher he thought he and his wife were overdosing on marijuana. “I think we’re dying,” he said. “We made brownies and I think we’re dead, I really do.” ⇒

This morning’s email brought an unsolicited advertisement for the Child Suggestibility Litigation Library, a $179 collection of materials analyzing two cases from New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It reminded me of a case I worked on as an intern where a 40-something father of two was accused by his 5-year-old daughter of molesting her. He was an upstanding businessman who had been having problems in his marriage and it turned out that his parents-in-law had never liked him and wanted nothing more than to see him out of their daughter’s life. It further turned out that the 5-year-old’s “accusations” originated in a “conversation” with grandma about how the girl and her daddy played together. To a less paranoid or negative mind, what the child said was nothing and no indication of anything illegal or even unusual, but in the mind of someone who was looking for reasons to make a wife want to leave a husband, the child’s words were prima facie evidence of abuse. The case was fascinating to me as an intern because it raised so many difficult issues about parents, children, witness reliability, and the way in which questions suggest can suggest their own answers—especially for 5-year-olds. For example, from my notes on that case:

“Simply asking a child if an event occurred will increase the chance that the child will later say that the event occurred, even if it did not.” Clayton Gillette, Appointing Special Masters to Evaluate the Suggestiveness of A Child-Witness Interview: A Simple Solution to A Complex Problem, 49 St. Louis L.J. 499, 499 (Winter 2005), citing Debra A. Poole & Michael E. Lamb, Investigative Interviews of Children: A Guide for Helping Professionals, 54 (1998). “An interviewer can implant a false ‘memory’ of an event into a child’s mind simply by asking about it.” Id.

I have no idea if the Child Suggestibility Litigation Library would have been helpful for us when we were working on that case, but at least the summary of the contents could be a good starting point for anyone faced with similar issues. [tags]suggestibility, children, youths, witness reliability[/tags]

I wish I used law more often as a sword, instead of a shield, or at all. ⇒

Jail Guitar Doors is an independent initiative set up by Billy Bragg with the aim of providing musical equipment for the use of inmates serving time in Her Majesty’s prisons. ⇒

Here are things I think clients should know and require of their attorneys… ⇒

Some scholars go so far as to say that [sex offender residency restrictions] could put children in greater danger, not less – because the sex offenders go underground, because therapy works to prevent re-offense, and because limited resources are wasted enforcing the laws. “There is no evidence that residency restrictions work…” ⇒

This is old news but for the record, the Montana News Association (MNA) ran a story in March criticizing Billings Municipal Court Judge Mary Jane Knisely for ordering too many people to sign up and pay for pretrial supervision. Although I agree that pretrial supervision is being abused in Billings municipal court, at least one of the complaints of the MNA appears to be a bit misguided. The MNA suggest that the statutory authority for pretrial supervision gives the court authority to order such supervision only in PFMA or stalking cases. The MNA writes that:

Judge Mary Jane Knisely regularly orders defendants charged with non-PFMA or stalking-related offenses to pretrial supervision, which costs them, easily, hundreds of extra dollars, in addition to the costs they have to pay, if they are found guilty.

The only statutory authority for pretrial supervision (as far as I know) comes from 46-9-108(1)(f), MCA, where it is listed as one of many conditions a court may impose in order to “reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required or that will ensure the safety of any person or the community.” Thus, the statute does authorize pretrial supervision for any bailable offense.

That said, it is absolutely true that far, far too many people who face charges in Billings Municipal Court are being ordered to submit to pretrial supervision, and it is also true that the private pretrial supervision agencies charge unconscionable fees for their “services.” The MNA’s other criticisms of these private agencies — e.g. that they bully and threaten their clients and conduct random UAs and BAs w/out authority to do so (in order to make more money, no doubt) — certainly seem accurate, as well.

UPDATE: See also: Pre-trial supervision fees unfair and counterproductive

⇒