CrimProf Blog

G. Kristian Miccio Sturm College of Law Professor of Criminal Law

Prof. Miccio is a nationally recognized expert on the law as it affects survivors of male intimate violence. She has written, lectured, litigated and testified, at Congressional and State Legislative hearings, on the issue of male intimate violence, women survivors and conceptions of state accountability. Miccio was the author of the NYS law that opened up the family and criminal courts to survivors of male intimate violence and one of the authors of the state’s mandatory arrest law in domestic violence cases. She has won numerous awards for her work on behalf of battered women-and for her teaching. And she has been interviewed by the print and electronic media on such matters as hate crimes, violence against women, Miranda, the OJ Simpson, Kobe Bryant and Laci Peterson cases, to name a few. At the College of Law, Prof. Miccio teaches criminal law and procedure, family law, jurisprudence, and seminars on the Holocaust, the Law and Domestic Violence. In 2007, Miccio was awarded a Fulbright and taught at University College of Dublin School of Law and lectured throughout Ireland on the issue of male intimate violence, the state and conceptions of state accountability. [Mark Godsey]

Debaters argue over Utah's approach to addressing polygamy

Is Utah selling out children or protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens? Those were the clashing views of two speakers debating the state's approach to dealing with polygamy Wednesday at the University of Utah's College of Law. Marci A. Hamilton, of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, charged Utah officials with "whitewashing" problems within polygamous communities. Kirk Torgensen of the Utah Attorney General's Office offered a defense, saying the state has successfully prosecuted individual cases without "throwing a net at a whole bunch of people because they happen to hold certain beliefs."
   

The two squared off at the 25th annual Jefferson B. Fordham Debate at the University of Utah's College of Law, which posed the question of whether the state should prosecute polygamous parents and remove children from their homes. Hamilton's answer: An emphatic yes, something she praised Texas officials for doing when they raided a ranch occupied by the members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
"Religion is no excuse for illegal behavior," Hamilton said. "It's true for polygamists, it's true for priests who abuse children, it's true for churches that cover up child abuse, it's true for churches who permit children to die for medically treatable illness." Hamilton said Utah and Arizona officials had adopted a "policy of appeasement" exemplified by their efforts to work with polygamous communities, which, she said, are inherently abusive to children. Child abuse is easily hidden, she said, but polygamous behavior is not.
"It is easy to figure out who is engaging in polygamy," Hamilton said. "You just have to figure out who is going into which house. . . . If you know that even a small percentage of individuals in these circumstances are prone to abuse children, why wouldn't you enforce the criminal law?"
Hamilton said Utah has the worst record in the nation for tackling problems like clergy abuse, citing a recent ruling that tossed out a case brought by two Utah men who alleged they were abused by aCatholic priest as an example.
Unless proponents of polygamy can use the democratic process to change laws outlawing the lifestyle, then "what they are doing is criminal, not just illegal, but criminal," Hamilton said. [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Debaters argue over Utah's approach to addressing polygamy"

Prop. 5 is no boon to violent offenders

As a law professor who teaches criminal law and procedure in California, I feel compelled to weigh in on the debate over Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act. I write not as a supporter of Proposition 5 but as a law professor concerned that voters are provided correct information. A poor interpretation of Proposition 5, promoted by some biased parties, has so taken hold that several large newspapers (including The Times) have come out against the measure based on this view. I will propose what, in my view, is an accurate reading of Proposition 5 and its likely effect on California's criminal justice system.

Misleading claim: Proposition 5 gives criminals a "get out of jail free" card.

This is political messaging, not accurate analysis. According to the California Legislative Analyst's Office, Proposition 5 would expand existing programs that offer treatment in lieu of incarceration, making probation-supervised treatment an option for tens of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders each year. These treatment programs include a system of graduated sanctions designed to ensure that defendants who have the potential to succeed remain in treatment and punish those who fail to meet the requirements. Similar criminal justice-treatment partnerships exist now and are widely recognized as a viable and cost-effective alternative to incarceration. Proposition 5 simply expands these successful programs. [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Prop. 5 is no boon to violent offenders"

Judge backs county inmates in jail case

A federal judge has sided with inmates' claims that conditions in Maricopa County jails continue to violate their constitutional rights.

