A pro se defendant in Illinois recently asked for a court-appointed “assistant” to take notes for him during his trial:
“I want an assistant to keep notes and keep track of things during trial testimony. I’m not able to keep track of everything that’s said by everybody during testimony,” said Pinkston.
I know exactly how you feel, Mr. Pinkston! Can I get an assistant like that, too, please?
The Missoulian reports that Sam Lemaich, regional head of the Department of Corrections (DOC) probation and parole for the Missoula region, will be retiring soon.
It sounds like Missoulian writer Michael Moore has a crush on Lemaich.
[tags]probation, DOC, missoula[/tags]
Not that defense attorneys would ever dream of making fun of law enforcement personnel, but if they did, they might get a chuckle out of lolcopz. Copz apparently hate it when you forget your stick.
What is this? See lolcat.
From Prosecutor Post-Script we learn that:
Who’s A Rat is a database driven website designed to assist attorneys and criminal defendants with few resources. The purpose of this website is for individuals and attorneys to post,share and request any and all information that has been made public at some point to at least 1 person of the public prior to posting it on this site pertaining to local,state and federal Informants and Law Enforcement Officers. This includes an Informant who makes his or her Informant status known to any person.
Interesting. More from the NYT. Of course, prosecutors think this is a very bad idea.
When you spend every day in the trenches fighting the big and small battles of criminal defense it’s easy to miss the big big picture, such as the fact that your legislators are currently debating whether to end the death penalty—forever. And one of our star public defenders is right in the middle of the mix:
“I am sick of doing this work,” said Ed Sheehy Jr., the Missoula public defender who fought for Dawson’s right to die. “I had to argue his interests … I can tell you it is something you will never forget.”
Go, Ed!
The legislation to end the death penalty is Senate Bill 306, full text of which is here.
(Note: You know you need to read the papers more when you learn about news like this from a pro-death prosecutor.)
[tags]death penalty, legislation[/tags]
Public Defender Stuff is currently sponsoring the first ever Public Defender Blogger Awards. Head over to vote for your favorite PD blog/blogger. I just spent far too much time going through each of the categories and casting my votes—it’s amazing what you can find in those lists. The choices can be tough b/c there’s so many excellent options. I actually couldn’t bring myself to vote in the personality/congeniality/role model categories. It’s just too hard.
One editorial note: “Fight ‘Em ‘Til We Can’t” ended up with a nomination in the category of “Best Title of a Blog That Has Nothing To Do With The Job.” I’d only point out that the title of this blog was, in fact, intended to reflect something (a good deal, I thought) about the job. See “About the name” on the bottom of this page. I guess if it needs an explanation, it just doesn’t work… [tags]blogging, meta[/tags]
The holidays can be stressful for everyone, but defenders of the accused feel a special pressure if any of their clients are in jail and have some legitimate hope of getting out sometime relatively soon. Another few days or an extra week in the clink is never a good thing, but normally it’s not a huge deal for most clients so long as they know the end is near. However, when those “few more days” mean missing xmas with the family, another few days can seem impossible to take.
I’ve been working all week to make possible the release of a client w/two young girls and a wife, all of whom miss him very much. The chances are high that he’ll be able to get out soon, but the chances that all that’s required for his release could happen in the next two days are… well… less good.
I guess I better get back to work… [tags]jail, prisoners, holidays[/tags]
At right is a photocopy of a classified advertisement that recently appeared in a local paper. (Click the image for a larger version.) What’s wrong with this picture?
Rule 7.2 of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct says “a lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services except for paying “reasonable costs” of advertising or the fees of a “qualified lawyer referral service” that has been approved by an “appropriate regulatory authority.”
Of course, if this is not advertising the services of a lawyer, Rule 7.2 wouldn’t apply. But then, might there be issues with “unauthorized practice of law”? I don’t really know, but something does seem a little less than above board here…. [tags]upl, advertising, ethics[/tags]
Today the Montana Supreme Court affirmed Wrzesinski’s conviction for felony DUI. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court (First Judicial Dist. Ct., Hon. Dorothy McCarter, presiding) erred in denying Wrzesinski’s motion to dismiss by concluding that the State did not impede the defendant from getting an independent blood test. ¶10. The Court rejected this argument, holding that any request for an independent blood test must be “clearly stated and timely made” and that Wrzesinski’s mention of such a test had not met that requirement. ¶19. Further, the defendant had not proven that the arresting officer “unreasonably impeded” his right to the test. ¶23. Officers have no legal duty to ask defendants whether they want an independent blood test; so long as the officer reads the implied consent warning which advises defendants of their right to such a test, the officer has satisfied the law. ¶25.
Wrzesinski also argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made during a routine traffic stop because the officer failed to give the defendant a Miranda warning. ¶27. The Court rejected this argument, as well, reasoning that the officer’s stop of Wrzesinski was not custodial, and therefore Wrzesinski was not entitled to the protections of Miranda. ¶34.
In my view, the most interesting part of this decision is the way it reaffirms the Court’s repudiation of the “free to leave” test for whether an interrogation is custodial. See U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544. The Court admitted that “Wrzesinski was not free to leave,” but explained that this stop still wasn’t custodial because “the facts demonstrate he was subjected to the routine process surrounding a traffic stop, noncustodial in nature, until he was placed under arrest.” ¶34. The Court relied on its reasoning in State v. Elison, 2000 MT 288, ¶33, which held that a person is not “in custody” when he/she is merely subjected to “the normal restraints that any motorist might expect to be subject to during a routine Terry stop.” The Court also relied on its holding in State v. Allen, 1998 MT 293, ¶13, where it held that a stop was not custodial where it was “public, routine, and temporary in nature.”
In short, Wrzesinski apparently reaffirms the Court’s position that police in Montana have wide latitude to detain citizens w/out advising them of their rights. Is it just me, or is this line of decisions ripe for appeal to a higher authority?
“Fight ‘Em ‘Til We Can’t” is a blog about Montana criminal defense practice and law. Its creators hope it will become a useful resource for the Montana criminal defense bar by offering news and analysis of recent crimlaw decisions from around the state, as well as discussion of crimlaw decisions and trends from around the country. As public defenders, contract attorneys, and other defense practitioners, we know that there’s a lot of experience and wisdom out there, but currently there’s no good way for that experience and wisdom to circulate among practitioners throughout the state. With your help, we’ll change that. If it works, our jobs will become easier even as we become better at doing them, with the end result being better representation for our clients.
At the moment we’re just getting things started, but if you have any feedback to offer or would like to jump in and become a part of the blog to help it grow, please let us know.
Contribute! “Fight ‘Em ‘Til We Can’t” welcomes your contributions. The easiest way to contribute is by offering a comment or opinion or asking a question in the comments to a post. In addition, we welcome your guest posts and commentary on any subject related to criminal law. That includes contrasting views or insights from prosecutors and critics of our justice system. If you’d like to be a guest or even a regular contributor to this blog, again, just let us know.
About the name: The title of the blog comes from Battlestar Galactica at the end of season 2. At that point in the show the humans have decided to settle permanently on “New Caprica,” thinking that they are safe from the Cylons there. Unfortunately, the humans are wrong, the Cylons land and take over, occupying the human settlement by force. As the Cylons march through the streets, Chief Tyrol asks Starbuck, “So what do you want to do now, Captain?” And she responds: “The same thing we always do: Fight ‘em until we can’t.”
image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace