U.S. NEWS
DECEMBER 29, 2008, 1:54 P.M. ET
Murders of Black Teens Are Up 39% Since 2000-01
Study Finds Killings Rose More Than Five Times Overall Rate; Cuts in Law Enforcement, Youth Programs Are Cited as Factors
By GARY FIELDS
WASHINGTON -- Murders of African-American teenagers have risen 39% since 2000 and 2001, according to a report due out Monday.
Neighbors and friends mourn Jamiel Shaw Jr., 17 years old, who was shot to death in Los Angeles in March. In 2006-07, the number of homicides in which blacks ages 14 to 17 were victims rose to 927.
Homicides in which blacks ages 14 to 17 years old were the victims rose to 927 over the two-year period of 2006-07, the last years for which statistics are available, compared with 666 during 2000-01, according to the study by criminal-justice professors at Boston's Northeastern University.
The 39% increase is much greater than the rise in overall homicides, which jumped 7.4% from 2000-01 to 2006-07.
Murders rose among black teens in 2006 and 2007 as overall homicides dropped compared with the previous year. And the 2000-07 rate of increase among black teens was more than twice the rate of increase among white teens, the study found.
The authors explained that they compared two-year periods to try to limit a statistical skewing of the numbers that might have occurred if they had simply looked at differences in 2000 and 2007.
The data confirm a pattern identified earlier this year by The Wall Street Journal, which found that while most communities in the U.S. were seeing a decline in homicides, many African-American neighborhoods were continuing to see an increase.
The Northeastern University research shows that the pattern is more pronounced among juveniles.
James Alan Fox, co-author of the study, attributed the numbers to a variety of issues, including cuts in funding for local law-enforcement programs that were credited with lowering the nation's record murder rates in the 1990s. "It's hard to pin down cause and effect," Mr. Fox said.
An overwhelming proportion of the killings involve black-on-black crime. The reasons for high rates of violence in African-American communities have been the subject of debate among criminologists. Some attribute it to the migration of prison culture, with large numbers of incarcerated young men returning to their communities.
Mr. Fox said the cuts in law-enforcement programs and activities geared toward youth disproportionately affect African-Americans because they are more likely than their white counterparts to come from communities where there is inadequate adult supervision, high rates of single-parent homes, inferior schools and widespread gang activity.
"Cuts in support for youth have a much greater impact on black families who don't have alternatives," Mr. Fox said.
Write to Gary Fields at gary.fields@wsj.com
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc
Monday, December 29, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
An Enigma
December 24, 2008
Weighing Guilt When the Man on Trial Did No Killing
By KAREEM FAHIM
In the glare of public scrutiny, juries in Brooklyn and the Bronx started deliberations on separate cases last week, considering the same shocking charge — the murder of a police officer.
That was not all they had to contend with: Prosecutors in both cases were asking for murder convictions for the defendants who, the authorities acknowledged, were not the men who fired the fatal shots.
In deciding whether to convict, the jurors in Brooklyn repeatedly asked for readings of the law, and explanations, in plain English, for what it meant to be an accessory to murder.
In the Bronx, jurors sifted through all of the evidence over and over, to try and divine whether the defendant in their case knew that an acquaintance of his — the man who killed the officer — was carrying a gun.
In both cases, jurors had to be sure that while the defendant did not pull the trigger, his role in the crime was enough for a murder conviction.
In the Bronx case, the jury decided that the defendant, Lillo Brancato Jr., a former actor, did not know that the man he was with had a gun. Mr. Brancato, 32, was acquitted of felony murder in the 2005 killing of Officer Daniel Enchautegui, but convicted of attempted burglary.
The man Mr. Brancato was with that night, Steven Armento, 51, was convicted by another Bronx jury on Oct. 30 of first-degree murder for firing the fatal shot.
The Brooklyn case ended in a mistrial.
The defendant, Lee Woods, 30, was charged with aggravated murder and other crimes for what prosecutors said was his part in the killing of Officer Russel Timoshenko during a traffic stop last year.
Prosecutors said that Mr. Woods, who will be retried, had not fired a gun but was a willing partner of the men who did.
On Monday, when the mistrial was declared because a juror fell ill, other jurors said they were still debating the murder charge.
Public officials and relatives of the police officers expressed frustration and anger.
The mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, captured some of the feelings about the Brancato verdict on Tuesday. “It’s just beyond me,” he said, “how the jury could come to that conclusion.”
But interviews with jurors and the defense lawyers in the two cases present a more complicated picture, and suggest that murder convictions for these two men presented a difficult leap for many jurors. Prosecutors in both cases declined to be interviewed.
Mr. Woods and Mr. Brancato were charged with murder under two different legal theories, each one presenting challenges.
Mr. Brancato was charged with felony murder, in which any participant in a felony crime is held responsible for any deaths that occur during the crime — in Mr. Brancato’s case, burglary.
A few states, including Hawaii, Kentucky and Michigan, have abolished their versions of felony murder.
Mr. Brancato’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, said New York State’s version of the law was “archaic,” and shifted the burden of proving innocence onto the defendants.
A juror in Mr. Brancato’s case, Arnaldo Nuñez, said that Mr. Brancato’s version of events had been convincing.
In the jury room, he said, “Every stone was turned over at least four times,” but the panel could not find that Mr. Brancato had known or should have known that his accomplice was carrying a gun.
Mr. Woods was charged as an accessory — someone who played a role, no matter how small, in a crime and is criminally liable for the acts of his partners.
Being present, the judge told his jury, was not enough. Jurors asked him to explain several times.
According to Robert C. Gottlieb, a criminal defense lawyer and a former prosecutor, “there is nothing inherently confusing about the law as it pertains to accomplice liability.”
But the difficulty comes when prosecutors have to apply “the facts that fit the law.”
He added, “The law is murky if the facts are murky.”
Many aspects of the case were murky, jurors said. Officer Timoshenko and his partner, Officer Herman Yan, were both shot as they approached an S.U.V they had pulled over.
And while prosecutors established that Mr. Woods and two other men, Dexter Bostic and Robert Ellis, were in the car, it was not clear where each of the men was sitting or who fired the shots.
Part of that mystery was cleared up last week, though, when Mr. Bostic’s jury convicted him of murdering Officer Timoshenko.
Still, a juror in Mr. Woods’s case said the instructions to the jury about an accessory’s liability had been confusing. “Even when the judge read it back, he never explained it in laymen’s terms,” said the juror, who insisted on anonymity because he was concerned about his safety.