U.S. District Court Judge Neil V. Wake on Wednesday modified a 1995 judgment that laid guidelines for a wide range of issues in Maricopa County jails, including medical and mental-health care, population control and record keeping.

Maricopa County sheriff's officials said they plan to comply with the judge's orders.

Wake effectively pared down the original 115-point decision to 16 paragraphs that outline what the Sheriff's Office must do to at least maintain constitutional standards for pretrial inmates. The judgment also requires the Sheriff's Office to submit quarterly reports to inmates' attorneys in order to show compliance.

"Sheriff Arpaio's horrendous treatment of detainees, especially those with severe medical and mental-health problems, has caused terrible suffering for years," said attorney Margaret Winter, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project.

A number of the violations included Correctional Health Services, which is required to provide medical care for inmates. Wake said CHS violated inmate rights by not giving timely and adequate assessment of health needs and not identifying and appropriately treating many detainees with serious mental illness.

A national organization began an effort to pull accreditation from the county's jails last month after learning of potentially damaging testimony that emerged during the trial, but the jails remain accredited while county officials appeal the decision.

Sheriff's officials have long made the distinction between their role and that of Correctional Health Services, though Arpaio's critics have contended that the office's indifference in getting inmates to CHS medics violates the constitution. [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Judge backs county inmates in jail case"

Chicago torture victims face uphill legal battle

Melvin Jones says he screamed and begged for mercy as Chicago police touched metal clips to his feet and thighs, churned a hand-cranked device and sent shock waves of electricity through his body more than 25 years ago.

He says he was told the torture would stop when he confessed to murder.

Jones is among the dozens of alleged torture victims who have little hope of winning compensation, despite the arrest this week of a former police commander who officials say lied about the abuse.

Some have already completed prison terms for crimes they claim they confessed to only after police beat or electrocuted them. More than 20 remain in prison.

But the indictment of former police Lt. Jon Burge -- while a moral victory -- is unlikely to spring anyone from prison soon or prompt any quick settlement of claims for damages, lawyers for alleged torture victims say.

The state attorney general's office hasn't agreed to new trials for those claiming coerced confessions and the city opposes paying damages to alleged victims, they say.

''There hasn't been much courage shown by high political officials,'' attorney Flint Taylor, who represents Jones, said Wednesday. ''That's something that needs to be changed before this nightmare can end.''

Burge, 60, was charged with lying in a civil rights lawsuit when he said he and detectives never engaged in activities such as ''bagging'' -- covering a suspect's head with a typewriter cover until he couldn't breathe. [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Chicago torture victims face uphill legal battle"

San Francisco to Vote on Decriminalization of Prostitution

In this live-and-let-live town, where medical marijuana clubs do business next to grocery stores and an annual fair celebrates sadomasochism, prostitutes could soon walk the streets without fear of arrest.

San Francisco would become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution if voters next month approve Proposition K — a measure that forbids local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.

The ballot question technically would not legalize prostitution since state law still prohibits it, but the measure would eliminate the power of local law enforcement officials to go after prostitutes.

Proponents say the measure will free up $11 million the police spend each year arresting prostitutes and allow them to form collectives.

"It will allow workers to organize for our rights and for our safety," said Patricia West, 22, who said she has been selling sex for about a year by placing ads on the Internet. She moved to San Francisco in May from Texas to work on Proposition K.

Even in tolerant San Francisco — where the sadomasochism fair draws thousands of tourists and a pornographic video company is housed in a former armory — the measure faces an uphill battle, with much of the political establishment opposing it.

Some form of prostitution is already legal in two states. Brothels are allowed in rural counties in Nevada. And Rhode Island permits the sale of sex behind closed doors between consenting adults, but it prohibits street prostitution and brothels.

In 2004, almost two-thirds of voters in nearby Berkeley rejected decriminalization. But proponents of Proposition K say their proposal has a better shot in San Francisco, which they believe is more sexually liberal than the city across the bay.

After all, the world's oldest profession has long been established here. During the Gold Rush, the neighborhood closest to the piers was a seedy pleasure center of sex, gambling and drinking known as the Barbary Coast.

