Okay. Here we can discuss what this thread's topic implies. Here deposit your posts about our civil and criminal justice systems, particular cases, celebrities and their legal entanglements, and Constitutonal protections and omissions.

I would love to particicpate here Olivant but being from over the pond i would be a bit lost......

I do know that the crime and justice systems in England are a joke, desperately in need of overhauling. Criminals get away with murder(sometimes literally) and then go to jail for ridiculously short sentences because our jails are overcrowded. People who go down on life sentences are out within 10 years...some life sentence

Ok, this brought on after having just seen Wall Street Money Never Sleeps film. In one scene Gordon Gekko comments how he spent 10 years (approx. I can't remember his total prison time)in prison for his crimes when there are rapists/murders who serve much less than he did. As much as many despise many of these "Gekko" types and want to see them rot, do any of you agree that sentences sometimes don't fit the crime?

I am no expert on Stock Market and can't recall the exact charge against her, (and I can't say I am really a "fan" of hers), but was Martha Stewart, for instance,used as an example by
the legal system as to say, "see we punish bigwigs"?

TIS

As almost everyone knows, money buys justice in America. I posted on that subject here:
http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthr...true#Post433771

But the underlying problem is the adversarial nature of trial law, especially criminal law. Lawyers will bend over backwards to settle out of court. But, once a case goes to trial, the figure of merit isn't innocence or guilt, or even right or wrong--it's who wins and who loses. No holds barred.

Another is how politics drives trials. I am a lifelong scholar of the Rosenberg spy case--the "trial of the century" for the 20th century--and in that case, all three branches of the federal government actively conspired to put both defendants in the electric chair weeks before the trial opened. More recently, a friend who was the CEO of a Fortune 50 company was sentenced to 6 years for "insider trading." B.S.! The US Attorney, seeing his fellow prosecutors gain fame and fortune for convicting other CEO's, wanted his time in the spotlight.

TIS, you raise good points as others have. It is so frustrating to hear about the disparities in sentencing and time served. But, as I instruct my sudents, the frustration may be due to a failure to recognize that we have a federallevel system and a state level system each with its own laws, due process, prsecutors, and judges. In Texas alone we have 254 counties each with a district attorney and at least one felony judge. They operate under the same laws and procedures, but thd human element is unpredictable. Also,we are usually unaware of the evidence presented at trial which can make a fundamental difference. Also, keep in mind that about 90% of all prosecutions are plea bargained. It's can be quite a challenge to get a jury to convict someone.

I do find the legal system very interesting (even if I don't agree or understand certain aspects).

I have served on several juries (as a matter of fact, I call in next month and may serve again).

I did serve on only one criminal case. It was a murder case. It was about a 3 week case. I found myself consumed with the info. You can't talk to anyone about it, but with someone's life on the line especially, I found my mind going like crazy over everything that was said. I couldn't wait to get input from the others as well.

I learned too, that you don't have any clue what any of the other jurors are thinking or what they are like until you start to discuss the case. It really is a wide variety of people.



TIS

SALT LAKE CITY – A bigamy investigation has been launched into a polygamous family starring in a reality television show, police said Tuesday.

Lehi police Lt. Darren Paul has said the probe was triggered by the reality television show "Sister Wives," which features 41-year-old advertising salesman Kody Brown and his four wives, 13 children and three stepchildren. The TLC program premiered Sunday.

Brown is only legally married to Meri but also calls three other women his spouses: Janelle, Christine and Robyn. The three stepchildren are from Robyn's previous relationship.

Christine Brown declined to comment Tuesday, although the family issued a statement through TLC that it was disappointed.

"...When we decided to do this show, we knew there would be risks," the family said. "But for the sake of our family, and most importantly, our kids, we felt it was a risk worth taking."

The Browns have said they hoped that the reality show's peek into their lives would help broaden the public's understanding of plural families.

Across Utah and parts of the western U.S., polygamy is a legacy of the early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Members brought the practice to Utah in 1847, but the Mormon church disavowed plural marriage in 1890 as part of a push for Utah's statehood.

