Last night, Texas executed one of my former clients, Robert Thompson, for a capital murder in which he was not the shooter. The shooter, Sammy Butler, although charged with capital murder, was convicted of a lesser and sentenced to life. He'll be eligible for parole in a couple of years and likely will be free someday.
The difference: their lawyers.
Butler was represented by Rocket Rosen. Thompson's lead counsel was terrible.
I was appointed to do the state application for writ of habeas corpus. When I looked into the background of his lawyer, I was shocked.
The man's license to practice law had been suspended three times before he was appointed to represent Thompson in December 1996. Two of the three suspensions were for messing up cases. One was for sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer. Two of the three suspensions were partially probated and the third fully probated.
The worst was the third suspension, in 1995 -- only a year before being appointed to represent Thompson -- was for messing up a court-appointed criminal case. A jury found professional misconduct and a district judge ordered his license suspended for 27 months (with the last 24 months probated).
What is truly amazing is that the judge who presided over the trial stayed enforcement of the three-month active suspension so that the lawyer could represent a defendant in a death penalty trial.
That defendant was luckier than Thompson. After the jury was picked, the District Attorney's Office agreed to let him plead guilty for a life sentence rather than face the death penalty.
That lawyer no longer is eligible to receive appointments in capital murder cases. But, the Harris County district judges have certified him to represent indigents charged with any other felonies, including those punishable by up to life in prison.
An argument can be made that Thompson richly deserved the death penalty. The murder for which he was executed was only the last in a string of convenience store robbery-murders he and Butler pulled. But, he shouldn't have died for this killing. He wasn't the triggerman and the triggerman did not face the death penalty because he had a great lawyer while Thompson had a poor one.
Butler's lawyer argued that Butler did not intend to kill the clerk he shot. Thompson's lawyer argued that he did not anticipate that there would be a killing even though Thompson shot another clerk four times, then tried to beat him to death with the cash register drawer.
The difference is sentences probably is why the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted 5-2 to recommend that Gov. Rick Perry commute his sentence to life. Perry had done it before in a similar case in which the triggerman got life and the getaway driver got death. But, the governor chose instead to let Thompson die for a killing he did not commit while the killer is almost eligible for parole.
I have no moral problems with the death penalty in a proper case. I am sure that in some cases, if I were on a jury I could vote to sentence someone to death. But, if the State of Texas is going to kill people, they should have good lawyers not empty suits.
Society owes it to itself to ensure that people who face the ultimate punishment are properly represented.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
A UN tribunal is Ignoring genocide in Rwanda
I've ranted and raved a bit about the Harris County Criminal Justice system. Now, it's time for a little ranting on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
The tribunal's leadership says it is trying to end impunity for war criminals. But it has delivered impunity to the victors in a civil war even though it has substantial evidence of serious war crimes by the victorious army.
The tribunal's prosecutors have evidence of 500,000 murders and it is doing nothing to prosecute the perpetrators. Instead, it is engaged in a bit of butt kissing with the leaders of the murderous army.
The tribunal was set up by the United Nations Security Council in 1994 to try persons charged with war crimes in the genocide in that Central African nation. The country was and still is divided into two basic ethnic groups -- Hutus and Tutsis.
The Hutus make up about 85 percent of the population and ruled the country before the 1994 genocide. Minority Tutsis, generally children of Tutsis who left the country for Uganda in the early 1960s, invaded the country in 1990 and defeated the government army and took power in July 1994.
Most of the world's attention has been focused on the massacres of Tutsis from the time the president's plane was shot down on April 6, 1994, until the government went into exile in mid-July. And, it was terrible. Somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 Tutsis were murdered.
So, the tribunal has indicted what it calls the leaders of the genocide. One of the defendants is my client, Prosper Mugiraneza, the former minister of civil service.
While I think Prosper is innocent, I can't complain about trials of the Hutu leadership if there is evidence of their guilt.
But, I'm shocked and amazed that the tribunal is simply ignoring as many as a half-million murders of Hutus by Tutsis during the war. It's just wrong.
A lot of defense types at the ICTR, some expert witnesses for the prosecution and exiled Hutus have complained for years that the the tribunal is delivering victor's justice, that is, just prosecuting the Hutus while ignoring crimes by the Tutsis. One expert witness for the prosecution in many trials, a Belgian professor named Filip Rentjens, has flatly refused to testify for the prosecution again until at least one Tutsi is indicted. Another, the late Allison des Forges, has testified and written that approximately 40,000 Hutus were killed by Tutsis.
But, des Forges was off by a factor of 10, according to some evidence gathered and suppressed by the tribunal's prosecutors. A couple of years ago, prosecution witness was interviewing a Tutsi who knew about the actions of the Rwandan Popular Front army, the main Tutsi political group and the eventual victors in the civil war. He asked how many Hutus were killed by the RPF army and thought the answer was mistranslated. So, he wrote down the number he thought was right, 50,000. The witness said, no, then added an extra zero, making it 500,000 dead.
A half million dead people and the prosecutors at the UN tribunal haven't even said that it is tacky conduct. Why?
Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Kagame government in Rwanda is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US government. And, the US writes the biggest checks to the UN. So, part of it is the golden rule, he that has the gold rules.
A second reason is the tribunal's completion strategy. The Tribunal with a $130 million plus annual budget is a money pit for the UN. All to try about 70 defendants -- all Hutus -- since 1994. The tribunal has promised the UN Security Council it will finish all trials by the end of 2010 and nothing is going to stand in the way. Indict some Tutsi officials and the completion strategy goes down the tube.
Most important is that the tribunal is scared to death of crossing the Rwandan government. Most of the witnesses come from Rwanda and the government can turn off the flow of witnesses like a tap. And, the tribunal knows it can because it has at least once in the past.
That was the case of Jean-Basco Barayagwiza. He was an official in the former government's foreign ministry charged with inciting the genocide.
In 1999, the tribunal's appeals chamber ruled unanimously that the charges against Baraygwiza should be dismissed due to violations of his rights after he was arrested.
The Rwandan government went nuts. It cut off cooperation with the tribunal. The tribunal almost instantly ground to a halt.
So what happened? The prosecutor s filed a b.s. motion to reconsider. Four months after its initial decision, the appeals chamber reversed itself in a decision that ranks with Bush v. Gore for intellectual honesty. Instead of releasing Baraygawiza, the appeals chamber ordered that if acquitted he be given cash compensation and it convicted, his sentence be reduced to account for the violations of his rights.
In 2003, Baraygawiza was convicted. His two co-defendants got life. But, to give credit for the violation of his rights, Baraygawiza -- who was then 53 years old -- was sentenced to "only" 35 years in prison. Given the credit on his sentence for time served, he would have only been 80 years old when he completed his sentence.