Another juror, he said, was troubled with the notion that Mr. Woods could be guilty of murder without pulling a trigger. He said jurors were also confused about the concept of “acting in concert.”
Accepting that a defendant is an accessory “may be difficult for a juror to do, and it should be difficult,” Mr. Gottlieb said. “The jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Michael Wilson contributed reporting.
2008 The New York Times Company
Weighing Guilt When the Man on Trial Did No Killing
By KAREEM FAHIM
In the glare of public scrutiny, juries in Brooklyn and the Bronx started deliberations on separate cases last week, considering the same shocking charge — the murder of a police officer.
That was not all they had to contend with: Prosecutors in both cases were asking for murder convictions for the defendants who, the authorities acknowledged, were not the men who fired the fatal shots.
In deciding whether to convict, the jurors in Brooklyn repeatedly asked for readings of the law, and explanations, in plain English, for what it meant to be an accessory to murder.
In the Bronx, jurors sifted through all of the evidence over and over, to try and divine whether the defendant in their case knew that an acquaintance of his — the man who killed the officer — was carrying a gun.
In both cases, jurors had to be sure that while the defendant did not pull the trigger, his role in the crime was enough for a murder conviction.
In the Bronx case, the jury decided that the defendant, Lillo Brancato Jr., a former actor, did not know that the man he was with had a gun. Mr. Brancato, 32, was acquitted of felony murder in the 2005 killing of Officer Daniel Enchautegui, but convicted of attempted burglary.
The man Mr. Brancato was with that night, Steven Armento, 51, was convicted by another Bronx jury on Oct. 30 of first-degree murder for firing the fatal shot.
The Brooklyn case ended in a mistrial.
The defendant, Lee Woods, 30, was charged with aggravated murder and other crimes for what prosecutors said was his part in the killing of Officer Russel Timoshenko during a traffic stop last year.
Prosecutors said that Mr. Woods, who will be retried, had not fired a gun but was a willing partner of the men who did.
On Monday, when the mistrial was declared because a juror fell ill, other jurors said they were still debating the murder charge.
Public officials and relatives of the police officers expressed frustration and anger.
The mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, captured some of the feelings about the Brancato verdict on Tuesday. “It’s just beyond me,” he said, “how the jury could come to that conclusion.”
But interviews with jurors and the defense lawyers in the two cases present a more complicated picture, and suggest that murder convictions for these two men presented a difficult leap for many jurors. Prosecutors in both cases declined to be interviewed.
Mr. Woods and Mr. Brancato were charged with murder under two different legal theories, each one presenting challenges.
Mr. Brancato was charged with felony murder, in which any participant in a felony crime is held responsible for any deaths that occur during the crime — in Mr. Brancato’s case, burglary.
A few states, including Hawaii, Kentucky and Michigan, have abolished their versions of felony murder.
Mr. Brancato’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, said New York State’s version of the law was “archaic,” and shifted the burden of proving innocence onto the defendants.
A juror in Mr. Brancato’s case, Arnaldo Nuñez, said that Mr. Brancato’s version of events had been convincing.
In the jury room, he said, “Every stone was turned over at least four times,” but the panel could not find that Mr. Brancato had known or should have known that his accomplice was carrying a gun.
Mr. Woods was charged as an accessory — someone who played a role, no matter how small, in a crime and is criminally liable for the acts of his partners.
Being present, the judge told his jury, was not enough. Jurors asked him to explain several times.
According to Robert C. Gottlieb, a criminal defense lawyer and a former prosecutor, “there is nothing inherently confusing about the law as it pertains to accomplice liability.”
But the difficulty comes when prosecutors have to apply “the facts that fit the law.”
He added, “The law is murky if the facts are murky.”
Many aspects of the case were murky, jurors said. Officer Timoshenko and his partner, Officer Herman Yan, were both shot as they approached an S.U.V they had pulled over.
And while prosecutors established that Mr. Woods and two other men, Dexter Bostic and Robert Ellis, were in the car, it was not clear where each of the men was sitting or who fired the shots.
Part of that mystery was cleared up last week, though, when Mr. Bostic’s jury convicted him of murdering Officer Timoshenko.
Still, a juror in Mr. Woods’s case said the instructions to the jury about an accessory’s liability had been confusing. “Even when the judge read it back, he never explained it in laymen’s terms,” said the juror, who insisted on anonymity because he was concerned about his safety.
Another juror, he said, was troubled with the notion that Mr. Woods could be guilty of murder without pulling a trigger. He said jurors were also confused about the concept of “acting in concert.”
Accepting that a defendant is an accessory “may be difficult for a juror to do, and it should be difficult,” Mr. Gottlieb said. “The jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Michael Wilson contributed reporting.
2008 The New York Times Company
Monday, December 22, 2008
Economy Affects Right to Trial
Even jury hiring is frozen
To cut costs, New Hampshire courts won't hold criminal or civil jury trials for a month. At least 19 other states have slashed court budgets and other state services.
By Bob Drogin December 22, 2008
Reporting from Brentwood, N.H. --
Come February, the red-brick Rockingham County Courthouse, one of New Hampshire's busiest, will arraign criminal suspects, process legal motions and otherwise deal with murders, mayhem and contract disputes.
What it won't do is hold jury trials.The economic storm has come to this: Justice is being delayed or disrupted in state courtrooms across the country.
Financially strapped New Hampshire has become a poster child for the problem. Among other cost-cutting measures, state courts will halt for a month all civil and criminal jury trials early next year to save $73,000 in jurors' per diems.
Officials warn they may add another four-week suspension."It brings our system almost to a screeching halt," said county prosecutor James M. Reams.
His aides are scrambling to reschedule 77 criminal trials that were on the February docket."All the effort to subpoena witnesses and prepare for those trials is right out the window," Reams said, frustration in his voice. "Internally, it's a monumental waste of time. We'll have to redo everything."
At least 19 other states, including California, have slashed court budgets and other government services as their economies have tanked, said Daniel Hall, vice president of the National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit in Williamsburg, Va."Courts are there to provide a fair and impartial resolution of disputes," Hall said.
"When you start affecting that, you affect who we are."California cut its judicial branch budget by more than $200 million, or about 10%, in the current fiscal year, and further reductions are almost certain as the state grapples with a projected $40-billion deficit.
A Republican proposal unveiled last week, for example, would trim a further $205 million from the judiciary.H.D. Palmer, spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's finance department, said it was "not yet clear" whether the judiciary would be granted an exemption to the governor's order to reduce state payrolls by 10% through layoffs and unpaid furloughs.
Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to a speedy trial. Judges usually give such trials priority over civil cases involving broken sidewalks, medical malpractice and the like.
As a result, civil litigation and family law cases are bearing the brunt of the disruptions. And cascading bankruptcies, foreclosures and business disputes have only increased the backlog.
After two rounds of budget cuts in Florida, courts have laid off 280 clerks, lawyers and other staff members, and cut funding for a judges' unit that helps resolve civil disputes.
State legislators meeting next month are expected to demand more spending cuts.An additional 10% reduction would mean "all civil cases in the state of Florida would virtually be suspended," Belvin Perry Jr., chief judge of Florida's 9th Judicial Circuit and chairman of a trial court budget commission, warned a legislative committee in Tallahassee this month.
In Vermont, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul L. Reiber recently proposed closing as many as seven county courts, as well as laying off employees, to help ease a budget deficit. The state already shuts district and family courts half a day each week to save money."None of our choices are good," Reiber conceded in a memo to court employees.
With rising joblessness and falling revenues, New Hampshire projects a budget deficit this year of $250 million. The crisis has forced Gov. John Lynch to seek spending cuts across state government, including the judicial system.John T. Broderick, chief justice of the state Supreme Court, has carved $2.7 million from the judicial budget. In addition to the one-month halt in jury trials and trimming back courtroom security, seven of the state's 59 judgeships will be left vacant through June, when the fiscal year ends.
Three of the empty slots are in trial courts. Worse, Broderick said, he may need to suspend jury trials for another month, and leave open a Supreme Court slot after one of the five justices retires in February.
It is the state's only appellate court."In my 36 years here as a lawyer and judge, I've never felt as insecure about the state courts in terms of operations and resources as I do now," Broderick said.
Robert J. Lynn, chief justice of the superior courts, which conduct all New Hampshire jury trials, said he fears the delays inevitably will cause damage. "There is some element of 'justice delayed, justice denied,' no doubt about it," he said.
Christopher Keating, executive director of the New Hampshire Public Defender program, said his chief concern now is "people in custody who will endure delays in getting their day in court."
The state Supreme Court threw out two criminal cases this year because trials did not begin within six months of arraignment, the legal limit.
Prosecutors fear more cases may be dismissed.Delays in jury trials in 2001 and 2002, during a previous budget crisis, caused less disruption because they involved fewer cases, said John Safford, Superior Court clerk in the Hillsborough County district that includes Manchester, the largest city.
This time, he needs to reschedule up to 100 trials."I've been here 30 years," he said. "This is the worst I've ever seen it."The delays may encourage some defendants to seek plea deals, or litigants to settle out of court.
Some counties are advocating out-of-court mediation and conflict resolution. But other cases may face new hurdles as time passes. "Witnesses die, memories fade; things happen when trials are delayed," said John Hutson, dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center, the state's only law school.
"Then you'll get a bow wave of cases, so they pile up the next month and it's hard to catch up.
"The slowdown has unnerved many residents in the state, where granite-hewn courthouses often anchor Colonial-era town squares. "You're talking about erosion of our fundamental civic fabric," said Ellen J. Shemitz, executive director of the New Hampshire Assn. for Justice, which represents civil trial attorneys.
James J. Tenn Jr., incoming president of the state's bar association, said that as the crisis has grown, New Hampshire courts have been slow to process orders, respond to lawyers' requests and "do the daily work." "We've just seen delay after delay after delay," said David Slawsky, a civil lawyer in Manchester.
"The court process is breaking down."Dennis Ducharme, a Manchester attorney, received cancellation notices last week for four personal injury cases scheduled for trial next year.
He worries that a delay of six months, perhaps longer, will make witnesses less willing to testify."The longer you drag it out, the more reluctant people become to cooperate," he said.
In Newport, in the rural west, lawyer Lisa Wellman-Ally has seen a property rights trial postponed four times. Each time, she has prepared 100 exhibits, re-subpoenaed witnesses, refreshed her arguments and billed her client for the time.
"Then we would get bounced again," she said.
No new trial date has been scheduled
.bob.drogin@latimes.com
To cut costs, New Hampshire courts won't hold criminal or civil jury trials for a month. At least 19 other states have slashed court budgets and other state services.
By Bob Drogin December 22, 2008
Reporting from Brentwood, N.H. --
Come February, the red-brick Rockingham County Courthouse, one of New Hampshire's busiest, will arraign criminal suspects, process legal motions and otherwise deal with murders, mayhem and contract disputes.
What it won't do is hold jury trials.The economic storm has come to this: Justice is being delayed or disrupted in state courtrooms across the country.
Financially strapped New Hampshire has become a poster child for the problem. Among other cost-cutting measures, state courts will halt for a month all civil and criminal jury trials early next year to save $73,000 in jurors' per diems.
Officials warn they may add another four-week suspension."It brings our system almost to a screeching halt," said county prosecutor James M. Reams.
His aides are scrambling to reschedule 77 criminal trials that were on the February docket."All the effort to subpoena witnesses and prepare for those trials is right out the window," Reams said, frustration in his voice. "Internally, it's a monumental waste of time. We'll have to redo everything."
At least 19 other states, including California, have slashed court budgets and other government services as their economies have tanked, said Daniel Hall, vice president of the National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit in Williamsburg, Va."Courts are there to provide a fair and impartial resolution of disputes," Hall said.
"When you start affecting that, you affect who we are."California cut its judicial branch budget by more than $200 million, or about 10%, in the current fiscal year, and further reductions are almost certain as the state grapples with a projected $40-billion deficit.
A Republican proposal unveiled last week, for example, would trim a further $205 million from the judiciary.H.D. Palmer, spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's finance department, said it was "not yet clear" whether the judiciary would be granted an exemption to the governor's order to reduce state payrolls by 10% through layoffs and unpaid furloughs.
Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to a speedy trial. Judges usually give such trials priority over civil cases involving broken sidewalks, medical malpractice and the like.
As a result, civil litigation and family law cases are bearing the brunt of the disruptions. And cascading bankruptcies, foreclosures and business disputes have only increased the backlog.
After two rounds of budget cuts in Florida, courts have laid off 280 clerks, lawyers and other staff members, and cut funding for a judges' unit that helps resolve civil disputes.
State legislators meeting next month are expected to demand more spending cuts.An additional 10% reduction would mean "all civil cases in the state of Florida would virtually be suspended," Belvin Perry Jr., chief judge of Florida's 9th Judicial Circuit and chairman of a trial court budget commission, warned a legislative committee in Tallahassee this month.
