Category Archives: Law: Criminal Law

Legal Issue in Next Year’s Big Local Trial

Local court blogger 'Rumpole' spots an interesting legal issue in setting up the issues in the upcoming trial of the alleged killers of Sean Taylor. The alleged shooter is under 18, and thus cannot be subjected to the death penalty. The two alleged accomplices are subject to a potential death penalty under the felony murder rule:

First question: under the principle of proportionality, can the prosecution seek the death penalty for defendants who were not the shooter when they are precluded from seeking the death penalty for the shooter based on the shooter's age?

Posted in Law: Criminal Law | Comments Off on Legal Issue in Next Year’s Big Local Trial

Grand Jury Brooklyn: Due Process, from NYC to CIA

A Brooklyn grand jury has something to teach us about the rule of law — and about the CIA's secret prisons and Guantanamo too.

The author of the essay that follows, John Sifton, is an attorney and private investigator, and the director of One World Research, an investigation firm specializing in human rights and public interest cases. He posted the essay that follows to a mailing list I belong to. I liked it and asked him if I could link to it, but it turned out that it hasn't been published anywhere. John has graciously allowed me to publish it here for the first time.


Grand Jury Brooklyn: Due Process, from NYC to CIA

By John Sifton

A few months ago, in the waning days of summer, I experienced the privilege-and the banality-of serving on a criminal grand jury in Brooklyn.

For two weeks, sworn to secrecy, my fellow jurors and I heard indictments in a catalog of felony cases: murder, assault, sexual abuse, drug and weapon possession, robbery, larceny, and sundry other violations of the New York Penal Code. We listened to testimony from victims, witnesses, police officers, and alleged perpetrators and alibi-providers, and we deliberated on whether to issue indictments. It was an edifying ordeal.

My jury of 23 was a classic Brooklyn bevy: various ethnicities, ages, races, and backgrounds. Our group included subway train drivers, sanitation workers, teachers, and various others from across the socio-economic ladder (but gravitating toward the lower end). The core of the jury was comprised of women, 18 in total: eleven black, two white, two Hispanic (one old and one young), a Russian matriarch, a two young woman of East Asian and South Asian descent. The remaining five males included three black men (including the foreman), me (“the white guy”) and a very young Israeli with dual citizenship who had just finished military service guarding border posts on the West Bank. During the two weeks of service, some interesting and unexpected cliques formed.

How I came to sit on this jury was a matter of controversy to my friends and employers.

“You couldn't get out of it?” friends asked. Colleagues were also incredulous. I am a human rights lawyer and a private investigator and I work on a lot of cases involving detainees at Guantanamo Bay or secret CIA prisons-facilities in which grand juries are not used. Few believed that prosecutors allowed me to serve. Others were amazed that I didn't lie outright in order to avoid service, as others apparently have. (Various lies suggested: “I'm a Quaker, etc.” “I'm a vociferous racist; I just can't be impartial,” and “I typically have to urinate every five to ten minutes.”)

The truth is, it isn't easy to get out of grand jury service. Grand juries aren't like trial juries. Unlike trial juries, there is no adversarial process, no judges and no lawyers for the defendants; the only officials present are Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs), who run the process with a subtle but steely fist. The ADAs aren't as anxious about particular jurors as attorneys might be with trial juries. Unlike with a trial jury, votes are not as momentous, and a single juror is not as vital.

After all, grand juries do not decide guilt. Instead, they vote to indict people, and the voting need not be unanimous, nor do those who vote to indict need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed a crime. All that is needed for an indictment is that a majority of the jury, 12 out of 23, believe that it is reasonably likely that the person accused of a crime actually committed it, based on the evidence presented. Twelve Angry Men, it's not. A single Henry Fonda character, or even a vacillating Hamlet, can't screw up an indictment.

So there was little chance of escape. In the initial excusal process, wardens excuse non-working parents with children under five, doctors, non-English speakers, certain small business owners, and people with serious health problems. Others postpone their service temporarily, as I did on three previous occasions. But there are few hopes beyond this. Once you-the hapless citizen of Brooklyn-receive your summons, you're snagged in a net from which extrication is impossible. If you're a citizen, have a pulse, and live in Brooklyn, you're going to be chosen. (And if you're not chosen-say, because the juries that day are filled-they'll call you back a few weeks later when they do need you.)

* * * * *


What happens on a Grand Jury? I am forbidden by law to write about the details, as jurors are sworn to secrecy about the cases presented. But to generalize permissibly, the process goes like this on any given day:

Continue reading

Posted in Guantanamo, Law: Criminal Law | 6 Comments

Time to Ban Police Use of Tasers?

Amnesty International says,

Since June 2001, there have been more than 270 TASER-related deaths in the United States. AI is concerned that TASERs are being used as tools of routine force—rather than as weapons of last resort. Rigorous, independent, impartial study of their use and effects is urgently needed.

By all means let's get the data. It's possible that the people killed by tasers might have been shot to death by police limited to their traditional guns and truncheons. But I doubt it.

Not to mention the non-lethal abuses — like the 82-year-old Chicago woman tased when she refused to admit cops sent to check on her well-being.

Update: And how did I miss this? “The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture,'' the UN's Committee against Torture said.

Update2: Digby has a video of a Utah Highway Patrolman tasing a motorist — and then apparently lying to his partner about having given the motorist a warning. Lawsuit to follow. (But, say Digby's commentators, the real issues are pushy Taser salespeople and poor law enforcement training.)

Posted in Law: Criminal Law | 3 Comments

Ethical Questions

Looking for some ethical questions? Look no further than Kaimipono Wenger, Reparations and Net Benefit which tries to deconstruct defenses based on claims (not always plausible) of accident benefit to the victim.

Or, for something superficially less grim, see James Grimmelmann, Is Gold Farming Mandatory? A Question in Applied Virtual World Ethics

Posted in Law: Criminal Law, Virtual Worlds | Comments Off on Ethical Questions

Notes From the Trenches

I thought this prosecutor's account of a jury trial was an excellent account of daily life in the trenches.

I wonder if we could work out some sort of law class based around lawyers' accounts of their lives drawing from the so-called practical blawgosphere as much as books? Might teach quite a lot.

Posted in Law: Criminal Law | Comments Off on Notes From the Trenches

TigerDirect Security Illegally Detains a Customer

Standing up for your rights can be a pain. It certainly takes fortitude.

Thus, the events set out in TigerDirect Unlawfully Restrains And Verbally Abuses Customer For Not Submitting To Receipt-Showing Demands.

One little warning: whether a shop can demand you show a receipt to exit is most likely a question of state law — and yours might be different from his.

I once satisfied myself that Florida law does not allow a normal merchant to prevent me from exiting a shop with goods I've paid for, even if I choose not to show a receipt, so I don't show receipts when asked to at TigerDirect or CompUSA. (As I'm not admitted to practice in Florida, you shouldn't consider that legal advice.) And I'd note that I'm not sufficiently clear what the Florida law is for stores that don't admit the general public — so I do show a receipt at Costco, which requires membership before you can shop there.

Why, one might ask, would anyone be a pain about stuff like this? Are we not sympathetic with merchants being stung by shoplifters, thieves whose actions just force higher prices on the rest of us? I am sympathetic: they have a very legitimate beef, but have chosen a bad way to deal with it.

As our good friends at the Canard Enchainé say about press freedom, La liberté de la presse ne s'use que quand on ne s'en sert pas (“Freedom of the press gets used up only when unused”), so too with other freedoms.

Posted in Law: Criminal Law | 3 Comments