Although it is rarely prosecuted, bigamy is a third-degree felony in Utah, punishable by a prison term of up to five years. Under the law, a person can be found guilty of bigamy through cohabitation, not just legal marriage contracts....

Legal Investigation of bigamy

This last part is kinda troubling to me. Bigamy implies deception, either of another person or of the state. If the man is only legally married to one woman, then what business is it of the state's what else he may be doing? Who is he deceiving? Being found guilty of bigamy through cohabitation is ironically the state redefining marriage. That sort of seems like a "Find out what (insert group here) is doing and make them stop!!!" If a man wants to live with X number of women or vice versa how can the state stop that legally???

But Lilo, you've got to account for common-law marriage which in most states is the result of twopeople representing themselves as married.

Elderly Woman Shoots 12-Year-Old Boy
CHICAGO (CBS) ―

A shooting on the city's Southeast Side has people telling two entirely different stories.

Neighbors said an elderly woman was fed up with constant harassment from a 12-year-old boy, so she took a gun and shot the child after he and his friends threw bricks into her home.

Now, the boy is charged with a crime, while the 68-year-old woman is not.

The boy who was shot, along with another boy, 13, are cited in juvenile delinquency petitions with one count each of misdemeanor aggravated assault to a senior citizen, according to police.

The woman, identified by neighbors as Margaret Matthews, was released from police custody without being charged, on the grounds that she acted in self defense, police said.

Yup. But in this case could the state argue that the man was trying to deceive anyone when he's living with all of the women to whom he says he's "married"??

It just seems like it would be a big mess of circular logic. The state could say "You are representing yourself as being married to woman B when in fact our records show you are legally married to woman A".

Then presumably the man would say "But woman A and woman B both live with me and and I never tried to legally marry woman B or list her as common law wife in any legal proceedings/documents so no laws were broken".

What would the prosecutor say in that instance, do you think? I would like to see the case arguments because I think they'd be fun.

Only about 15 states recognize common law marriage. There are technical differences in the applicable law in each state, but essentially: two people cohabitate although the length of that cohabitation is not specified in law; they represent themselves as married; they intend to legally marry. That last requirement is subject to interpretation and, to avoid a bigamy charge, one might state that they never intended to marry (whether true or not).

(CNN) -- A New Jersey father fatally shot his two teenage sons, critically wounded one more and set his home ablaze before police killed him, authorities said Friday.

Police were called to a home in Pennsauken about 10:30 p.m. Thursday and found the home on fire, said Jason Laughlin, a spokesman for the Camden County Prosecutor's Office. Officers found the 54-year-old father in the back of the home holding a gun, a lighter and a can of gasoline, Laughlin said. The man charged the officers, who shot and killed him.

The man's 14-year-old and 18-year-old sons were found dead from gunshot wounds. One was in the street while the other was in the burning home.

The other son,16, was also shot and critically wounded.

OCTOBER 1--A Florida man arrested Wednesday on drug charges told cops that a bag of cocaine found hidden inside his buttocks did not belong to him. Though the suspect did cop to ownership of a bag of marijuana hidden alongside the coke.

The narcotics were discovered by Manatee County Sheriff’s Office deputies after Raymond Roberts’s Hyundai was pulled over on a Bradenton street for speeding Wednesday morning. Investigators, who reported smelling a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle, subsequently searched the 25-year-old Roberts and discovered his hidden stash.

During the search, when Deputy Sean Cappiello "felt a soft object in the crack of his buttocks," the suspect "began to tense up." Roberts volunteered to remove the item. “Let me get it, hold on” he said, and proceeded to place a "clear plastic baggie with a green leafy substance" on the car's hood. A subsequent test showed the substance to be marijuana, 4.5 grams worth, according to an amusing sheriff’s report. Or click here for an easy-to-read PDF of the document.

"I then asked him if that was it," wrote Cappiello, "and he stated 'yes.'"

But, as the deputy reported, "I then searched his shorts again and felt another object that was in the crack of his buttocks. I pulled the object out from the exterior of his shorts and a clear plastic baggie with a white rock substance fell to the ground." This plastic bag, a test would later determine, contained 27 pieces of crack cocaine.