In Vermont, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul L. Reiber recently proposed closing as many as seven county courts, as well as laying off employees, to help ease a budget deficit. The state already shuts district and family courts half a day each week to save money."None of our choices are good," Reiber conceded in a memo to court employees.
With rising joblessness and falling revenues, New Hampshire projects a budget deficit this year of $250 million. The crisis has forced Gov. John Lynch to seek spending cuts across state government, including the judicial system.John T. Broderick, chief justice of the state Supreme Court, has carved $2.7 million from the judicial budget. In addition to the one-month halt in jury trials and trimming back courtroom security, seven of the state's 59 judgeships will be left vacant through June, when the fiscal year ends.
Three of the empty slots are in trial courts. Worse, Broderick said, he may need to suspend jury trials for another month, and leave open a Supreme Court slot after one of the five justices retires in February.
It is the state's only appellate court."In my 36 years here as a lawyer and judge, I've never felt as insecure about the state courts in terms of operations and resources as I do now," Broderick said.
Robert J. Lynn, chief justice of the superior courts, which conduct all New Hampshire jury trials, said he fears the delays inevitably will cause damage. "There is some element of 'justice delayed, justice denied,' no doubt about it," he said.
Christopher Keating, executive director of the New Hampshire Public Defender program, said his chief concern now is "people in custody who will endure delays in getting their day in court."
The state Supreme Court threw out two criminal cases this year because trials did not begin within six months of arraignment, the legal limit.
Prosecutors fear more cases may be dismissed.Delays in jury trials in 2001 and 2002, during a previous budget crisis, caused less disruption because they involved fewer cases, said John Safford, Superior Court clerk in the Hillsborough County district that includes Manchester, the largest city.
This time, he needs to reschedule up to 100 trials."I've been here 30 years," he said. "This is the worst I've ever seen it."The delays may encourage some defendants to seek plea deals, or litigants to settle out of court.
Some counties are advocating out-of-court mediation and conflict resolution. But other cases may face new hurdles as time passes. "Witnesses die, memories fade; things happen when trials are delayed," said John Hutson, dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center, the state's only law school.
"Then you'll get a bow wave of cases, so they pile up the next month and it's hard to catch up.
"The slowdown has unnerved many residents in the state, where granite-hewn courthouses often anchor Colonial-era town squares. "You're talking about erosion of our fundamental civic fabric," said Ellen J. Shemitz, executive director of the New Hampshire Assn. for Justice, which represents civil trial attorneys.
James J. Tenn Jr., incoming president of the state's bar association, said that as the crisis has grown, New Hampshire courts have been slow to process orders, respond to lawyers' requests and "do the daily work." "We've just seen delay after delay after delay," said David Slawsky, a civil lawyer in Manchester.
"The court process is breaking down."Dennis Ducharme, a Manchester attorney, received cancellation notices last week for four personal injury cases scheduled for trial next year.
He worries that a delay of six months, perhaps longer, will make witnesses less willing to testify."The longer you drag it out, the more reluctant people become to cooperate," he said.
In Newport, in the rural west, lawyer Lisa Wellman-Ally has seen a property rights trial postponed four times. Each time, she has prepared 100 exhibits, re-subpoenaed witnesses, refreshed her arguments and billed her client for the time.
"Then we would get bounced again," she said.
No new trial date has been scheduled
.bob.drogin@latimes.com
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Suggestions for TYC
Friday, December 19, 2008
TCJC: Jails need technical assistance to reduce unnecessary overcrowding
As part of their participation in the Sunset review process for the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition:
recently launched an anonymous online survey targeted towards Texas Sheriffs, County Court Judges, and Jail Administrators. Specifically, this survey was intended to address questions posed by the Sunset Advisory Commission in regards to the mission and performance of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS).
See the full survey here (pdf).
Most respondents said no changes were needed to TCJS' functions, but the largest number who offered suggestions believed that "additional assistance to jails and counties in their efforts to be safe and compliant," while responses to another question placed the highest premium on "more training for jail staff; more education and available information."
I think that's exactly right; TCJS currently performs annual inspections but does not have capacity to provide significant technical assistance to counties to help them implement diversion programs or reduce overcrowding. As a result, TCJC recommended that:
TCJS should be given additional staff that can focus solely on providing technical assistance for programs that provide rehabilitation, education, and re-integration for inmates confined in county and municipal jail facilities under its jurisdiction.
Such programs could include (a) group counseling, (b) drug education, (c) basic education programs, (d) transition planning, and (d) aftercare planning.
Staffing that function at TCJS could have a big impact on local jail overcrowding and help ensure that lessons learned in one jurisdiction are communicated to jailers in other counties. IMO, the other big need is for greater oversight by TCJS of medical and mental health-related jail functions, both as part of the inspection process and providing technical assistance to improve these functions.
Respondents to TCJC's survey were asked to list the biggest challenges facing their jails and TCJS in the next five to ten years and, perhaps predictably, the top three were:
36% = overcrowding (due to increasing jail populations)
22% = additional jail and TCJS staffing•
13% = additional jail construction
It's true that jail populations are increasing in Texas even though crime has been declining, but nearly all that trend results from expanded use of pretrial detention for low-level offenders.
Given that, staffing TCJS to provide technical assistance aimed at reducing pretrial detention could produce a lot of bang for the buck for county taxpayers, particularly in the near term when many jurisdictions are still using inefficient practices. I think that's a really smart suggestion.
Read TCJC's full written response to the Sunset Staff Report here.
See also the Sunset staff report and public comments submitted as part of the Sunset process.
Posted by Gritsforbreakfast at 8:45 AM
TCJC: Jails need technical assistance to reduce unnecessary overcrowding
As part of their participation in the Sunset review process for the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition:
recently launched an anonymous online survey targeted towards Texas Sheriffs, County Court Judges, and Jail Administrators. Specifically, this survey was intended to address questions posed by the Sunset Advisory Commission in regards to the mission and performance of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS).
See the full survey here (pdf).
Most respondents said no changes were needed to TCJS' functions, but the largest number who offered suggestions believed that "additional assistance to jails and counties in their efforts to be safe and compliant," while responses to another question placed the highest premium on "more training for jail staff; more education and available information."
I think that's exactly right; TCJS currently performs annual inspections but does not have capacity to provide significant technical assistance to counties to help them implement diversion programs or reduce overcrowding. As a result, TCJC recommended that:
TCJS should be given additional staff that can focus solely on providing technical assistance for programs that provide rehabilitation, education, and re-integration for inmates confined in county and municipal jail facilities under its jurisdiction.
