Fight ‘Em ‘Til We Can’t

The Billings media is all abuzz about a nearby small town cop who arrested someone for misdemeanor DUI and negligent endangerment after the cop shot at the guy through the windshield of his own patrol car. Yeah. Video available at the above link, w/more here and here.

Also in the local headlines, a high speed chase took another life Friday morning. There are some jurisdictions that have made it illegal for cops to pursue at high speeds in urban areas. The logic is: If you don’t chase at high speeds, people are much less likely to drive at high speeds where doing so puts many people at risk. Get the license plate, send cars ahead, monitor the suspect, and pick that person up later. Could such a tactic have saved this woman’s life? We’ll never know, but it certainly makes sense to me.

Unfortunately, it looks like the victim’s family won’t be able to sue the pursuing cops, at least it doesn’t sound like it based on this report of a 2007 SCOTUS decision on a similar issue. More comment here, w/links to what was apparently the decisve cop car video in the case, which was Scott v. Harris. Fascinating. Someday I’d love to have time to dig deeper into this, but it’s not going to be today….

For something completely different, here’s how a federal jury is picked in Billings and that “Montana is the largest geographically of the 94 judicial districts in the continental U.S.,” meaning some jurors might have to drive nearly 300 miles to appear for jury duty. Crazy. Also in the story: A potentially good voir dire question when you think race might be a factor in your case: “Do you tell jokes about minorities?” It’s amazing how many people do, which is just one reason why Judge Cebull’s claim that race “doesn’t matter to Montana juries” is naive at best. Montana is somehow the only place in the country that sees no color? Riiiiight.

The writer of The Mahablog recently finished serving as a juror and “forepersonlady” in a marijuana possession case and says the experience was maddening:

The People contended that a substantial quantity of marijuana that had been found near, not in, the defendant’s apartment had been in the possession of the defendant. The People’s case had holes you could drive a truck through. The detective on whose uncorroborated testimony the prosecution’s entire case was based was caught in several, um, inconsistencies while he was on the witness stand.

Glenn Greenwald’s reaction to the above post is also interesting:

Our judicial system is plagued with towering and systemic flaws, but they receive relatively little public attention because only those who interact frequently with the legal system — judges and lawyers — are really aware of just how broken it is. Other than being an actual party to a civil litigation or criminal proceeding, jury duty provides the best glimpse into how the whole thing works, and Barbara’s reaction is quite typical.

How many defense attorneys go to law school (or at least decide to go into defense work) with a desire to stick it to the man, to change the system, to make a real difference for their clients? I would think the number would be high, yet, if Greenwald is right, do most of us simply become the grease that keeps the broken machine lubricated and chugging on in its dysfunctional ruts?

Inspirational, ain’t it? [tags]juries, justice system[/tags]