These days, on certain corners, prostitutes sell their bodies day and night, ducking into doorways and alleys when police pass by. One recent afternoon in the Mission District, six prostitutes were plying their trade on a single block.

Police made 1,583 prostitution arrests in 2007 and expect to make a similar number this year. But the district attorney's office says most defendants are fined, placed in diversion programs or both. Fewer than 5 percent get prosecuted for solicitation, which is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.

Proposition K has been endorsed by the local Democratic Party. But the mayor, district attorney, police department and much of the business community oppose the idea, contending it would increase street prostitution, allow pimps the run of neighborhoods and hamper the fight against sex trafficking, which would remain illegal because it involves forcing people into the sex trade.

The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized against the measure, saying it could make the city a magnet for prostitution.

Read full article here. [Brooks Holland]

Reporter kept the focus on police torture

At this point, most people in Chicago probably accept as true the torture allegations against retired Chicago police commander Jon Burge and mostly wonder what took so long to indict him.

It's easy to forget that was not always the case.

From the time the accusations were raised in 1983 by attorneys for cop killer Andrew Wilson until fairly recently, the collective attitude in this city was of disbelief, of not wanting to believe such a thing possible and perhaps worse -- not caring enough to demand the truth.

Many people were responsible for changing those attitudes, but I'm going to focus on just one.

As a reporter for the Chicago Reader, John Conroy wrote more than 100,000 words about the police torture scandal between the time he started looking into it in 1989 and when he was laid off last December because of budget cuts.

Although he would tell you he's only a "bit player," Conroy was probably as responsible as anyone for keeping the police torture issue in Chicago's consciousness during that time. He wrote about it and wrote about it, to the point that it probably wasn't good for his career, because nobody likes a Johnny-one-note.

His editor suggested he move on to the next subject, and he tried. After all, he told himself, he wasn't having much impact. But he kept coming back.

"It seemed be a matter of life and death," he explained. "There were guys on Death Row that were going to die."

I don't mean to hold Conroy out as a hero. He wouldn't like that, and I promised him I wouldn't. He was just a journalist doing a job. [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Reporter kept the focus on police torture"

Rodney Ellis: Lowering odds that innocents end up in prison

The Dallas Morning News did the state a great service by investigating the causes of Dallas County's 19 DNA exonerations. While the cases involved men of different races and backgrounds, one thing remained the same in 95 percent of the cases – a mistaken eyewitness identification was the primary cause of the wrongful conviction.

Dallas isn't so different from the rest of the country. Of the 220 DNA exonerations nationally in the past two decades, 75 percent were due in part to a misidentification.

Who is responsible? Victims aren't. In the Dallas County cases, sexually assaulted women had the difficult task of identifying their attackers. These assaults may have occurred in the dark, by masked men or someone with a weapon. Under such terrifying conditions, "all of the mind's energy is channeled into the survival instinct," as psychologist Gary Wells noted in the series.

Police officers, in many cases, can't be blamed either. They have a tough job getting criminals off the streets as quickly as possible. Detectives may unintentionally provide cues to eyewitnesses or provide positive feedback when an identification is made.

Ultimately, the Texas Legislature, courts and local governments should take responsibility for wrongful convictions. We elected officials to ensure that police departments are adequately funded and officers are properly trained. We also must guarantee that impoverished people accused of crimes receive a quality defense. And the courts are ultimately responsible for ensuring that evidence is reliable, the innocent are freed and defendants' constitutional and due process rights are protected. [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Rodney Ellis: Lowering odds that innocents end up in prison"

Feds punch hole in 'perjury trap,' statute of limitations excuses

That was the $7 million answer that a special prosecutor delivered two years ago in the case of former Chicago Police Cmdr. Jon Burge, accused with his men of torturing false confessions from as many as 148 defendants, most of them minorities, in the 1980s.

Attorneys for those who said they were tortured had argued that, even if the statute of limitations had expired for the torture, Burge and other officers and prosecutors who took part or cooperated in any such coerced confessions could be charged with lying under oath in civil suits.