On appeal, his sentence was reduced to 33 years. So, he can look forward to being released when he's 78.
If the Rwandan government is willing to cut off the tribunal for releasing a single defendant like Baraygawiza, what would it do it the tribunal indicted the president of Rwanda and his top military and political subordinates? It would go mad. You can bet the tribunal's office in Rwanda would be closed and the staff there run out of town on a rail. As for witnesses in the trials in progress. When pigs fly.
This isn't to say that the judges on the tribunal always cave in to pressure from the Rwandan government. To the contrary, the tribunal has acquitted six defendants including cabinet ministers and senior military leaders of the former government. I expect more acquittals. For instance, I truly believe my client has a shot at being acquitted.
And, the judges have shown the spine to refuse to transfer defendants to Rwanda for trial due to worries about the Rwandan judicial system. The Rwandan government screamed like stuck pigs when that happened but the tribunal's judiciary commendably stuck to its guns.
But, the powers that be such as the prosecutor and the top administrator, aren't about to get the Rwandan government mad at them.
So, the long and the short of it is that the tribunal likely will do half of its job to end impunity for mass murders. It ended impunity for those who lose.
As for the winners, well, what the heck. It was only a half-million Hutus killed. There are lots of Hutus in Rwanda and a few more or less won't make any difference.
The tribunal's leadership says it is trying to end impunity for war criminals. But it has delivered impunity to the victors in a civil war even though it has substantial evidence of serious war crimes by the victorious army.
The tribunal's prosecutors have evidence of 500,000 murders and it is doing nothing to prosecute the perpetrators. Instead, it is engaged in a bit of butt kissing with the leaders of the murderous army.
The tribunal was set up by the United Nations Security Council in 1994 to try persons charged with war crimes in the genocide in that Central African nation. The country was and still is divided into two basic ethnic groups -- Hutus and Tutsis.
The Hutus make up about 85 percent of the population and ruled the country before the 1994 genocide. Minority Tutsis, generally children of Tutsis who left the country for Uganda in the early 1960s, invaded the country in 1990 and defeated the government army and took power in July 1994.
Most of the world's attention has been focused on the massacres of Tutsis from the time the president's plane was shot down on April 6, 1994, until the government went into exile in mid-July. And, it was terrible. Somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 Tutsis were murdered.
So, the tribunal has indicted what it calls the leaders of the genocide. One of the defendants is my client, Prosper Mugiraneza, the former minister of civil service.
While I think Prosper is innocent, I can't complain about trials of the Hutu leadership if there is evidence of their guilt.
But, I'm shocked and amazed that the tribunal is simply ignoring as many as a half-million murders of Hutus by Tutsis during the war. It's just wrong.
A lot of defense types at the ICTR, some expert witnesses for the prosecution and exiled Hutus have complained for years that the the tribunal is delivering victor's justice, that is, just prosecuting the Hutus while ignoring crimes by the Tutsis. One expert witness for the prosecution in many trials, a Belgian professor named Filip Rentjens, has flatly refused to testify for the prosecution again until at least one Tutsi is indicted. Another, the late Allison des Forges, has testified and written that approximately 40,000 Hutus were killed by Tutsis.
But, des Forges was off by a factor of 10, according to some evidence gathered and suppressed by the tribunal's prosecutors. A couple of years ago, prosecution witness was interviewing a Tutsi who knew about the actions of the Rwandan Popular Front army, the main Tutsi political group and the eventual victors in the civil war. He asked how many Hutus were killed by the RPF army and thought the answer was mistranslated. So, he wrote down the number he thought was right, 50,000. The witness said, no, then added an extra zero, making it 500,000 dead.
A half million dead people and the prosecutors at the UN tribunal haven't even said that it is tacky conduct. Why?
Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Kagame government in Rwanda is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US government. And, the US writes the biggest checks to the UN. So, part of it is the golden rule, he that has the gold rules.
A second reason is the tribunal's completion strategy. The Tribunal with a $130 million plus annual budget is a money pit for the UN. All to try about 70 defendants -- all Hutus -- since 1994. The tribunal has promised the UN Security Council it will finish all trials by the end of 2010 and nothing is going to stand in the way. Indict some Tutsi officials and the completion strategy goes down the tube.
Most important is that the tribunal is scared to death of crossing the Rwandan government. Most of the witnesses come from Rwanda and the government can turn off the flow of witnesses like a tap. And, the tribunal knows it can because it has at least once in the past.
That was the case of Jean-Basco Barayagwiza. He was an official in the former government's foreign ministry charged with inciting the genocide.
In 1999, the tribunal's appeals chamber ruled unanimously that the charges against Baraygwiza should be dismissed due to violations of his rights after he was arrested.
The Rwandan government went nuts. It cut off cooperation with the tribunal. The tribunal almost instantly ground to a halt.
So what happened? The prosecutor s filed a b.s. motion to reconsider. Four months after its initial decision, the appeals chamber reversed itself in a decision that ranks with Bush v. Gore for intellectual honesty. Instead of releasing Baraygawiza, the appeals chamber ordered that if acquitted he be given cash compensation and it convicted, his sentence be reduced to account for the violations of his rights.
In 2003, Baraygawiza was convicted. His two co-defendants got life. But, to give credit for the violation of his rights, Baraygawiza -- who was then 53 years old -- was sentenced to "only" 35 years in prison. Given the credit on his sentence for time served, he would have only been 80 years old when he completed his sentence.
On appeal, his sentence was reduced to 33 years. So, he can look forward to being released when he's 78.
If the Rwandan government is willing to cut off the tribunal for releasing a single defendant like Baraygawiza, what would it do it the tribunal indicted the president of Rwanda and his top military and political subordinates? It would go mad. You can bet the tribunal's office in Rwanda would be closed and the staff there run out of town on a rail. As for witnesses in the trials in progress. When pigs fly.
This isn't to say that the judges on the tribunal always cave in to pressure from the Rwandan government. To the contrary, the tribunal has acquitted six defendants including cabinet ministers and senior military leaders of the former government. I expect more acquittals. For instance, I truly believe my client has a shot at being acquitted.
And, the judges have shown the spine to refuse to transfer defendants to Rwanda for trial due to worries about the Rwandan judicial system. The Rwandan government screamed like stuck pigs when that happened but the tribunal's judiciary commendably stuck to its guns.
But, the powers that be such as the prosecutor and the top administrator, aren't about to get the Rwandan government mad at them.
So, the long and the short of it is that the tribunal likely will do half of its job to end impunity for mass murders. It ended impunity for those who lose.
As for the winners, well, what the heck. It was only a half-million Hutus killed. There are lots of Hutus in Rwanda and a few more or less won't make any difference.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Long pretrial incarceration and our judges
In Sunday's Chronicle, there was a long story about lengthy pretrial incarceration and how some people blame the current system of court appointments for defense counsel for the indigent.