Roberts quickly disavowed ownership of the cocaine. “The white stuff is not mine, but the weed is,” he claimed, adding that the crack in his crack was the property of a friend who had previously borrowed the car and left the drug on the passenger seat. Roberts explained that when he was pulled over for speeding, he concealed the second bag of narcotics.

Ha ha ha!! That is hilarious. What did he say, "how the heck did that get there?"



TIS

A Saudi prince allegedly brutalized his manservant with bites before strangling him at a posh London hotel, a British court heard Tuesday.

Prince Saud Abdulaziz Bin Nasser al Saud has admitted to killing 32-year-old Bandar Abdulaziz, but denied that he had a gay relationship with his servant, as prosecutors allege.

Saudi Prince on Trial

Which cheeks had the bite marks?

I'm sure we don't want to know....

The Connecticut home invasion trial reached a guilty verdict on all but one of the counts.

This story is one I've only recently heard when they had a clip of the wife going to the bank to withdraw 15,000 for the invaders and telling the clerk that her family was held captive.


For those who don't know of this story in a nutshell, A man was tied up in his basement, beaten with a baseball bat, while upstairs his wife and two daughters were being beaten and one daughter and wife raped. He had to endure listening to their screams and remain helpless to rescue them. The house was set on fire with everyone dying except for the husband. I'm not certain how it came to be that he escaped. Anyone who has more details and/or corrections please feel free to add.
My heart goes out to this poor man.

TIS

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

I think Phelps and his breed deserve a punch in the mouth but I'm not sure if their stupid protests at funerals of soldiers shouldn't be allowed. Of course the actual question before the court is really whether a father of a Marine who was killed in Iraq can sue the Phelps clan for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Calling someone names at a relative's funeral would seem to meet that criteria as far as I'm concerned.


But if this private lawsuit award stands does that mean that calling someone names over the net should also be grounds for a suit?? And it's not just speech it's also protest. Sticky issue.

Supreme Court Funeral Protest Case


Washington — The Supreme Court justices, hearing arguments Wednesday in a funeral protest case, sounded as though they are inclined to set a limit to the free-speech rule to permit lawsuits against those who target ordinary citizens with especially personal and hurtful attacks.

The First Amendment says the government may not infringe the freedom of speech, but it is less clear whether it also shields speakers from private lawsuits.

At issue Wednesday was whether the Maryland father of a Marine killed in Iraq could sue a Kansas family which protested near his funeral. The Phelps family not only held signs that said "Thank God for IEDs," but they also put on their website a message that accused Albert Snyder of having raised his son "to defy the Creator" and "serve the devil."

A Maryland court awarded Snyder $5 million in damages, but the award was thrown out on free-speech grounds.

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer, usual defenders of the First Amendment, said they thought people could be sued for outrageous personal attacks.

Kennedy said "certain harassing conduct" was not always protected as free speech. "Torts and crimes are committed with words all the time," he said, referring to legal wrongs that result in lawsuits. "The First Amendment doesn't stop state tort law in appropriate circumstances," Breyer commented later.

Though the case is about funeral protests, Breyer said the court's ruling will have an impact on the Internet, since it tests whether personal attacks can lead to lawsuits.

Snyder sued the Phelps family under a common provision of state law that permits claims for an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

During Wednesday's argument, the justices seemed to agree that a general protest sign, such as "Stop the War" or even "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" would be protected as free speech. The Phelps family crossed the line when they made clear they were targeting the dead Marine's father with their protest, argued Sean E. Summers, a lawyer for Snyder. "We have personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family," he said.

New Justice Elena Kagan drew the attention of her colleagues with her opening question to Margie J. Phelps. The Kansas lawyer who was defending her family began by saying their protests were intended to provoke "public discussion" about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kagan quickly pressed her. Would it be permissible, she asked, for the protesters to pick out "a wounded soldier and follow him around," holding "offensive and outrageous signs" near his home and calling him a "war criminal?" In such a case, "does he have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?" Kagan said.

Phelps hesitated, but then said no. "My answer, Justice Kagan, is: No, I don't believe that person should have a cause of action."

That answer appeared to turn the argument against Phelps and the funeral protesters....

I have to agree, Lilo, as much as the primitive part of me would like to take an axe to Phelps genitals.