Not practical, special prosecutors Ed Egan and Robert Boyle concluded after spending four years on a probe that ultimately cost $7 million. Burge and the others could get any perjury or conspiracy charges dismissed on a "perjury trap" defense, Egan and Boyle said.

On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald made clear he disagrees.

"I don't know that the law has ever recognized a 'perjury trap,' " Chicago's top federal prosecutor said. "If it ever was recognized, this ain't one of them. People in this courthouse have received substantial sentences for perjury if convicted."

Experts say that, given that city of Chicago officials concluded Burge tortured people when they fired him, it should be easy enough to prove he perjured himself when he denied torture in written answers in a civil suit, especially if fellow officers come forward to testify. [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Feds punch hole in 'perjury trap,' statute of limitations excuses"

Reporter kept the focus on police torture

At this point, most people in Chicago probably accept as true the torture allegations against retired Chicago police commander Jon Burge and mostly wonder what took so long to indict him.

It's easy to forget that was not always the case.

From the time the accusations were raised in 1983 by attorneys for cop killer Andrew Wilson until fairly recently, the collective attitude in this city was of disbelief, of not wanting to believe such a thing possible and perhaps worse -- not caring enough to demand the truth.

Many people were responsible for changing those attitudes, but I'm going to focus on just one.

As a reporter for the Chicago Reader, John Conroy wrote more than 100,000 words about the police torture scandal between the time he started looking into it in 1989 and when he was laid off last December because of budget cuts.

Although he would tell you he's only a "bit player," Conroy was probably as responsible as anyone for keeping the police torture issue in Chicago's consciousness during that time. He wrote about it and wrote about it, to the point that it probably wasn't good for his career, because nobody likes a Johnny-one-note.

His editor suggested he move on to the next subject, and he tried. After all, he told himself, he wasn't having much impact. But he kept coming back.

"It seemed be a matter of life and death," he explained. "There were guys on Death Row that were going to die."

I don't mean to hold Conroy out as a hero. He wouldn't like that, and I promised him I wouldn't. He was just a journalist doing a job. [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Reporter kept the focus on police torture"

Rodney Ellis: Lowering odds that innocents end up in prison

The Dallas Morning News did the state a great service by investigating the causes of Dallas County's 19 DNA exonerations. While the cases involved men of different races and backgrounds, one thing remained the same in 95 percent of the cases – a mistaken eyewitness identification was the primary cause of the wrongful conviction.

Dallas isn't so different from the rest of the country. Of the 220 DNA exonerations nationally in the past two decades, 75 percent were due in part to a misidentification.

Who is responsible? Victims aren't. In the Dallas County cases, sexually assaulted women had the difficult task of identifying their attackers. These assaults may have occurred in the dark, by masked men or someone with a weapon. Under such terrifying conditions, "all of the mind's energy is channeled into the survival instinct," as psychologist Gary Wells noted in the series.

Police officers, in many cases, can't be blamed either. They have a tough job getting criminals off the streets as quickly as possible. Detectives may unintentionally provide cues to eyewitnesses or provide positive feedback when an identification is made.

Ultimately, the Texas Legislature, courts and local governments should take responsibility for wrongful convictions. We elected officials to ensure that police departments are adequately funded and officers are properly trained. We also must guarantee that impoverished people accused of crimes receive a quality defense. And the courts are ultimately responsible for ensuring that evidence is reliable, the innocent are freed and defendants' constitutional and due process rights are protected. [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Rodney Ellis: Lowering odds that innocents end up in prison"

The European Legislature is Protesting the Scheduled Execution of Troy Davis

From AP.com: The European parliament is strongly protesting plans to execute a man in the United States who has been sentenced to death for killing a police officer.

Troy Davis is scheduled to be executed in Georgia on Oct. 27, despite calls from his supporters to reconsider because seven of nine key witnesses against him have recanted their testimony.

EU parliament head Hans-Gert Poettering says all executions are violations of human rights. He says the condemned American symbolizes the fate of all death row inmates, and vows the EU legislature "will fight against the death penalty under any circumstances everywhere in the world."