Such programs could include (a) group counseling, (b) drug education, (c) basic education programs, (d) transition planning, and (d) aftercare planning.
Staffing that function at TCJS could have a big impact on local jail overcrowding and help ensure that lessons learned in one jurisdiction are communicated to jailers in other counties. IMO, the other big need is for greater oversight by TCJS of medical and mental health-related jail functions, both as part of the inspection process and providing technical assistance to improve these functions.
Respondents to TCJC's survey were asked to list the biggest challenges facing their jails and TCJS in the next five to ten years and, perhaps predictably, the top three were:
36% = overcrowding (due to increasing jail populations)
22% = additional jail and TCJS staffing•
13% = additional jail construction
It's true that jail populations are increasing in Texas even though crime has been declining, but nearly all that trend results from expanded use of pretrial detention for low-level offenders.
Given that, staffing TCJS to provide technical assistance aimed at reducing pretrial detention could produce a lot of bang for the buck for county taxpayers, particularly in the near term when many jurisdictions are still using inefficient practices. I think that's a really smart suggestion.
Read TCJC's full written response to the Sunset Staff Report here.
See also the Sunset staff report and public comments submitted as part of the Sunset process.
Posted by Gritsforbreakfast at 8:45 AM
Thursday, December 18, 2008
SHould Jury Verdict be Unanimous
GA Sentence Prompts Calls For Change In Jury Unanimity Rule
Georgia legislators have began lining up to introduce bills eliminating the requirement that juries be unanimous for a death sentence, days after Atlanta mass murderer Brian Nichols got a life sentence instead of condemnation when three jurors declined to vote for execution.
Hard-on-crime lawmakers have long favored easier rules on death sentencing, but the Nichols sentence has given new urgency to their cause. "Unfortunately, you have people who say they're willing to consider the death penalty, but when they get on a jury, it becomes clear that they're actually death penalty opponents," said Representative Barry A. Fleming, a Harlem Republican who twice sponsored efforts to revoke the unanimity requirement.
Jurors in the Nichols trial reported that one juror was so opposed to the death penalty that she plugged her ears with earphones and solved a crossword puzzle during the sentencing phase, said Paul Howard, the district attorney of Fulton County.
It is not clear that the proposal can withstand a constitutional challenge. Even critics of the death penalty worried about the message sent by the Nichols sentence. "This case shows how arbitrary and irrational the death penalty can be," said Richard C. Dieter, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "People shake their heads when they hear that someone got the death penalty for robbing a 7-Eleven, and Brian Nichols got life in prison for his heinous crimes."
New York Times
Georgia legislators have began lining up to introduce bills eliminating the requirement that juries be unanimous for a death sentence, days after Atlanta mass murderer Brian Nichols got a life sentence instead of condemnation when three jurors declined to vote for execution.
Hard-on-crime lawmakers have long favored easier rules on death sentencing, but the Nichols sentence has given new urgency to their cause. "Unfortunately, you have people who say they're willing to consider the death penalty, but when they get on a jury, it becomes clear that they're actually death penalty opponents," said Representative Barry A. Fleming, a Harlem Republican who twice sponsored efforts to revoke the unanimity requirement.
Jurors in the Nichols trial reported that one juror was so opposed to the death penalty that she plugged her ears with earphones and solved a crossword puzzle during the sentencing phase, said Paul Howard, the district attorney of Fulton County.
It is not clear that the proposal can withstand a constitutional challenge. Even critics of the death penalty worried about the message sent by the Nichols sentence. "This case shows how arbitrary and irrational the death penalty can be," said Richard C. Dieter, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "People shake their heads when they hear that someone got the death penalty for robbing a 7-Eleven, and Brian Nichols got life in prison for his heinous crimes."
New York Times
Crime Rate Stays the Same
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 (UPI) -- The violent crime rate in 2007 was close to the 2005 rate while the property crime rate was somewhat below the 2005 figure, the U.S. Justice Department said.
Violent and property crime rates in 2007 were at or near the lowest levels recorded data was first available in 1973, the department's Bureau of Justice Statistics said Wednesday in a news release.
Rates for 2007 and 2005 were compared since 2006's rates were atypical because of methodology changes made to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the bureau said.
In 2007, the violent crime rate of 20.7 incidents per 1,000 persons over the age of 12 was 43 percent lower than the rate in 1998, and the property crime rate of 146.5 incidents per 1,000 households was 33 percent lower than in 1998, the bureau said.
During 2007, U.S. residents over the age of 12 experienced an estimated 23 million crimes of violence and theft.
Males experienced 22 violent victimizations per 1,000 males, while females experienced 19 violent victimizations per 1,000 females, the statistics indicated.
The bureau's data indicate 46 six percent of all violent crimes and 37 percent of all property crimes were reported to the police.
© 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Violent and property crime rates in 2007 were at or near the lowest levels recorded data was first available in 1973, the department's Bureau of Justice Statistics said Wednesday in a news release.
Rates for 2007 and 2005 were compared since 2006's rates were atypical because of methodology changes made to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the bureau said.
In 2007, the violent crime rate of 20.7 incidents per 1,000 persons over the age of 12 was 43 percent lower than the rate in 1998, and the property crime rate of 146.5 incidents per 1,000 households was 33 percent lower than in 1998, the bureau said.
During 2007, U.S. residents over the age of 12 experienced an estimated 23 million crimes of violence and theft.
Males experienced 22 violent victimizations per 1,000 males, while females experienced 19 violent victimizations per 1,000 females, the statistics indicated.
The bureau's data indicate 46 six percent of all violent crimes and 37 percent of all property crimes were reported to the police.
© 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Education Link to Lower Cost of Corrections
Prison system in need of correction
by Jeffery C. Mays/Star-Ledger
Sunday December 14, 2008, 9:17 AM
Faced with spending up to eight years at Mountainview Youth Correctional Facility in Annandale on drug and robbery charges, William Blaine -- for the first time in his 21 years -- had a moment of forced stillness to reflect on his future.
Blaine received a high school equivalency degree, but when he wanted to take the next step and enroll in college and computer classes, he was told the state no longer offered those courses.
"Getting my GED made me feel so good. If there were more classes to take, I would have kept pushing," said Blaine, now 36, who was released in two years. "They called it a correctional facility but there was no correcting going on."
Reinstating educational programming inside New Jersey's prisons is just one of the recommendations that has come out of "Counting The Costs," a series of public hearings seeking to elicit public input on how to improve the state's criminal justice system and the process of reintegrating ex-offenders into society upon their release.