That's not true. The real blame should be placed at the feet of our elected judges and the county's bailbondsmen.
Lisa Olsen's sources seem to think a public defender system would solve this problem.
As Col. Potter in the classic television show M*A*S*H would have said, Horsehockey!
Once a criminal charge is filed, with a very few rare exceptions, the case ends in one of three ways. The defendant pleads guilty, the prosecution dismisses the case or it goes to trial.
I don't see how a public defender's office can change the possible outcomes. About the only way it could speed up the system is by pleading its clients quickly or convincing the prosecution to dismiss more cases. If it manages to do one of those things, it will reduce the number of cases set for trial, thereby reducing pretrial delay. But otherwise, it's hard to see how a public defender's office could reduce jail crowding.
The real reason most indigents sit in jail awaiting trial is simple. They're broke and can't afford to post a bond. Along with that, our judges often raise bonds or revoke them because the defendants violate conditions set on their bonds.
There is a solution to this problem. It's not novel. It's been around for 35 years. All we have to do is use it.
It's the Harris County Pre-Trial Release Agency.
In the mid-1970s, as part of a suit challenging overcrowding in the Harris County Jail, then-U.S. District Judge Carl O. Bue ordered creation of the agency. The idea was that people charged with crimes would be released on their own recognizance rather than being forced to hire bailbondsmen or sit in jail. A lot of research was done to determine what factors are good predictors of a person's likelihood to show up for trial. Every person booked into the jail is interviewed using those predictors and given a score.
The factors range from criminal history to whether they have a job and a home telephone.
It isn't a new concept. In federal court, magistrate judges routinely conduct detention hearings to determine if a person should be released pretrial or detained. If a person is ordered released, the magistrate judges set conditions and often require them to place 10 percent of a bond amount in the registry of the court. When the case is over, they get it back.
If the magistrate judge believes the person is likely to flee or be a danger to society, they stay in jail. Money or lack thereof makes little difference. Ask R. Allen Stanford, who is in federal detention because he was found to be a flight risk.
But, that's not how it works in Harris County.
If a defendant or his family can't come up with a bondman's fee -- a minimum of 10 percent of the bond -- or collateral to guarantee that a bondsman can recoup his losses if a defendant does not appear, the defendant sits in jail until his case is disposed of.
Bondsmen promise to pay Harris County the amount of the bond if a defendant does not appear in court. And, if a defendant runs, they usually are given a period of time to catch him and get him in jail. Dog the Bountyhunter on television is one of those persons who hunts absconding clients for bondsmen.
I haven't looked in a while but at one time, the failure to appear rate for defendants on bonds was about the same as that for defendants released on personal bonds. And, any comparison now might be useless because so few personal bonds are granted.
The reason is simple. Bondsmen are in the business of making bonds and collecting their fees. For every personal bond granted, there is one less potential customer for the bondsmen. So, they do what any American business does when politicians like elected judges have control over their profits.
They give campaign contributions. And, even if they don't give a lot of money to judicial campaigns, the judges know darn well that they can and will if a judge grants too many personal bonds.
So, the pre-trial release agency has been reduced to an agency that supervises people who post bonds and who have conditions of bonds imposed on them. It's the pretrial release agency that tests urine samples from defendants, ensures that they follow court-imposed curfews and follow whatever other conditions the judges set. But, those conditions only go into effect when the defendant ponies up the money for a bondsman. And, they can be imposed on personal recognizance bonds too.
If the pretrial release agency was allowed to do what Judge Bue expected, it could do a lot to reduce jail crowding, just like Judge Bue expected. That in turn would save the county a lot of money running the jail.
And, pretrial personal bonds could save the county money another way. If the defendants were required to post a percentage of the personal bond with the county, most lawyers would take an assignment on that as part of the down payment on a fee.
That in turn could mean fewer court appointed lawyers. Every dollar that goes to a bondsman is one less dollar to pay a defendant's lawyer.
In Austin, Travis County judges are aggressive in their use of pretrial personal recognizance bonds. Bondsmen are practically out-of-business there. So, they should have fewer people sitting in jail awaiting trial. The system works there, just like it works for the feds.
Using personal recognizance bonds won't empty the jail. Some defendants will be such bad risks that the judges can and should deny personal bonds. Others will be on parole and held without bond because of parole violator warrants. But a lot could be released on personal bonds to work, support their families and possibly earn enough money to pay for their own lawyers rather than having the county's taxpayers pay because the defendant is in jail where he can't work.
There are a lot of good arguments for and against a public defender system. Jail overcrowding isn't one of them.
But, our judges could do a lot to clear out the jail and save the county a lot of money if they simply used the tools at their disposal, tools that work elsewhere and which would work here.
But, that might make the bondsmen unhappy, and who would want to do that?
That's not true. The real blame should be placed at the feet of our elected judges and the county's bailbondsmen.
Lisa Olsen's sources seem to think a public defender system would solve this problem.
As Col. Potter in the classic television show M*A*S*H would have said, Horsehockey!
Once a criminal charge is filed, with a very few rare exceptions, the case ends in one of three ways. The defendant pleads guilty, the prosecution dismisses the case or it goes to trial.
I don't see how a public defender's office can change the possible outcomes. About the only way it could speed up the system is by pleading its clients quickly or convincing the prosecution to dismiss more cases. If it manages to do one of those things, it will reduce the number of cases set for trial, thereby reducing pretrial delay. But otherwise, it's hard to see how a public defender's office could reduce jail crowding.
The real reason most indigents sit in jail awaiting trial is simple. They're broke and can't afford to post a bond. Along with that, our judges often raise bonds or revoke them because the defendants violate conditions set on their bonds.
There is a solution to this problem. It's not novel. It's been around for 35 years. All we have to do is use it.
It's the Harris County Pre-Trial Release Agency.
In the mid-1970s, as part of a suit challenging overcrowding in the Harris County Jail, then-U.S. District Judge Carl O. Bue ordered creation of the agency. The idea was that people charged with crimes would be released on their own recognizance rather than being forced to hire bailbondsmen or sit in jail. A lot of research was done to determine what factors are good predictors of a person's likelihood to show up for trial. Every person booked into the jail is interviewed using those predictors and given a score.
The factors range from criminal history to whether they have a job and a home telephone.
It isn't a new concept. In federal court, magistrate judges routinely conduct detention hearings to determine if a person should be released pretrial or detained. If a person is ordered released, the magistrate judges set conditions and often require them to place 10 percent of a bond amount in the registry of the court. When the case is over, they get it back.