The 40-year-old Davis was sentenced to death for the 1989 murder of 27-year-old Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail. His case has also attracted support from former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and South Africa Archbishop Desmond Tutu.[Bobbi Madonna]

Supreme Court's Second Amendment Decision in D.C. v. Heller May Help Fight Against Gun Violence, Brady Center Report Finds

The U.S. Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision in D.C. v. Heller may have the "unintended consequence" of helping to enact stronger gun laws, according to a report issued today by the Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

While the decision gives criminal defendants a legal tool to use to potentially avoid criminal convictions or mitigate their punishments and will inspire gun lobby challenges of gun laws, it may also clear some of the wedge politics that have blocked the nation from passing sensible gun laws in the future, the report says.

The report, titled "Unintended Consequences: What The Supreme Court's Second Amendment Decision In D.C. V. Heller Means For The Future Of Gun Laws," comes four months after the Supreme Court's ruling and just a few weeks before the Court is scheduled to argue another case involving guns: specifically, the scope of the current federal law prohibiting spousal abusers from possessing firearms. It is available at http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/heller/post-heller-white-paper.pdf.

"As the report explains, the Supreme Court has taken away the extremes of the gun debate, and left us in the reasonable middle ground of common sense proposals to reduce gun violence supported by most Americans," said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center. "By making it clear that law-abiding citizens have an individual right to possess guns for self-defense, the Supreme Court may have paved the way for the strong gun laws that Americans want and need to protect our communities from violent crime."

The report argues that the decision may have a positive impact on American gun policy. "The Court went out of its way to make clear that most gun laws are 'presumptively' constitutional while also putting to rest gun owners' fears of a total ban or ultimate confiscation of all firearms," its authors wrote. "By taking the extremes of the gun policy debate off the table, Heller has the potential to allow genuine progress in implementing reasonable gun restrictions, while protecting basic rights to possess firearms. The unintended consequence of Heller is that it may end up 'de-wedgeifying' one of the more divisive 'wedge' issues on the political landscape: guns. The net result of Heller would then be positive by leading to the enactment of the strong gun laws that we need -- and the vast majority of Americans want -- to protect our communities from gun violence." [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Supreme Court's Second Amendment Decision in D.C. v. Heller May Help Fight Against Gun Violence, Brady Center Report Finds"

Adult Crimes, Young Offenders: 'Where Do We Draw the Line?

Victoria Price was startled from sleep by an intruder who tried to rape her. Chandler Goule was followed, forced to the concrete at gunpoint and robbed. Matthew Caspari was chased down an alley at knifepoint as his wife screamed in horror.

The three victims told their stories yesterday during a public hearing about D.C. Council legislation that would allow judges to send certain cases back to juvenile court and to end the pretrial placement of youths charged as adults at the D.C. jail. Youth advocates long have maintained that the jail is unfit for juveniles.

But prosecutors and crime victims such as Price, 80, questioned whether city leaders were focused too much on the needs of alleged criminals. D.C. police recently reported that robberies by youths are on the rise. Last Friday, three teenagers -- 13, 14 and 15 -- were charged as juveniles with murder in the beating of a 56-year-old man who was attacked Oct. 6 as he walked home from a grocery store in Southwest Washington.

"I have lived here since 1973 with no iron bars on my window. Now I'm afraid in my own house," said Price, 80, of the crime two years ago at her home in Southwest Washington. "I'm not comfortable in my own neighborhood. Where do we draw the line with these young people?" [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Adult Crimes, Young Offenders: 'Where Do We Draw the Line?"

LAPD officers more likely to stop, search and arrest minorities than whites, report says

Los Angeles police officers are far more likely to stop, search and arrest minorities than they are whites -- even after statistics were adjusted for high- and low-crime areas -- according to a nongovernmental report released Monday.

The report by Yale Law School professor Ian Ayres for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California found that once stopped, African Americans were 29% more likely to be arrested than whites. Latinos were 32% more likely to be arrested in an identical category.

The percentages were far higher when minorities were stopped on the street or ordered out of their vehicles (blacks 166% and Latinos 132% more often than whites), frisked (blacks 127% and Latinos 43% more often than whites) or subject to nonconsensual searches (blacks 81% and Latinos 77% more often than whites).