As far as the actual funeral, I can only speak from over 20 years experience in the funeral industry. Quite often, we'd get a volatile family who would tell us that "such and such" a person is NOT ALLOWED at the viewing, wake, funeral, temple, church or what have you. They'd go so far as to bring us pictures of the "undesirables." And all we could tell them was this: We'll do our best to dissuade any altercations, but by law we can't just bar someone from a PUBLIC PLACE because you have "bad blood" between you.

All that said, hopefully Phelps will just drop fucking dead and make it all moot. And I'm not kidding .

TIS, this story has gotten lots of local coverage. Because the father was locked in the basement, he escaped most of the smoke and was able to crawl out. The fact that the cops were called and didn't make it their just adds to the heartbreak.

To me, the most horrific aspect is that he admitted that after raping the daughter and tying them both to their beds, he not only splashed the house with gasoline, but their beds, too, and then burned them alive.

They asked the father how he felt upon hearing the guilty verdict, and he only said that his family was still gone, their home was still gone.

SB,

I saw the father's reaction after the verdict and felt so badly for him.


THIS OTHER STORY PISSES ME OFF

I just saw it this morning on MSNBC. A 18 year old mother and her 19 year old boyfriend. DUCT TAPED HER 22 YEAR OLD TODDLER TO THE WALL. They actually had a video they showed on the news where they also taped his sippy cup to the wall so he couldn't reach it. They show the child reaching for it crying. WTF?????

The couple say they were drunk & high.

TIS



http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=13274801

I'm interested if you or any of our other legal scholars have any thoughts about the execution of the accused Lincoln conspirators Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt. All the people who were discovered to have had anything to do with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln or anyone with the slightest contact with John Wilkes Booth or David Herold on their flight from Ford's Theatre were put behind bars. Mary Surratt was the first woman ever hanged by the U.S government, but it was the treatment of all of John wilkes Booth's accused conspirators that can only be defined as egregious and suspicious. The accused were forced to wear hoods and confined to shackles throughout the duration of their entire 2-week holding and of course were not allowed to speak on their own behalfs at their military tribunal from what I understand. And it's today very debatable whether or not their role was as complicit as that of Dr. Samuel Mudd, who was spared execution and given 20 years in prison but who was later pardoned.

Correct if I'm wrong, or if any of that's revisionist history, but the supposed conspirators were not even given a proper hanging (if such a thing exists) as Mary Surratt and the other three were forced to stand in the hot sun for almost an hour while still wearing hoods over their heads (very unusual) before finally having the trap-door open beneath them. Ironcially, after sentencing Mary Surratt to hang, five of the jurors signed a letter recommending clemency, but the darilek President Andrew Johnson refused to stop the execution (Johnson later claimed he never saw the letter.) 3 other conspirators were later pardoned by Johnson and spared the gallow's pole.

Was Mary Surrat really a conspirator? Or was her boarding house simply used as a meeting place? I was always under the impression that she was a scapegoat, like poor Dr. Mudd. Perhaps I've been misinformed.

Btw, didn't the Hippocratic Oath compel Mudd to set the leg?

More than likely more of a scapegoat than an active participant. However, her participation cannot be ruled out.

One of the more interesting things about crime and justice is how the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination works in the US:

If you are a defendant in a criminal trial, you don't have to take the stand and testify under oath, because you could be compelled to testify against yourself. Most defendants are smart enough not to take the stand, and let their lawyers do the arguing. Juries don't hold it against them that they didn't testify--jurors have seen all those cop-and-lawyer movies, and know how prosecutors tear into witnesses.

But, if you're subpoenaed before an investigative body (like the Senate committee that called Michael Corleone in GFII), you must be sworn in and testify. Your Fifth Amendment privilege extends only to refusing to answer specific questions. And then you must say, "I refuse to answer that question because my answer might tend to incriminate me." Well, if Michael had "taken the Fifth" when asked, "Were you respnsible for devising the murders of the heads of the Five Families in 1950 [sic]," his answer would have blown his "legitimate" cover--he'd be admitting, under oath, that a truthful answer would tend to incriminate him because he was responsible. So, an investigative body could easily destroy a racketeer's "legitimate" cover simply by forcing him to "take the Fifth" when asked a series of embarrassing questions.

