________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

In California they are actually going to protect people's rights as they drive down the street. WOW. How do we bring that level of civilization to Virginia? Probable cause before attempting to violate 4th Amendment rights?

Let me be clear here, in Virginia this is a Courts/Legislature problem - not a law-enforcement problem. The police do their job as they are allowed to by the Legislature and Courts; they are told pretty clearly "a traffic-violation arrest ... [will] not be rendered invalid by the fact that it was 'a mere pretext for a . . . search'." Arkansas v. Sullivan, 121 S.Ct. 1876, 1878 (2001). This leads to all sorts of stops based on "reasonable articulable suspicion" that are just garbage. Then some sort of reason is found to search the car, usually permission given by a driver who does not understand that he can say "No" to the man standing next to his car with a gun and badge. The Virginia and federal courts stand strongly behind the disingenuous position that citizens in this position have the right to leave and will do so (and then get a felony eluding charge). California has raised the threshhold for a search such that an officer has to have "probable cause" before he can search. Thus the incentive for the bogus stop lessens because the officer cannot ask for the right to search.
...

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

Prosecutors cannot use writs of mandamus or prohibition as a tool to force judges not to take cases under advisement. Thanks to John McChesney et al. for their efforts in making this clear. In re: Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Roanoke.

This means that In re Commonwealth's Attorney for Chesterfield County, 229 Va. 159, 163, 326 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1985) cannot take place as of today.
...

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

They're still trying to get the executed guy's DNA tested.

Virginia's position:

"DNA testing is without a doubt a very powerful tool, but it is a tool for the living. Roger Coleman was and is guilty of the rape and murder of Wanda McCoy. All the repeated histrionics by various lawyers won't change that."

Both sides here are disturbing. The anti-death penalty group is trying to get the information for propoganda. And the only reason I can think the Commonwealth would refuse to allow the test is fear of a possible truth.
...

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

Sa'ad's wife will be testifying in federal court against him. The federal court judge ordered Sa'ad not to talk with her about it.

Yeah right!
...

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

A guard had sex with an inmate. Why was he allowed in private with her? Don't they have female guards? I've never been to a jail yet and not seen one.
...

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

Let me get this straight. A pet store sells a fish legally (it isn't dangerous to humans in any way). Then the fish's owner returns it because it got too big for the tank. Virginia makes the fish illegal on 01 January. And on the 3d of January the County of Henrico takes the fish, kills it, and puts a $1,000 fine on the manager (not the owner).

Insert your own snide comments here.

Yep, it's a real story.
...

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

This cite got a mention over at Southern Appeal. Thanks for the recommendation (and I welcome his mother).

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

==Off Point==

A search for "bomb Saddam" on google leads to these two cites:

A funny gif animation.

A 4 1/2 minute download. It's well done but it will take time to download (especially if you don't have a high speed connection).

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This came from another blog. Don't know if it's true but it is good.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FBI agents conducted a raid of a psychiatric hospital in San Diego that was under investigation for medical insurance fraud. After hours of reviewing thousands of medical records, the dozens of agents had worked up quite an appetite. The agent in charge of the investigation called a nearby pizza parlor with delivery service to order a quick dinner for his colleagues. The following telephone conversation took place and was recorded by the FBI because they were taping all conversations at the hospital:

Agent: Hello. I'd like to order 19 large pizzas and 67 cans of soda.

Pizza Man: And where would you like them delivered?

Agent: We're over at the psychiatric hospital.

Pizza Man: The psychiatric hospital?

Agent: That's right. I'm an FBI agent.

Pizza Man: You're an FBI agent?

Agent: That's correct. Just about everybody here is.

Pizza Man: And you're at the psychiatric hospital?

Agent: That's correct. And make sure you don't go through the front doors. We have them locked. You will have to go around to the back to the service entrance to deliver the pizzas.

Pizza Man: And you say you're all FBI agents?

Agent: That's right. How soon can you have them here?

Pizza Man: And everyone at the psychiatric hospital is an FBI agent?

Agent: That's right. We've been here all day and we're starving.