At the same time, the report found that LAPD officers were less likely to find weapons or drugs on blacks or Latinos than whites when they frisked them or subjected them to consensual searches.

Police Chief William J. Bratton said he strongly disagreed with the report's findings. Among other criticisms, Bratton said the study was flawed because it used data collected four years ago and did not reflect the department's current practices.

Tim Sands, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, also took issue with the report, calling it a misguided attempt to read the minds of all officers during traffic stops.

"Dr. Ayres' conclusions completely misread situations that are not nearly as black and white as he would want them to be," Sands said. "It's an exercise that might work on a spreadsheet at Yale but doesn't work on the streets of Los Angeles."

Union officials noted that the LAPD is a "majority minority" department, mirroring the demographic trends of Los Angeles, and that most officers work in pairs that represent more than one race. [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "LAPD officers more likely to stop, search and arrest minorities than whites, report says"

Federal Judges Publicly Criticize Supreme Court's Second Amendment Decision

Four months after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess guns, its decision is under assault — from the right.

Two prominent federal appeals court judges say that Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is illegitimate, activist, poorly reasoned and fueled by politics rather than principle. The 5-to-4 decision in Heller struck down parts of a District of Columbia gun control law.

The judges used what in conservative legal circles are the ultimate fighting words: They said the gun ruling was a right-wing version of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that identified a constitutional right to abortion. Justice Scalia has said that Roe had no basis in the Constitution and amounted to a judicial imposition of a value judgment that should have been left to state legislatures.

Comparisons of the two decisions, then, seemed calculated to sting.

“The Roe and Heller courts are guilty of the same sins,” one of the two appeals court judges, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, wrote in an article to be published in the spring in The Virginia Law Review.

Similarly, Judge Richard A. Posner, in an article in The New Republic in August, wrote that Heller’s failure to allow the political process to work out varying approaches to gun control that were suited to local conditions “was the mistake that the Supreme Court made when it nationalized abortion rights in Roe v. Wade.”

Sharp criticism of a recent Supreme Court decision by federal appeals court judges is quite unusual, though these two judges — both Reagan appointees — are more outspoken than most.

Judge Wilkinson, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., was recently considered for a spot on the Supreme Court. Judge Posner, of the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, is perhaps the most influential judge not on the Supreme Court.

Read full article here. [Brooks Holland]

U.S. Drops War Crimes Charges against Guantanamo Detainees

The Pentagon official in charge of prosecutions at Guantanamo on Tuesday dismissed war-charges against five detainees, the latest setback to the government’s military commission system.

The official, Susan J. Crawford, has broad power over the military commission tribunals, including the power to dismiss charges, but she does not have to provide public explanations for her decisions and did not on Tuesday.

But a statement from her office said the charges against the five were dismissed without prejudice, which means “the government can raise the charges again at a later time.”

After the decision was announced, Col. Lawrence J. Morris, the chief military prosecutor, said that supervising lawyers in his office had asked Ms. Crawford to withdraw the charges. He said all five would be resubmitted after a review of their files, which had been handled by a prosecutor who left the office after questioning the judicial fairness at Guantanamo.

The best known of the five detainees is Binyam Mohammed, a former British resident who claimed harsh torture methods had been used against him. Government officials have accused him of taking part in a plan to attack the United States with a radioactive dirty bomb.

The Bush administration has long said that it would like to close the detention camp, where 255 detainees are being held on the naval station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But officials have said in recent days that no action would likely be taken before the end of Mr. Bush’s term in January. One reason they cited was uncertainty about how legal cases against the remaining detainees would be handled inside the United States.

Ms. Crawford also dismissed without prejudice charges that had been presented to her against four other detainees: Noor Uthman Muhammed, Sufyiam Barhoumi, Ghassan Abdullah al Sharbi, and Jabran Said Bin al Qahtani.

All five cases had been handled by Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, a military prosecutor who stepped down from his position in September, saying publicly that there were systemic problems in the prosecution that raised ethical issues. Colonel Vandeveld, an Army reserve officer and the latest person to quit the prosecutor’s office in Guantanamo, said the prosecutors did not fully comply with rules that require that they turn over any information that might help the defense.