If the magistrate judge believes the person is likely to flee or be a danger to society, they stay in jail. Money or lack thereof makes little difference. Ask R. Allen Stanford, who is in federal detention because he was found to be a flight risk.
But, that's not how it works in Harris County.
If a defendant or his family can't come up with a bondman's fee -- a minimum of 10 percent of the bond -- or collateral to guarantee that a bondsman can recoup his losses if a defendant does not appear, the defendant sits in jail until his case is disposed of.
Bondsmen promise to pay Harris County the amount of the bond if a defendant does not appear in court. And, if a defendant runs, they usually are given a period of time to catch him and get him in jail. Dog the Bountyhunter on television is one of those persons who hunts absconding clients for bondsmen.
I haven't looked in a while but at one time, the failure to appear rate for defendants on bonds was about the same as that for defendants released on personal bonds. And, any comparison now might be useless because so few personal bonds are granted.
The reason is simple. Bondsmen are in the business of making bonds and collecting their fees. For every personal bond granted, there is one less potential customer for the bondsmen. So, they do what any American business does when politicians like elected judges have control over their profits.
They give campaign contributions. And, even if they don't give a lot of money to judicial campaigns, the judges know darn well that they can and will if a judge grants too many personal bonds.
So, the pre-trial release agency has been reduced to an agency that supervises people who post bonds and who have conditions of bonds imposed on them. It's the pretrial release agency that tests urine samples from defendants, ensures that they follow court-imposed curfews and follow whatever other conditions the judges set. But, those conditions only go into effect when the defendant ponies up the money for a bondsman. And, they can be imposed on personal recognizance bonds too.
If the pretrial release agency was allowed to do what Judge Bue expected, it could do a lot to reduce jail crowding, just like Judge Bue expected. That in turn would save the county a lot of money running the jail.
And, pretrial personal bonds could save the county money another way. If the defendants were required to post a percentage of the personal bond with the county, most lawyers would take an assignment on that as part of the down payment on a fee.
That in turn could mean fewer court appointed lawyers. Every dollar that goes to a bondsman is one less dollar to pay a defendant's lawyer.
In Austin, Travis County judges are aggressive in their use of pretrial personal recognizance bonds. Bondsmen are practically out-of-business there. So, they should have fewer people sitting in jail awaiting trial. The system works there, just like it works for the feds.
Using personal recognizance bonds won't empty the jail. Some defendants will be such bad risks that the judges can and should deny personal bonds. Others will be on parole and held without bond because of parole violator warrants. But a lot could be released on personal bonds to work, support their families and possibly earn enough money to pay for their own lawyers rather than having the county's taxpayers pay because the defendant is in jail where he can't work.
There are a lot of good arguments for and against a public defender system. Jail overcrowding isn't one of them.
But, our judges could do a lot to clear out the jail and save the county a lot of money if they simply used the tools at their disposal, tools that work elsewhere and which would work here.
But, that might make the bondsmen unhappy, and who would want to do that?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Remembering Clyde Woody
Clyde was a defense lawyer here forever. He died Saturday at 89.
Clyde was licensed in 1952 and for many years with his partner Mirian Rosen, they defended many tough cases. I don't know when Clyde stopped practicing but I haven't seen him for years.
I got to know him when I was a reporter for the Chronicle. We weren't that close but I had a lot of respect for him and the work he did.
Houston has one of the best criminal defense bars in the country. Over the years, giants like Percy Foreman, Will Gray and Clyde began that tradition. They worked with young lawyers like me (well, I was young once) but most important, they gave us something to shoot for.
Percy, Will and Clyde are all gone now and the youngsters they mentored are getting up in years. It's time we all stopped for a few minutes and remember the giants who made the Houston defense bar what it is.
Clyde was licensed in 1952 and for many years with his partner Mirian Rosen, they defended many tough cases. I don't know when Clyde stopped practicing but I haven't seen him for years.
I got to know him when I was a reporter for the Chronicle. We weren't that close but I had a lot of respect for him and the work he did.
Houston has one of the best criminal defense bars in the country. Over the years, giants like Percy Foreman, Will Gray and Clyde began that tradition. They worked with young lawyers like me (well, I was young once) but most important, they gave us something to shoot for.
Percy, Will and Clyde are all gone now and the youngsters they mentored are getting up in years. It's time we all stopped for a few minutes and remember the giants who made the Houston defense bar what it is.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Roman Polanski busted
It's been 31 years since Roman Polanski fled after pleading guilty to raping a 13-year-old girl. He jumped bond and fled to France after it appeared that a judge was not going to follow a plea bargain that limited incareration to 46 days time served.
That kind of thing wouldn't happen in Texas. If Texas judges decide not to follow a plea bargain, they have to let the defendant withdraw his plea. But not so in federal court and apparently California. There, once a defendant pleads, he is stuck with it even if the judge rejects the plea bargained sentence recommendation of the prosecution.
What amazes me isn't that Polanski ran. I'm amazed that he is getting so much sympathy.
At the end of the day, Polanski was a baby raper. He did the nasty with a 13-year-old. That's simply unacceptable conduct.
As a criminal defense lawyer, I'm used to making just about any argument to help my clients, but Polansky's supporters have one-upped me. One is arguing that the 76-year-old film director has "atoned for the sins of his younger years" by not being able to enter the United States and work in Hollywood.
Come on. His younger years? He was 45 years old at the time of the rape. That isn't a mistake by a hormone-crazed teen-aged boy. He was an adult and should have known better.
I know Polanski has had serious troubles in his life. He is a Holocaust survivor whose mother was murdered in Auschwitz. His wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered along with their unborn child by the Charles Manson family. He has and deserves my sympathy for that. But, he still has to face justice for the sexual assault of a child.
However, there may be some light at the end of the tunnel for Polanski. A California judge earlier found substantial misconduct in the case involving a prosecutor not assigned to Polanski's case. It's possible that he may get the benefit of the plea bargain he agreed to. Or, the charges may be dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct.
If there was prosecutorial misconduct, Polanski deserves relief and the prosecutor -- now retired -- should be punished. But, it doesn't change the fact that Polanski stood in open court and admitted having sex with a child.
He should be returned to the United States so the legal system can do its job. The matter can't be resolved as long as he is a fugitive.
Now the tough question: Why was he allowed to live in France for three decades while he was a fugitive from justice. Sure, he's a French citizen. And, one would expect France to protect its citizens. But when the French foreign minister says it "just isn't nice" to expect Polanski to be held accountable for a crime he admitted is going just a bit far.
Maybe it's time to take a new, long look at the extradition treaty the United States has with France. It may be time for an update.
That kind of thing wouldn't happen in Texas. If Texas judges decide not to follow a plea bargain, they have to let the defendant withdraw his plea. But not so in federal court and apparently California. There, once a defendant pleads, he is stuck with it even if the judge rejects the plea bargained sentence recommendation of the prosecution.
