Category Archives: Law: Criminal Law

That will be some jury deliberation:

Boing Boing: Don't like my driving? Call 1-800-flesh-eating-hemadrones: A California man facing life in prison for crashing his car into a UPS truck will not dispute that his actions resulted in the death of the driver when his trial opens Monday in Nevada County Superior Court. Instead, Scott Krause's defense will argue that the defendant believed he was trying to escape man-eating subterranean beings when he ran into Drew Reynolds' truck on Jan. 6, 2004.

… In three court-ordered evaluations, the defendant stated he was fleeing subterranean beings he called “hemadrones” when he carjacked a commercial vehicle near a Nevada City, Calif., gas station and then crashed into Reynolds' service vehicle.

“Everything had to do with his escape from the hemadrones,” said Nevada County District Attorney Michael Ferguson. “According to the defendant, he was afraid they were going to put him in cargo and ship him to China to be eaten.”

The New York Times has an entertaining story today describing how a precedent is born. In this case, other courts seized on attractive legal reasoning even though the entire opinion turned out to be based on facts that had not taken the trouble to exist. See Legal Precedent Doesn't Let Facts Stand in the Way for the details.

I suppose it helps to be a lawyer to understand why this isn't nearly as weird as it sounds. Judging from the article, the original opinion was one that guided the parties — evidence is admissible if the following conditions exist. Yes, the judge wrote the opinion thinking those conditions existed…but when they turned out not to exist, the opinion was still valid as it explained why the evidence was not admissible after all. So it wasn't dicta. And if in fact other courts found the reasoning persuasive, so much the better for them. (Whether in fact the opinion is correct is, however, a whole different question….)

In an otherwise uninteresting if mildly perplexing article on Martha Stewart's first days in prison (people are sending her money?), Money magazine offers this summary of prison regulations:

Federal prison rules generally allow outsiders to send unlimited letters, money orders, magazines and other periodicals, according to David Novak, who spent time in jail for fraud before becoming a prison consultant. Inmates are barred from getting flowers, food, personal items, “sexually explicit photographs,” or Polaroid pictures.

Polaroids? It seems they have been used to smuggle drugs. Who would have guessed.

PS. I have no great sympathy for Ms. Stewart. Although her offenses against the securities laws seem pretty minor in dollars, she was about to start a term as a Director of the New York Stock Exchange, and it's perfectly appropriate in my book to hold directors of major stock exchanges to the highest standards. This is not, as some have suggested, a case against a successful woman, or against a random executive, but rather quite appropriately made an example one of the people charged with running the stock market, one of the people on the planet who could most reasonably be expected to know and comply with the rules, indeed go the extra mile to stay away from anything even borderline.

Understatement of the week dept:

IsThatLegal?: the FBI's computer system has a drive onto which agents dump their raw reports, and from which supervisors upload and review them, and quite possibly edit them, before saving them as the official reports on a different drive. The “official” reports are made available, as required by law, to defendants, but the raw reports on the so-called “I” drive have never been. Indeed, the very existence of the “I” drive has been hidden until very recently. …

This is an astonishing lapse at the FBI.

Even if (and I find it very hard to believe) the “I” drive versions of the reports in thousands of cases don't turn out to contain undisclosed exculpatory information of which the Fifth Amendment's due process clause would require production as a matter of constitutional right, we can be sure that this computer infrastructure is a flagrant violation of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 3500, which requires that the government turn over to defendants all “recorded statements” of witnesses who testify at trial.

More evidence that contempt for civil rights flourishes in a climate created by John Ashcroft & GW Bush. Or does the buck stop nowhere?

Kevin Drum:

I don't really care about immigration policy all that much, but Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo does. So he tried to get his views adopted in the Republican party platform.

When that failed, he decided to see if he could gin up a floor fight at the convention. This was more political theater than anything else, but even so he ran into an unusual problem:

There are two ways to bring a matter to the floor: One is to convince six state delegations to support the motion for a floor debate—a virtual impossibility, Tancredo realized; the other is to get 19 members of the platform committee to support bringing a matter to the floor. This latter route seemed doable to Tancredo, save for one problem: The congressman couldn't find out who, exactly, was on the platform committee. Running the platform process with all the discipline and secrecy that's come to be expected from the Bush White House, the RNC, citing security concerns, refused to divulge the identities of the handpicked delegates who served on the platform committee—even, in some cases, to other members of the platform committee.

The names of the platform committee members are a secret? For “security reasons”? Has the party leadership gone completely insane? (That's a rhetorical question, of course. No need to answer.)

And this is democracy, how exactly?