Pizza Man: How are you going to pay for all of this?

Agent: I have my checkbook right here.

Pizza Man: And you're all FBI agents?

Agent: That's right. Everyone here is an FBI agent. Can you remember to bring the pizzas and sodas to the service entrance in the rear? We have the front doors locked.

Pizza Man: I don't think so.
CLICK.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

You ride along with a rap band, you shoot at some fans who trailing your bus and for some reason you get arrested.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

It's hard to believe this kind of stupidity is still going on.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

Former employees are sueing the Attorney General. They'll lose but they're trying.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

The ACLU is threatening to sue if the Governor signs into law the "Choose Life" license plate. The claim is that to put out this plate without a similar plate of the opposing viewpoint (Choose Death?) is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

It's an interesting take on the matter. I have vague memories of the Sons of the Confederacy sueing Virginia because the Commonwealth wouldn't give them a plate and winning. I've actually seen a couple of them; the Sons may be few in number nowadays but they are fervent. As I remember it the rule is that as long as the Commonwealth makes plates which express any viewpoint it cannot deny a particular viewpoint its own plate (although I think a 50 plate minimum can be imposed). Of course specialty plates are not going away (would you lobby your legislator to get rid of this plate?)

I think the ACLU is pursuing the wrong remedy here. The correct action to take would be to go to the legislature and ask for whatever tasteful pro-abortion plate they wish. I do not think they could be refused a plate which said something like "Virginians for Choice." If they were denied then they would have a true constitutional issue to take to court. Even then the remedy would not be to attack the "Choose Life" plate but to force the Commonwealth to offer the "Virginians for Choice" plate under the same conditions as the "Choose Life" plate. Here is a link to the "Choose Life" bill as passed. Note that the "CL" bill does not require a certain number of plates be ordered before shipping; therefore the "VfC" could not either. Thus those who wish to express that viewpoint could do it as soon as the bill passed.

On the other hand, should the Governor cave in to this threat and refuse to sign the "CL" plate into law he clearly leaves the Commonwealth open to a suit by those who want this viewpoint expressed on a license plate.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

Hey! I'm in a newspaper! Go to the bottom of the page.

This is the kid I blawged about earlier this month who was charged with a max 10 year felony.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

NY Times article on the federal supreme court's decision to make the courts of appeals actually have habeus hearings. The issue at first glance appeared to be a Batson issue but this article makes it clear that the issue was actually whether the courts of appeals could merge their decision whether to grant a habeus with the decision on the actual merits of the habeus. They cannot. Apparently the standard for granting a habeus hearing is much lower than the actual standard of proof.

I'm not sure this will actually change many final results but it will open the federal courts to those whom habeus's (habei?) are meant to protect. After all, Lincoln isn't the President anymore.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

And in another shocking development . . . A federal judge has refused to enjoin President Bush from starting combat against Iraq.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

Here's an article wherein the Times Dispatch tells us that the Commonwealth Attorney is actually asserting that Virginia's death penalty passes constitutional muster. I know I'm shocked.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

The federal supreme court sent a habeus back to a district court because somewhat out of date statistical data and anecdotal data indicate that race may have been THE REASON that jurors were excluded by prosecutors. So now the matter must be considered by the district court; but isn't the standard so high that this is just running around in circles?

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

As I've said before, when I think that criminal law in Virginia is wierd or tough I just have to look to Texas to put things in perspective. It is an innovative punishement.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

At the end of this article the author suggests a cruel, unusual, and downright evil punishment for the UK brander. Who could suggest such an evil thing as to force association with Louisville?

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site


"[A]sking prosecutors what we should do about wrongful convictions is like asking Hannibal Lecter what we should do about cannibalism."

That has got to be the quote of the week. Doubt I'll find anything better. This is a NY Times article which bases an anti-death penalty position on the following oral argument:

Judge Stith (Missouri Supreme Court): "Are you suggesting [that] even if we find Mr. Amrine is actually innocent, he should be executed?"

Frank A. Jung, an assistant state attorney general, replied, "That's correct, your honor."