What amazes me isn't that Polanski ran. I'm amazed that he is getting so much sympathy.
At the end of the day, Polanski was a baby raper. He did the nasty with a 13-year-old. That's simply unacceptable conduct.
As a criminal defense lawyer, I'm used to making just about any argument to help my clients, but Polansky's supporters have one-upped me. One is arguing that the 76-year-old film director has "atoned for the sins of his younger years" by not being able to enter the United States and work in Hollywood.
Come on. His younger years? He was 45 years old at the time of the rape. That isn't a mistake by a hormone-crazed teen-aged boy. He was an adult and should have known better.
I know Polanski has had serious troubles in his life. He is a Holocaust survivor whose mother was murdered in Auschwitz. His wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered along with their unborn child by the Charles Manson family. He has and deserves my sympathy for that. But, he still has to face justice for the sexual assault of a child.
However, there may be some light at the end of the tunnel for Polanski. A California judge earlier found substantial misconduct in the case involving a prosecutor not assigned to Polanski's case. It's possible that he may get the benefit of the plea bargain he agreed to. Or, the charges may be dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct.
If there was prosecutorial misconduct, Polanski deserves relief and the prosecutor -- now retired -- should be punished. But, it doesn't change the fact that Polanski stood in open court and admitted having sex with a child.
He should be returned to the United States so the legal system can do its job. The matter can't be resolved as long as he is a fugitive.
Now the tough question: Why was he allowed to live in France for three decades while he was a fugitive from justice. Sure, he's a French citizen. And, one would expect France to protect its citizens. But when the French foreign minister says it "just isn't nice" to expect Polanski to be held accountable for a crime he admitted is going just a bit far.
Maybe it's time to take a new, long look at the extradition treaty the United States has with France. It may be time for an update.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
A Public Defender for Houston?
I think it's a done deal.
I'm not sure whether I think it is a good idea or not but I think we're going to see a state public defender's office in Harris County in the next year or so.
Why am I unsure about whether it's a good idea? A lot of it is money. And a lot is independence for a public defender's office.
The Federal Public Defender's Office in Houston and the Southern District of Texas is top drawer. The lawyers there refer to themselves as the best defense money can't buy.
Congress overall does a pretty good job of funding the various federal public defender offices and organizations. Their pay rates and benefits are the same as prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office. The public defender who runs the office is chosen by the circuit court of appeals for a fixed term, subject to reappointment.
Roland Dahlin, the first public defender here, was routinely re-appointed every five years until he decided he wanted to retire. This lent stability to the office. People knew and still know they can make a career in the office. This attacts good people who don't want to have the hassle of running a private law practice. And, it's still that way.
Just as important, the case load is reasonable. The assistant federal public defenders aren't deluged with cases they don't have the time to work up. They have enough time and enough help to do a good job on their cases.
A state public defender's office likely will lack a number of the strengths in the federal system.
First, the head of the office, like all appointed county department heads, will serve at the pleasure of the Commissioners Court. And, the staff will serve at the pleasure of the department head.
While the current commissioners and county judge may truly want an effective public defender's office, who can say who will have those jobs next year or 10 years from now.
Closely related to the lack of job security is money, cash, the funds to do the job and hire enough of the right people.
There already are cries that county payments for court appointed defense counsel is excessive. New assistant district attorneys fresh out of law school start near $60,000 per year. A defense lawyer who receives that much in court appointed fees is going to find his name on the front page of the Chronicle.
And, the assistant district attorneys jobs come with benefits ranging from retirement and health insurance to offices and staff. Guess who pays for those in a defense lawyer's office.
Case load is directly related to how much money is appropriated by the commissioners. About two-thirds of the defendants in Harris County's felony courts are indigent. The more money that is appropriated, the more attorneys and staff that can be hired and the lower the case load on the individual lawyers.
A defense attorney should not be expected to handle as many cases as a prosecutor. The prosecutor gets a file with an offense report from a police agency as a starter. While defense lawyers usually get to see those reports also, they have to investigate from the beginning. There often are huge weaknesses in police investigations, weaknesses that prosecutors often don't see or don't want to see. It is amazing how often a trip to the scene will show that police officers couldn't see what they say they saw. There might be a building or tree in the way blocking the view. Or the officer may have been so far from the action that he couldn't see what he says he clearly saw.
That means that defense attorneys, either public defenders or private practice lawyers appointed to represent individual clients, have to do a lot of things which prosecutor's either don't have to do or who have the Houston Police Department to do for them.
If (when) we get a public defender's office, it will be a jolly scene every year when the head of the office asks commissioners for more taxpayer money to hire more staff to do a better job defending dope dealers, killers and baby rapers. Forget that the clients are accused of being dope dealers, killers and baby rapers.
It's always a lot easier for the prosecutors to get more money out of the commissioners than it is to get more money for indigent defense.
Almost universally, state public defender's offices are underfunded and lawyers have too many cases. It may not be the situation in Harris County at the start. But you can bet it will sooner or later.
And, what lawyers are going to work for a state public defender? Not 10 years from now but at the start.
Criminal defense lawyers are some of the most independent people in the world. As a group, we don't want to work in a big bureaucracy. Most of us are sole practicioners or in small firms. We don't have a lot of administrative forms to fill out or rules related to working hours, sick leave and vacations. We just work until the work's done.
Some experienced defense lawyers will sign on for things like reasonable benefits and a regular salary. But a lot -- especially some of the best -- won't want to work for the government.
Once a PD gets off the ground, it will hire, train and mentor young lawyers who stay with the office. But in the beginning, it will have a lot of freshly-minted law school grads.
On the other hand, the current system has both its strengths and weaknesses.
In state court, the court appointed lawyers are chosen by the judges who will try the case. Unlike past years, they don't have free reign. They have a computer-generated random selection list they have to choose from. Or, they hire long-term lawyers who handle all of their indigent cases.
Many judges are transfixed with their dockets and how quickly it "moves," that is, how long it takes to dispose of cases. Many cases can be -- and should be -- disposed of quickly. If a defendant tells his lawyer he is guilty and he wants to take the deal offered by the prosecutor, at the end of the day it's the client's case and his wishes must be respected.
And, while each defendant is legally presumed innocent, we should all hope that the police don't make cases against innocents and that prosecutors don't take charges in cases where they can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, judges are tempted to appoint lawyers who will "move" the cases, that is dispose of them quickly, usually with a guilty plea.
The quality of lawyers on long-term contracts with a court depends on the judge. Judge Mike McSpadden, who was the first to enter into contracts with defense lawyers, wants the lawyers he hires to handle cases expeditiously but he also wants the indigent defendants in his court to have a good defense. He expects those lawyers to do a good job for all of their clients.