Sponsored by Assembly Majority leader Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-Mercer), the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and the Second Chance Campaign of New Jersey, the third of nine expected hearings was held at Rutgers-Newark last week.
Coleman said she hopes the hearings will lead to major changes in New Jersey's criminal justice system either by legislation -- ending the practice of forcing those convicted of certain criminal offenses to notify potential employers -- or by administrative adjustments to the way the system operates -- eliminating the onerous phone surcharges that inmates face when making calls.
"We wanted to get a full appreciation of the issues by talking to people in the system, the ex-offenders, the people who deliver the services, the families," Coleman said at the Rutgers hearing, which focused on education and drug treatment.
"When looking at the social and economic cost to our state, there should be a tremendous will to reform the system."
Experts agree the system is both expensive and broken. The cost of housing the state's inmate population has increased to more than $1 billion, and two-thirds of the 70,000 adults and juveniles released from prison over the next five years are excepted to be rearrested within three years.
While it costs $40,000 to house an inmate for a year, half as much can be spent to provide comprehensive drug treatment or education.
Michael B. Jackson, a motivational speaker and member of the Juvenile Justice Commission, said the state simply isn't friendly to formerly incarcerated men and women who are trying to improve life for themselves and their families.
Jackson, who went to prison 35 years ago after becoming addicted to heroin at 17, and spent the next several years going in and out of prison for parole violations, said the stigma of having served time never goes away.
"After 35 years, when I go for insurance I still have to check the box that I've been incarcerated. Will it ever end?" he asked during his testimony.
Robert Parkinson, a manager for Integrity House who spent six years behind bars for vehicular homicide while he was an alcoholic, said prison alone will never be the answer, especially since drug addiction is such a prevalent issue among ex-offenders.
An informal survey among the 289 ex-offenders at Integrity House revealed startling statistics. They had served a combined 1,532 years over 2 1/2 prison terms at a cost to taxpayers of $53 million. Almost 80 percent identified themselves as substance abusers. The convictions led 71 percent of them to have suspended licenses and made 56 percent ineligible for welfare. Combined, they owed $650,000 in child support that they were unable to pay.
"There's a tremendous misnomer that if you send someone to prison that hard time fixes them and they fold back into society. Nothing is further from the truth. Addiction is a disease and a disease needs treatment," said Parkinson.
Omar Shabazz, a counselor who works with ex-offenders with the American Friends Service Committee, bemoaned the fact that the programs that allowed him to get a college degree while he spent the years from his 18th to 40th birthdays in prison for a drug-related murder, kidnapping and robbery, no longer exist.
The issues he sees facing incarcerated and newly released inmates range from the basic -- not having identification and medical records and overpriced prison goods, to systematic failures -- a difficult and slow parole process.
There are cost-effective ways to address these issues, said Cornell Brooks, executive director of New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. Online classes can be an inexpensive way to deliver classes to large numbers of inmates. The state can also add incentives such as reduced prison time for inmates who improve themselves educationally. The vocational classes that are offered should match job demands.
In terms of drug treatment, the number of beds simply does not address the need, said Brooks. Drug courts that emphasize intervention, treatment and supervision can help keep nonviolent inmates out of prison and save money.
"After a certain point, the public can't sustain throwing money at a problem and failing all the while talking about being tough on crime. The best way to be tough on crime is to reduce it," said Brooks.
Blaine, who accepts responsibility for his choices, thinks not being able to take college courses may have killed his momentum. After being released, he returned to the streets and got a low-paying job. He soon became distracted by the lure of abundant drug money, drug use and the street lifestyle. To the surprise of no one, he found himself back in trouble.
"Being incarcerated I gained knowledge of what I wanted to be. But when I reached a certain level, I felt the support wasn't there. There just wasn't enough to grab onto," said Blaine.
by Jeffery C. Mays/Star-Ledger
Sunday December 14, 2008, 9:17 AM
Faced with spending up to eight years at Mountainview Youth Correctional Facility in Annandale on drug and robbery charges, William Blaine -- for the first time in his 21 years -- had a moment of forced stillness to reflect on his future.
Blaine received a high school equivalency degree, but when he wanted to take the next step and enroll in college and computer classes, he was told the state no longer offered those courses.
"Getting my GED made me feel so good. If there were more classes to take, I would have kept pushing," said Blaine, now 36, who was released in two years. "They called it a correctional facility but there was no correcting going on."
Reinstating educational programming inside New Jersey's prisons is just one of the recommendations that has come out of "Counting The Costs," a series of public hearings seeking to elicit public input on how to improve the state's criminal justice system and the process of reintegrating ex-offenders into society upon their release.
Sponsored by Assembly Majority leader Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-Mercer), the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and the Second Chance Campaign of New Jersey, the third of nine expected hearings was held at Rutgers-Newark last week.
Coleman said she hopes the hearings will lead to major changes in New Jersey's criminal justice system either by legislation -- ending the practice of forcing those convicted of certain criminal offenses to notify potential employers -- or by administrative adjustments to the way the system operates -- eliminating the onerous phone surcharges that inmates face when making calls.
"We wanted to get a full appreciation of the issues by talking to people in the system, the ex-offenders, the people who deliver the services, the families," Coleman said at the Rutgers hearing, which focused on education and drug treatment.
"When looking at the social and economic cost to our state, there should be a tremendous will to reform the system."
Experts agree the system is both expensive and broken. The cost of housing the state's inmate population has increased to more than $1 billion, and two-thirds of the 70,000 adults and juveniles released from prison over the next five years are excepted to be rearrested within three years.
While it costs $40,000 to house an inmate for a year, half as much can be spent to provide comprehensive drug treatment or education.
Michael B. Jackson, a motivational speaker and member of the Juvenile Justice Commission, said the state simply isn't friendly to formerly incarcerated men and women who are trying to improve life for themselves and their families.
Jackson, who went to prison 35 years ago after becoming addicted to heroin at 17, and spent the next several years going in and out of prison for parole violations, said the stigma of having served time never goes away.
"After 35 years, when I go for insurance I still have to check the box that I've been incarcerated. Will it ever end?" he asked during his testimony.
Robert Parkinson, a manager for Integrity House who spent six years behind bars for vehicular homicide while he was an alcoholic, said prison alone will never be the answer, especially since drug addiction is such a prevalent issue among ex-offenders.