Mr. Jung is to be commended for his frankness. In most cases he may be correct. Finality and the difficulty of reprosecuting and the desire not to bother the victims any further and the fact that most claims are frivolous stacks up pretty heavily on one scale when balanced against the possibility that someone is spending a couple years in prison for a crime he may not have committed on the other. The sheer number of cases and the relatively minor punishment makes reopening difficult to justify in those cases.

However, there comes a point where the punishment becomes so severe that the scales balance and eventually tip toward the convicted. I'm not sure exactly where that point is. I suspect that, since I'm the one who has to stare the convicted client in the face and tell him that - even though he's innocent - he cannot do anything about it because it would inconvenience the system, my balancing point would be low. I suspect a prosecutor, who has to face a rape victim and tell her that the person she identified as her attacker is going free because of DNA evidence, would have a high balancing point. Living in the real world, I expect that the balancing point set by courts and legislatures will be closer to what a prosecutor would prefer.

Nevertheless, executing the actually innocent is beyond the pale.

On the other hand, the prosecutors' point about clemency being the route to go rather than the courts may actually be correct: if the clemency system is somehow made entirely apolitical; if the clemency system provides an office capable of providing serious review and making informed, apolitical recommendations; if clemency can be made to expunge a conviction from the record of someone who is actually innocent. I have doubts about this happening but I've been wrong before. I know if I were governor you'd have to show me some awfully convincing evidence before I committed political suicide by pardoning convicted rapists and murderers or even commuting their sentences. In a political position my threshhold would probably be a lot higher than it is now. And I'm a defense attorney. Most of the people who seem to make the highest office in Virginia are prosecutors.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

Russia is starting to use jury trials. And prosecutors are complaining because they only have an 88% conviction rate. And the government is making excuses to put off implimentation of the jury system.

It is disturbing that the NY Times' headline seems to show disapproval of this change.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

45 years seems light for what this man did.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

The Legislature has voted to take responsibility and pay a man who had years of his life taken away for conviction of a crime he did not commit.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

Allen, Allen, Allen, & Allen backed the Bar down over its commercials. As I understand some attorneys asked for a Bar ruling on the commercial because it uses a comparative superiority over other lawyers (the book is "The Best Lawyers in America"), lawyers are included in the book if they pay to be put in it, and the commercials inferred that all attorneys voted to put the lawyers in it.

I can't really say yea or nay to much of that; I've never even seen that book in any library. I do know that I've never voted to put anyone in it.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

The Feds have found the root of all evil: moonshine. Why are they wasting time on this?

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

A man left his child in a locked car. The child died. The jury sentences him to a year. And the judge even suspends that.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

The Feds are taking their shot at Sa'ad El-Amin and his wife. Things will become much less interesting if he is not around to stir the political pot in Richmond.

I wonder exactly what is the basis for the illegal use of a government seal charge.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

The 21 day rule is going to be changed to a 90 day rule.

Unfortunately, this does nothing to solve the problem. For those of you who do not know the rule, in general actual innocence is not a reason for a conviction to be overturned in Virginia. If new evidence, which was not known or available prior to trial is discovered within 21 days it can be brought to the trial court in order to request a new trial. There is a valid reason for the known or available evidence qualifications; it is to keep evidence which was withheld or not sought (usually for tactical reasons) by the defendant from being raised after conviction to give the defendant a second shot.

However, it is much harder to justify the date restriction. It is very hard to convince trial judges and appellate judges that you have actually discovered new evidence within 21 days (or even 90) which was absolutely unavailable just a few days prior. Why? Because common sense tells all of us that is not enough time for anything which is truly new to have developed. Serious evidentiary matters which are not available at time of trial will most often develop long after the arbitrary date when someone else confesses or new means of developing evidence (such as DNA) are developed or refined. But since actual innocence is not a reason to come back to court and the rule keeps new evidence from bringing the case back to court you have no access to the judicial system. Your only hope is a prayer for clemency but even after the governor has commuted your sentence and restored your rights that felony conviction remains on your record.

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

A school can expel you on the basis of an unproven accusation.