But not all judges will have McSpadden's sense of fairness. Others might give contracts to cop out lawyers who do nothing but arrange pleas and force them down clients' throats.
In federal court, the private panel lawyers appointed to represent indigents are chosen by magistrate judges who will not try the case. They don't have to worry about docket control or moving cases. That's the district judge's job. The magistrate judges have fewer incentives to appoint lawyers who will plead the cases early.
One reform which should be adopted if some form of private counsel appointment system is retained is to take take the trial judges out of the business of selecting lawyers to represent the indigent. In both state and federal court, there are screening systems to chose a list of lawyers eligible for appointment. In state court it is more formalized and includes tests for new lawyers who want appointments and annual continuing education requirements.
Once a lawyer is on the appointment list, there is a presumption that he or she can handle cases on the level for which the lawyer is approved. So, let's go to a strict rotation system in which I don't get second appointment until every other lawyer at my level of certification has had one. There should be a safety valve judges to either reject or pick a specific lawyer based on individual circumstances of a case. But that should be used sparingly and the judge should have to explain why he circumvented the rotation system.
That will take judges out of the appointment system and prevent repeated appointments of lawyers known only for moving a docket.
The bottom line is that there isn't any perfect system to select lawyers for indigent defendants. Every system has its ups and its downs, its strong points and its weak points.
What is sure is that there will never be a perfect system and whatever system is used, it will be underfunded. While many in the public scream too much taxpayer money is going to defend "criminals," providing competent defense lawyers for indigents charged with crimes is as important and as basic a function of government as building roads or putting out fires.
I'm not sure whether I think it is a good idea or not but I think we're going to see a state public defender's office in Harris County in the next year or so.
Why am I unsure about whether it's a good idea? A lot of it is money. And a lot is independence for a public defender's office.
The Federal Public Defender's Office in Houston and the Southern District of Texas is top drawer. The lawyers there refer to themselves as the best defense money can't buy.
Congress overall does a pretty good job of funding the various federal public defender offices and organizations. Their pay rates and benefits are the same as prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office. The public defender who runs the office is chosen by the circuit court of appeals for a fixed term, subject to reappointment.
Roland Dahlin, the first public defender here, was routinely re-appointed every five years until he decided he wanted to retire. This lent stability to the office. People knew and still know they can make a career in the office. This attacts good people who don't want to have the hassle of running a private law practice. And, it's still that way.
Just as important, the case load is reasonable. The assistant federal public defenders aren't deluged with cases they don't have the time to work up. They have enough time and enough help to do a good job on their cases.
A state public defender's office likely will lack a number of the strengths in the federal system.
First, the head of the office, like all appointed county department heads, will serve at the pleasure of the Commissioners Court. And, the staff will serve at the pleasure of the department head.
While the current commissioners and county judge may truly want an effective public defender's office, who can say who will have those jobs next year or 10 years from now.
Closely related to the lack of job security is money, cash, the funds to do the job and hire enough of the right people.
There already are cries that county payments for court appointed defense counsel is excessive. New assistant district attorneys fresh out of law school start near $60,000 per year. A defense lawyer who receives that much in court appointed fees is going to find his name on the front page of the Chronicle.
And, the assistant district attorneys jobs come with benefits ranging from retirement and health insurance to offices and staff. Guess who pays for those in a defense lawyer's office.
Case load is directly related to how much money is appropriated by the commissioners. About two-thirds of the defendants in Harris County's felony courts are indigent. The more money that is appropriated, the more attorneys and staff that can be hired and the lower the case load on the individual lawyers.
A defense attorney should not be expected to handle as many cases as a prosecutor. The prosecutor gets a file with an offense report from a police agency as a starter. While defense lawyers usually get to see those reports also, they have to investigate from the beginning. There often are huge weaknesses in police investigations, weaknesses that prosecutors often don't see or don't want to see. It is amazing how often a trip to the scene will show that police officers couldn't see what they say they saw. There might be a building or tree in the way blocking the view. Or the officer may have been so far from the action that he couldn't see what he says he clearly saw.
That means that defense attorneys, either public defenders or private practice lawyers appointed to represent individual clients, have to do a lot of things which prosecutor's either don't have to do or who have the Houston Police Department to do for them.
If (when) we get a public defender's office, it will be a jolly scene every year when the head of the office asks commissioners for more taxpayer money to hire more staff to do a better job defending dope dealers, killers and baby rapers. Forget that the clients are accused of being dope dealers, killers and baby rapers.
It's always a lot easier for the prosecutors to get more money out of the commissioners than it is to get more money for indigent defense.
Almost universally, state public defender's offices are underfunded and lawyers have too many cases. It may not be the situation in Harris County at the start. But you can bet it will sooner or later.
And, what lawyers are going to work for a state public defender? Not 10 years from now but at the start.
Criminal defense lawyers are some of the most independent people in the world. As a group, we don't want to work in a big bureaucracy. Most of us are sole practicioners or in small firms. We don't have a lot of administrative forms to fill out or rules related to working hours, sick leave and vacations. We just work until the work's done.
Some experienced defense lawyers will sign on for things like reasonable benefits and a regular salary. But a lot -- especially some of the best -- won't want to work for the government.
Once a PD gets off the ground, it will hire, train and mentor young lawyers who stay with the office. But in the beginning, it will have a lot of freshly-minted law school grads.
On the other hand, the current system has both its strengths and weaknesses.
In state court, the court appointed lawyers are chosen by the judges who will try the case. Unlike past years, they don't have free reign. They have a computer-generated random selection list they have to choose from. Or, they hire long-term lawyers who handle all of their indigent cases.
Many judges are transfixed with their dockets and how quickly it "moves," that is, how long it takes to dispose of cases. Many cases can be -- and should be -- disposed of quickly. If a defendant tells his lawyer he is guilty and he wants to take the deal offered by the prosecutor, at the end of the day it's the client's case and his wishes must be respected.
And, while each defendant is legally presumed innocent, we should all hope that the police don't make cases against innocents and that prosecutors don't take charges in cases where they can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, judges are tempted to appoint lawyers who will "move" the cases, that is dispose of them quickly, usually with a guilty plea.
The quality of lawyers on long-term contracts with a court depends on the judge. Judge Mike McSpadden, who was the first to enter into contracts with defense lawyers, wants the lawyers he hires to handle cases expeditiously but he also wants the indigent defendants in his court to have a good defense. He expects those lawyers to do a good job for all of their clients.
But not all judges will have McSpadden's sense of fairness. Others might give contracts to cop out lawyers who do nothing but arrange pleas and force them down clients' throats.