Another twist: A prosecutor can offer a key witness "immunity to testify" and force him to take the stand. Suppose you were a big-time bank robber and you hired small-time me to drive the getaway car, and you killed someone in the bank while robbing it. The cops arrested both of us, and I was charged with being an accessory to murder because I was involved (by driving you away). The prosecutor will tell me that, if I agree to testify against you, I won't be prosecuted on the accessory charge. But if I refuse, I can be held in contempt of court. Why? Since the prosecutor made me "immune" on the accessory charge if I testified, I have no reason to claim that testifying would make me incriminate myself.

Oli, why is taking the Fifth a "privilege"? I thought it's a right, since it's in the Constitution. A driver's license is a "privilege."

Good question TB. The Constitution's Article IV's statement about priveleges and immunities was interpreted by the SCOTUS in 1823 as embodying things we take for granted such as owning property and movement across state lines, not rights as we usually think of them. The Constitution's 14th amendment uses the same privileges and immunities wording to compel states to treat all of their citizens alike. It was understood to some extent at the time that the drafters of the 14th amendment meant the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights when they stated privileges and immunities in that amendment.

If you closely read the Bill of Rights you will see that almost all of them are restrictions upon government("Congress shall make no law ..."). Thus, they are not positive statements about what we as citizens can do (by the way, the Texas Constitution uses such positive statements).

TB, I think it all comes down to a matter of semantics. Although a drivers license is considered a privilege, what about voting? A couple of the US Constitution's amendments do contain language that refers to voting as a right, but there is nothing in the Constitution that otherwise defines it as such.

The Senate hearing was not a prosecutorial forum. Thus, it could be argued that the same interpretation of the 5th amendment that would prevail in a court did not prevail in the Senate forum. The privilege or right is not absolute as you pointed out about immunity.

Thanks, Oli.

Re. driving "privilege," the most obvious (to me) evidence that it's not a "right" is DWI. If a cop stops you on suspicion of DWI, you can refuse to take a brethalyzer test or get out of the car and walk a straight line. But if you take that tack, your license will be suspended, and you will be fined, as if you had been proven to be DWI.

Interesting (to me) treatment of traffic offenses: When I first got my license in NYC, traffic cases were heard in a Magistrate's Court before real judges. The judges treated a trial as if it were a criminal proceeding: you didn't have to testify, and the cop had to prove you guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I once heard a judge invoke Miranda to let a defendant off who had confessed to the cop, without being asked, that he was driving with a suspended license. Then the AAA called for "reform": It was undignified or worse to treat drivers as if they were "common criminals." NY State obliged by putting all traffic cases in the "Administrative Adjudication Bureau," which was under the aegis of the Motor Vehicle Bureau. They were heard by per-diem lawyers, paid by the Bureau. Result: when it came to your word vs. the cop's, they always took the cop's word. And, the same agency that was holding the proceeding took the fines.

Net: I never lost a case in Magistrate's Court; lost all of them that were heard in the Administrative Adjudication Bureau. The only times I got off in the latter were because those per-diem lawyers couldn't issue bench warrants. So, lots of times the accusing officer just didn't show up for the hearing. If he failed to show twice, the case was dismissed.

Another US law anecdote:
I was draft eligible during the Vietnam War (pre-lottery). I got it into my head that the draft was unconstitutional because it constituted "involuntary servitude," banned by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. I canvassed all my lawyer and law student friends for an opinion, little realizing how specialized the practice of law is (and how few specialize in Constitutional law). Finally figured it out years later: Fourteenth Amendment says No one may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Selective Service System had "due process" because you could appeal your draft classification in several ways.

But, an underlying issue was, and is, the application of military law and process to civilians. Although Selective Service was, technically, staffed by civilians, a sitting general headed it. A draftee was a civilian until the moment he was sworn in and "took the step forward." Yet he was subjected to a military code prior to induction. Muhammed Ali challenged that, in his own way, and won a landmark case before the Supreme Court that saved him from a five year prison sentence and a $10k fine.