An informal survey among the 289 ex-offenders at Integrity House revealed startling statistics. They had served a combined 1,532 years over 2 1/2 prison terms at a cost to taxpayers of $53 million. Almost 80 percent identified themselves as substance abusers. The convictions led 71 percent of them to have suspended licenses and made 56 percent ineligible for welfare. Combined, they owed $650,000 in child support that they were unable to pay.
"There's a tremendous misnomer that if you send someone to prison that hard time fixes them and they fold back into society. Nothing is further from the truth. Addiction is a disease and a disease needs treatment," said Parkinson.
Omar Shabazz, a counselor who works with ex-offenders with the American Friends Service Committee, bemoaned the fact that the programs that allowed him to get a college degree while he spent the years from his 18th to 40th birthdays in prison for a drug-related murder, kidnapping and robbery, no longer exist.
The issues he sees facing incarcerated and newly released inmates range from the basic -- not having identification and medical records and overpriced prison goods, to systematic failures -- a difficult and slow parole process.
There are cost-effective ways to address these issues, said Cornell Brooks, executive director of New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. Online classes can be an inexpensive way to deliver classes to large numbers of inmates. The state can also add incentives such as reduced prison time for inmates who improve themselves educationally. The vocational classes that are offered should match job demands.
In terms of drug treatment, the number of beds simply does not address the need, said Brooks. Drug courts that emphasize intervention, treatment and supervision can help keep nonviolent inmates out of prison and save money.
"After a certain point, the public can't sustain throwing money at a problem and failing all the while talking about being tough on crime. The best way to be tough on crime is to reduce it," said Brooks.
Blaine, who accepts responsibility for his choices, thinks not being able to take college courses may have killed his momentum. After being released, he returned to the streets and got a low-paying job. He soon became distracted by the lure of abundant drug money, drug use and the street lifestyle. To the surprise of no one, he found himself back in trouble.
"Being incarcerated I gained knowledge of what I wanted to be. But when I reached a certain level, I felt the support wasn't there. There just wasn't enough to grab onto," said Blaine.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
When Courts Defy the Supreme Court
Hard as it is to believe, there have been times in our history when lower courts have not followed out the mandates of the United States Supreme Court which has no built-in means of enforcement.
This appeared in today's New York Times
December 4, 2008
Justices Look Anew at Case in Which Oregon Court Has Twice Rebuffed Them
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — The United States Supreme Court takes its name seriously, and it expects lower courts to follow its instructions. But the Oregon Supreme Court has twice refused to reduce a $79.5 million punitive damages award in the face of increasingly blunt directions from the nation’s highest court.
When the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the Oregon case for a third time in June, many legal experts assumed it did so to teach the lower court a lesson about which court has the last word.
“The Oregon Supreme Court really has continued to be defiant in this case,” Benjamin C. Zipursky, a Fordham law professor, said.
Philip Morris USA, which is fighting the award, filed unusually aggressive briefs in recent months, comparing the Oregon Supreme Court’s conduct to that of recalcitrant Southern courts in the civil rights era. And the company’s lawyer, Stephen M. Shapiro, sounded confident that he would be speaking to a sympathetic audience when he faced the justices on Wednesday.
“We are here today,” Mr. Shapiro said, “because the Oregon court failed to follow this court’s directives.”
But Mr. Shapiro’s reception was decidedly mixed. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the author of the 5-to-4 decision last year that ordered the Oregon court to have a fresh look at the award, said his initial reaction to the state court decision had been skeptical.
“I thought, ‘This is a runaround,’ ” Justice Breyer said. But he added, “I’m not sure I think that now.”
The United States Supreme Court’s instructions last year, concerning how the punitive award had been calculated, seemed clear enough.
The Oregon courts had allowed the jury to consider two kinds of harm in assessing the award at issue in the case, Philip Morris v. Williams, No. 07-1216.
One was routine: the jury looked at the harm suffered by Jesse D. Williams, the man whose widow brought the case. Mr. Williams died of lung cancer in 1996 after smoking two packs of Marlboros a day for decades.
But the jury also considered a second kind of harm, to other smokers, and Justice Breyer last year said that was a serious error. “The due process clause prohibits a state’s inflicting punishment for harm caused strangers to the litigation,” he wrote.
Punitive damages cases can produce unusual alliances. Here, Justice Breyer was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The dissenters were Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In sum, Justice Breyer wrote last year, “the Oregon Supreme Court applied the wrong constitutional standard” and should now “apply the standard we have set forth.”
But the Oregon court, which in an earlier decision had said Philip Morris “engaged in a massive, continuous, near-half-century scheme to defraud the plaintiff and many others,” did not apply the new standard. Instead, it ruled against Philip Morris on a different, technical and arguably trivial ground involving flaws in the jury instructions Philip Morris had submitted at the trial in 1999. The jury instructions, the state court ruled, used “may” when they should have used “shall,” and they referred to “illicit profits” when they should have omitted the adjective.
“It’s truly a game of gotcha that just nullifies the defendant’s due process rights,” Mr. Shapiro told the justices.
But there is a requirement of Oregon law that says jury instructions to be “clear and correct in all respects” and “altogether free from error.”
“They are pretty picky,” Justice Breyer said of the Oregon justices. “And not only are they being picky, but they are being picky after the event.”
Justice Scalia, who was in dissent last year, sounded exasperated. “Is it up to a state court to sit in judgment about whether our remand orders are in error or not?” he asked.
The Oregon court’s approach did not seem to bother Justice Souter, who was in the majority last year, or Justice Ginsburg, who dissented. Both indicated that the Oregon court was free to decide the jury-instruction issue as and when it wanted.
But even justices who seemed inclined to allow the Oregon court’s ruling to stand worried about the signal that might send to a lower court, particularly in capital cases.
“Is there any way for us to ensure against, in effect, a bad-faith response to our decision?” Justice Souter asked.
Chief Justice Roberts had an answer. “There is, of course, another way to protect our constitutional authority in this case” aside from telling state courts when to decide which issue, he said.
“If there is something malodorous about the fact that the Oregon Supreme Court waited until the last minute to come up with this rule that was before them all the time,” he said, perhaps the United States Supreme Court should agree to decide a separate and fundamental issue that it has so far pointedly avoided in this case, the proper ratio between the punitive and compensatory awards.
The punitive award was 97 times as large as the compensatory award of $821,000. Recent Supreme Court decisions have suggested that the ratio between punitive and compensatory awards should not ordinarily exceed a single digit and should perhaps be capped at 1:1.
It was not clear how serious the chief justice was about the suggestion. But there is at least some chance that the court will avoid ruling on whether the Oregon Supreme Court had defied it by simply addressing what is in some ways the core issue in the case.