In federal court, the private panel lawyers appointed to represent indigents are chosen by magistrate judges who will not try the case. They don't have to worry about docket control or moving cases. That's the district judge's job. The magistrate judges have fewer incentives to appoint lawyers who will plead the cases early.
One reform which should be adopted if some form of private counsel appointment system is retained is to take take the trial judges out of the business of selecting lawyers to represent the indigent. In both state and federal court, there are screening systems to chose a list of lawyers eligible for appointment. In state court it is more formalized and includes tests for new lawyers who want appointments and annual continuing education requirements.
Once a lawyer is on the appointment list, there is a presumption that he or she can handle cases on the level for which the lawyer is approved. So, let's go to a strict rotation system in which I don't get second appointment until every other lawyer at my level of certification has had one. There should be a safety valve judges to either reject or pick a specific lawyer based on individual circumstances of a case. But that should be used sparingly and the judge should have to explain why he circumvented the rotation system.
That will take judges out of the appointment system and prevent repeated appointments of lawyers known only for moving a docket.
The bottom line is that there isn't any perfect system to select lawyers for indigent defendants. Every system has its ups and its downs, its strong points and its weak points.
What is sure is that there will never be a perfect system and whatever system is used, it will be underfunded. While many in the public scream too much taxpayer money is going to defend "criminals," providing competent defense lawyers for indigents charged with crimes is as important and as basic a function of government as building roads or putting out fires.
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Criminal Justice System and the Mentally Ill
In the approximately 10 years I spent trying cases before the international tribunals, I got out of touch with the criminal justice system in Houston. Now that I'm back, I see that there are more mentally ill people in the system than when I left. A whole lot more.
Last weekend, my psychologist interviewed three defendants in the Harris County Jail. He says two are incompetent to stand trial.
One is charged with assaulting a police officer. It's the second time he's been charged with that. In 2004, he was found incompetent, sent to a state hospital and returned after he was treated and returned to competency, he pled guilty.
The other is charged with drug dealing. He thinks he's the "Earth King."
Both have been through the system many times before.
Just about any felony judge and just about any intellecually honest prosecutor or defense attorney will admit that the holdover cells in the courthouse are filled with people who have severe mental illness, many of whom self medicate with cocaine. Nationwide, taxpayers probably spend billions of dollars annually to lock up the non-violent mentally ill. Given the number of pills taken by some of my clients, the county's pharmacy bill alone must be staggering.
OK, I understand that a lot of mentally ill people can be violent and dangerous. We need secure facilities for them, but perhaps they should be more hospital-like than prison-like. The goal should be to treat people, get them out of the criminal justice system and work towards a return to society.
We have had untreated more and more mentally people on the streets since the 1960s, when Gov. Ronald Reagan started closing mental hospitals and putting the patients on the streets. The theory was that it would be cheaper and more humane to treat them with medications through local programs han it was to keep them hospitalized with Nurse Ratchett.
The only problem is that there has never been enough funding for local treatment programs.
The end result is that these folks include many if not most of the homeless. They're often dirty and strange looking. Nobody wants them in front of their business, stores or restaurants. So, there's pressure to get them off the streets.
Add that to the self medicating and you have a revolving door to the jailhouse.
I don't have the answers. If I did, I'd run against Gov. Goodhair and, hopefully get more than 39 percent of the votes. But, as a society, we owe these, often the least of our brethern, something better than the Harris County Jail.
There needs to be someplace other than the criminal justice system to deal with these people.
Last weekend, my psychologist interviewed three defendants in the Harris County Jail. He says two are incompetent to stand trial.
One is charged with assaulting a police officer. It's the second time he's been charged with that. In 2004, he was found incompetent, sent to a state hospital and returned after he was treated and returned to competency, he pled guilty.
The other is charged with drug dealing. He thinks he's the "Earth King."
Both have been through the system many times before.
Just about any felony judge and just about any intellecually honest prosecutor or defense attorney will admit that the holdover cells in the courthouse are filled with people who have severe mental illness, many of whom self medicate with cocaine. Nationwide, taxpayers probably spend billions of dollars annually to lock up the non-violent mentally ill. Given the number of pills taken by some of my clients, the county's pharmacy bill alone must be staggering.
OK, I understand that a lot of mentally ill people can be violent and dangerous. We need secure facilities for them, but perhaps they should be more hospital-like than prison-like. The goal should be to treat people, get them out of the criminal justice system and work towards a return to society.
We have had untreated more and more mentally people on the streets since the 1960s, when Gov. Ronald Reagan started closing mental hospitals and putting the patients on the streets. The theory was that it would be cheaper and more humane to treat them with medications through local programs han it was to keep them hospitalized with Nurse Ratchett.
The only problem is that there has never been enough funding for local treatment programs.
The end result is that these folks include many if not most of the homeless. They're often dirty and strange looking. Nobody wants them in front of their business, stores or restaurants. So, there's pressure to get them off the streets.
Add that to the self medicating and you have a revolving door to the jailhouse.
I don't have the answers. If I did, I'd run against Gov. Goodhair and, hopefully get more than 39 percent of the votes. But, as a society, we owe these, often the least of our brethern, something better than the Harris County Jail.
There needs to be someplace other than the criminal justice system to deal with these people.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Malmedy and al-Queda
Malmedy is a word that most people won't recognize today. But once, it was a rallying cry for the U.S. Army and its aftermath have important lessons for prisoners captured as part of the War on Terror.
Malmedy is a small town in Belgium. During the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, SS troops massacred about 85 American prisoners of war near that city. The troops were commanded by SS Lt. Col. Joachim Pieper. After the war, more massacres came to light and it generally is accepted that Pieper's troops killed about 315 American POWs and another 110 civilians during the battle.
For Pieper and his stormtroopers, the Malmedy massacre probably was only a slight unpleasantness. After all, compared to what they had done on the Russian Front, it was small potatoes.
However, the American authorities took a different view. When Pieper and his troops were captured after the German surrender in May 1945, they were transferred to the Dachau concentration camp for trial. Pieper, his division commander and about 75 other SS men were tried. Forty-three, including Pieper, were sentenced to hang. Another 22 got life sentences and eight received lesser sentences.
In my opinion, if the defendants were guilty, the sentences were richly deserved. If I had been there, I gladly would have pulled on the rope to hang Pieper.
Now, the rest of the story.
After the trial, allegations surfaced that Pieper and his men were tortured, kept on starvation diets and put through mock trials in order to extract confessions. The Supreme Court considered the case but the vote was a tie, with four voting to vacate the sentences and four voting to affirm. The ninth justice, Robert Jackson, had been the lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal and recused himself.
The Secretary of the Army appointed a commission headed by a Texas judge to investigate. While the commission did not take a public stand on the allegations of torture, it did confirm the mock trials. Later, a subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee investigated and agreed with commutation of all of the death sentences. No one seriously contested the defendants' guilt.