Colonel Morris has denied that Colonel Vandeveld’s departure was related to a dispute about complying with legal rules for the proper handling of cases.

“I don’t want to unduly attribute responsibility to him,” Colonel Morris said of reviewing the files handled by Colonel Vandeveld. “We have found that there is more work to be done on all these cases.” He said he had recently appointed new prosecutors to each of the cases.

But detainees’ lawyers cast the decision to withdraw the charges as the latest in a series of difficulties government lawyers have had in pressing cases against Guantanamo detainees.

“My impression is it is just a mess, and the floor is collapsing underneath them,” said Clare Algar, the executive director of Reprieve, an international legal organization that represent many detainees including Binyam Mohammed.

REad full story here. [Brooks Holland]

Ninth Circuit Rules Statutory Rape in CA not Categorically a Deportable Offense

The full 9th Circuit ruled that statutory rape does not necessarily constitute a deportable felony, offering hope for relief to a Mexican immigrant facing deportation for having consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend when he was 20.

The court agreed to review the case of Juan Elias Estrada-Espinoza, who was convicted of statutory rape for having sex with his minor girlfriend. The couple met when Estrada-Espinoza was 20 years old and the girl was 15 or 16, but she allegedly told him she was 18. They began living together in one of their parents' homes, and eventually got their own apartment and had a child together.

Estrada-Espinoza has been jailed under a deportation order since 2005.

In August 2007, a three-judge panel ruled that the offense qualified as "sexual abuse of a child," an aggravated felony that triggered deportation.

The full court reversed the panel's decision on the ground that state criminal laws used to convict the defendant are much broader than the crime of "sexual abuse of a minor."

That means Estrada-Espinoza's conviction does not categorically constitute "sexual abuse of a minor," the court concluded. The judges granted his petition for review.

View article here. [Brooks Holland]

DAs fight bid to ease penalty for marijuana

As a student at Stonehill College, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley found himself in a room with guys passing around a bong. "When it came to me, I inhaled so hard that it burned my lungs," he says. "I don't want to sound Clintonesque; I inhaled, but I couldn't handle it."

Gerry Leone, Middlesex district attorney, also admits to smoking pot. "It was years ago, when I was a young man," he said. "I tried it once, and it wasn't something I was ever into."

Michael O'Keefe, district attorney for the Cape and Islands, would only hint at his past: "Like a lot of people in my generation, we did a lot of things that were unwise, unhealthy, and illegal," he says.

The prosecutors - who would have faced obstacles to attaining their law enforcement positions had they been caught - are now among the leading opponents of a proposition on the Nov. 4 ballot that would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. They argue that the initiative would send the wrong message and lead to a host of social problems.

Proponents argue, however, that if the question passed, possession of small amounts would remain illegal but would no longer tarnish someone's future.

Under state law, those convicted of possessing even a small amount of marijuana now face up to six months in jail, a fine of $500, and a lifelong criminal record that may be available to potential employers, housing agencies, and student loan providers. In 2006, 6,902 people were arrested in Massachusetts for marijuana possession - more than 38 percent of all the drug arrests in the state that year, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "DAs fight bid to ease penalty for marijuana"

Police chief wants to ease rules on vehicle chases in Charlotte

Tired of what he calls “brazen disrespect” for police, Chief Rodney Monroe wants to loosen rules on Charlotte-Mecklenburg police chases.

Too many suspects get away, he says, because current policy allows officers to chase suspects only when a life-threatening felony is involved.

“At some point we have to send a message back to the criminal element that we are going to come after you,” he said.

Monroe couldn't provide statistics or examples of suspects eluding police, but said officers should have more discretion to pursue suspects in various violent crimes and some property crimes.

The move fits Monroe's reputation as a cop's cop, a chief who trusts his officers to make the right decision. But criminal justice experts are skeptical about rolling back restrictions on chases, which can be deadly, particularly in urban areas.

“Charlotte has had not only a good policy, but a good record when it comes to police pursuit,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a University of South Carolina criminologist and national expert on police pursuits. “I just don't understand why he would tinker with it.” [Mark Godsey]

Continue Reading "Police chief wants to ease rules on vehicle chases in Charlotte"