All of the defendants eventually walked out of prison. Pieper was the last, after serving about 11 years. He went to work for Porsche and a Volkswagen dealer. He eventually moved to France, where he was killed in 1976 during a firebomb attack on his home.
Why is the story of Malmedy important to how we deal with al-Queda and other terrorists? It's because Americans are a fair people who at the end of the day will come out for justice over revenge.
We've heard and read horrible stories about the torture of al-Queda prisoners by the U.S. and its agents. Aside from the fact that torture is illegal, immoral and stupid, I'm afraid that someday one of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 will walk out the door because of his treatment.
Torture is illegal both under US law and the Torture Convention. It's immoral and if someone needs me to explain why, I can never convince them that it is wrong. And it's stupid because you can never be sure of the information you get. I know people who can get a confession from President Obama that he was the guy on the grassy knoll in Dallas who shot Kennedy, even though he was only 2 years old when it happened.
Let's be straight about this. I have no sympathy for terrorists. The people who planned and financed 9/11 deserve a fair trial followed by what they have coming to them.
But, at the end of the day, the American people won't stand for convictions and executions based on torture.
We're Americans and this is the United States of America. We have to be what we are. And, we are a nation founded on the Rule of Law. I want Osama bin Laden to get a fair trial in front of 12 citizens of Manhattan. I don't want to see him walk out of jail because his conviction was based on torture.
Malmedy is a small town in Belgium. During the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, SS troops massacred about 85 American prisoners of war near that city. The troops were commanded by SS Lt. Col. Joachim Pieper. After the war, more massacres came to light and it generally is accepted that Pieper's troops killed about 315 American POWs and another 110 civilians during the battle.
For Pieper and his stormtroopers, the Malmedy massacre probably was only a slight unpleasantness. After all, compared to what they had done on the Russian Front, it was small potatoes.
However, the American authorities took a different view. When Pieper and his troops were captured after the German surrender in May 1945, they were transferred to the Dachau concentration camp for trial. Pieper, his division commander and about 75 other SS men were tried. Forty-three, including Pieper, were sentenced to hang. Another 22 got life sentences and eight received lesser sentences.
In my opinion, if the defendants were guilty, the sentences were richly deserved. If I had been there, I gladly would have pulled on the rope to hang Pieper.
Now, the rest of the story.
After the trial, allegations surfaced that Pieper and his men were tortured, kept on starvation diets and put through mock trials in order to extract confessions. The Supreme Court considered the case but the vote was a tie, with four voting to vacate the sentences and four voting to affirm. The ninth justice, Robert Jackson, had been the lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal and recused himself.
The Secretary of the Army appointed a commission headed by a Texas judge to investigate. While the commission did not take a public stand on the allegations of torture, it did confirm the mock trials. Later, a subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee investigated and agreed with commutation of all of the death sentences. No one seriously contested the defendants' guilt.
All of the defendants eventually walked out of prison. Pieper was the last, after serving about 11 years. He went to work for Porsche and a Volkswagen dealer. He eventually moved to France, where he was killed in 1976 during a firebomb attack on his home.
Why is the story of Malmedy important to how we deal with al-Queda and other terrorists? It's because Americans are a fair people who at the end of the day will come out for justice over revenge.
We've heard and read horrible stories about the torture of al-Queda prisoners by the U.S. and its agents. Aside from the fact that torture is illegal, immoral and stupid, I'm afraid that someday one of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 will walk out the door because of his treatment.
Torture is illegal both under US law and the Torture Convention. It's immoral and if someone needs me to explain why, I can never convince them that it is wrong. And it's stupid because you can never be sure of the information you get. I know people who can get a confession from President Obama that he was the guy on the grassy knoll in Dallas who shot Kennedy, even though he was only 2 years old when it happened.
Let's be straight about this. I have no sympathy for terrorists. The people who planned and financed 9/11 deserve a fair trial followed by what they have coming to them.
But, at the end of the day, the American people won't stand for convictions and executions based on torture.
We're Americans and this is the United States of America. We have to be what we are. And, we are a nation founded on the Rule of Law. I want Osama bin Laden to get a fair trial in front of 12 citizens of Manhattan. I don't want to see him walk out of jail because his conviction was based on torture.
Welcome to my blog
I've been practicing law for 19 years with Schneider & McKinney. And, I've had a good time.
Working with Stan Schneider and Troy McKinney is a real privilege and it can be a lot of fun. Stan and Troy are two of the best lawyers I know.
Before that, I spent 15 years as a reporter for the Houston Chronicle and a year as a reporter for the Midland Reporter-Telegram.
A few weeks ago, I wrote a short op-ed piece for the Chronicle about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. I thought then and I still think he was arrested for contempt of cop, not the color of his skin.
I had forgotten what an ego trip it is to write something, then have a lot of people read it. So, I thought about blogging.
After Troy started his blog, Law4Lunch, I made up my mind that I should do it too.
I can't promise how often I will post. A lot depends on how much work I have and whether something sets me off.
One of the things I want to discuss is how the criminal justice system handles -- and abuses -- the mentally ill. It isn't anything malicious. It's simply a matter of no other organ of government has the ability to deal with them, so the criminal justice system gets the job by default.
And, I am sure I will write about the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. When I do, you can bet there will be some unhappy people on New York, UN headquarters; The Hague, the site of the ICTY; and Arusha, Tanzania, where the ICTR is located. Especially Arusha.
So, while I work myself into a proper rage and compose my rants, I hope this blog will be thought provoking.
Talk to you soon.
Working with Stan Schneider and Troy McKinney is a real privilege and it can be a lot of fun. Stan and Troy are two of the best lawyers I know.
Before that, I spent 15 years as a reporter for the Houston Chronicle and a year as a reporter for the Midland Reporter-Telegram.
A few weeks ago, I wrote a short op-ed piece for the Chronicle about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. I thought then and I still think he was arrested for contempt of cop, not the color of his skin.
I had forgotten what an ego trip it is to write something, then have a lot of people read it. So, I thought about blogging.
After Troy started his blog, Law4Lunch, I made up my mind that I should do it too.
I can't promise how often I will post. A lot depends on how much work I have and whether something sets me off.
One of the things I want to discuss is how the criminal justice system handles -- and abuses -- the mentally ill. It isn't anything malicious. It's simply a matter of no other organ of government has the ability to deal with them, so the criminal justice system gets the job by default.
And, I am sure I will write about the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. When I do, you can bet there will be some unhappy people on New York, UN headquarters; The Hague, the site of the ICTY; and Arusha, Tanzania, where the ICTR is located. Especially Arusha.
So, while I work myself into a proper rage and compose my rants, I hope this blog will be thought provoking.
Talk to you soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