****
The United States Constitution was written with states' rights recognized and a government that has two parallel components: federal government (all three branches) and state governments (all three branches). Accepting all this, do you believe that the actions of the Oregon Supreme Court as well at the United States Supreme Court are in keeping with the intent of the founders of our nation who penned the United States Constitution?
This appeared in today's New York Times
December 4, 2008
Justices Look Anew at Case in Which Oregon Court Has Twice Rebuffed Them
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — The United States Supreme Court takes its name seriously, and it expects lower courts to follow its instructions. But the Oregon Supreme Court has twice refused to reduce a $79.5 million punitive damages award in the face of increasingly blunt directions from the nation’s highest court.
When the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the Oregon case for a third time in June, many legal experts assumed it did so to teach the lower court a lesson about which court has the last word.
“The Oregon Supreme Court really has continued to be defiant in this case,” Benjamin C. Zipursky, a Fordham law professor, said.
Philip Morris USA, which is fighting the award, filed unusually aggressive briefs in recent months, comparing the Oregon Supreme Court’s conduct to that of recalcitrant Southern courts in the civil rights era. And the company’s lawyer, Stephen M. Shapiro, sounded confident that he would be speaking to a sympathetic audience when he faced the justices on Wednesday.
“We are here today,” Mr. Shapiro said, “because the Oregon court failed to follow this court’s directives.”
But Mr. Shapiro’s reception was decidedly mixed. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the author of the 5-to-4 decision last year that ordered the Oregon court to have a fresh look at the award, said his initial reaction to the state court decision had been skeptical.
“I thought, ‘This is a runaround,’ ” Justice Breyer said. But he added, “I’m not sure I think that now.”
The United States Supreme Court’s instructions last year, concerning how the punitive award had been calculated, seemed clear enough.
The Oregon courts had allowed the jury to consider two kinds of harm in assessing the award at issue in the case, Philip Morris v. Williams, No. 07-1216.
One was routine: the jury looked at the harm suffered by Jesse D. Williams, the man whose widow brought the case. Mr. Williams died of lung cancer in 1996 after smoking two packs of Marlboros a day for decades.
But the jury also considered a second kind of harm, to other smokers, and Justice Breyer last year said that was a serious error. “The due process clause prohibits a state’s inflicting punishment for harm caused strangers to the litigation,” he wrote.
Punitive damages cases can produce unusual alliances. Here, Justice Breyer was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The dissenters were Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In sum, Justice Breyer wrote last year, “the Oregon Supreme Court applied the wrong constitutional standard” and should now “apply the standard we have set forth.”
But the Oregon court, which in an earlier decision had said Philip Morris “engaged in a massive, continuous, near-half-century scheme to defraud the plaintiff and many others,” did not apply the new standard. Instead, it ruled against Philip Morris on a different, technical and arguably trivial ground involving flaws in the jury instructions Philip Morris had submitted at the trial in 1999. The jury instructions, the state court ruled, used “may” when they should have used “shall,” and they referred to “illicit profits” when they should have omitted the adjective.
“It’s truly a game of gotcha that just nullifies the defendant’s due process rights,” Mr. Shapiro told the justices.
But there is a requirement of Oregon law that says jury instructions to be “clear and correct in all respects” and “altogether free from error.”
“They are pretty picky,” Justice Breyer said of the Oregon justices. “And not only are they being picky, but they are being picky after the event.”
Justice Scalia, who was in dissent last year, sounded exasperated. “Is it up to a state court to sit in judgment about whether our remand orders are in error or not?” he asked.
The Oregon court’s approach did not seem to bother Justice Souter, who was in the majority last year, or Justice Ginsburg, who dissented. Both indicated that the Oregon court was free to decide the jury-instruction issue as and when it wanted.
But even justices who seemed inclined to allow the Oregon court’s ruling to stand worried about the signal that might send to a lower court, particularly in capital cases.
“Is there any way for us to ensure against, in effect, a bad-faith response to our decision?” Justice Souter asked.
Chief Justice Roberts had an answer. “There is, of course, another way to protect our constitutional authority in this case” aside from telling state courts when to decide which issue, he said.
“If there is something malodorous about the fact that the Oregon Supreme Court waited until the last minute to come up with this rule that was before them all the time,” he said, perhaps the United States Supreme Court should agree to decide a separate and fundamental issue that it has so far pointedly avoided in this case, the proper ratio between the punitive and compensatory awards.
The punitive award was 97 times as large as the compensatory award of $821,000. Recent Supreme Court decisions have suggested that the ratio between punitive and compensatory awards should not ordinarily exceed a single digit and should perhaps be capped at 1:1.
It was not clear how serious the chief justice was about the suggestion. But there is at least some chance that the court will avoid ruling on whether the Oregon Supreme Court had defied it by simply addressing what is in some ways the core issue in the case.
****
The United States Constitution was written with states' rights recognized and a government that has two parallel components: federal government (all three branches) and state governments (all three branches). Accepting all this, do you believe that the actions of the Oregon Supreme Court as well at the United States Supreme Court are in keeping with the intent of the founders of our nation who penned the United States Constitution?
Monday, December 1, 2008
Manipulation by Psychologists and 6 innocents go to prison
Published Saturday November 29, 2008
Psychologist had dual role in confessions of Beatrice 6
BY PAUL HAMMEL
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
•
What were the stories of the Beatrice 6?
RELATED
•
LINCOLN — How could so many people admit in vivid detail to a horrendous crime
that they didn't commit?
That was the question after the Central Park 5.
After the Norfolk 4.And now, the Beatrice 6.
The murder case out of Beatrice, Neb., in which six people were wrongfully convicted
in 1989 of the slaying of a 68-year-old woman, is a new national record for the most people
exonerated in one case by DNA evidence.
Types of false confessions
Voluntary: Without prompting from police, people profess guilt to crimes
they didn't commit for attention, to protect someone else or because
they suffer from delusions.
Compliant: A suspect confesses falsely to avoid punishment,
escape from a stressful interrogation or gain an implied reward.
Internalized: Vulnerable suspects, due to young age, mental problems
and other factors, exposed to highly suggestive interrogation tactics,
not only confess but grow to believe that they committed a crime.
Sources: Saul Kassin, psychology professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice;
World-Herald files
Two national experts who study false confessions said the Beatrice case
appears to fit patterns of other cases: The suspects were young people with low-esteem
or mental problems who were abusing alcohol or drugs.
They were easily influenced, easily confused and worn out by aggressive
questioning.But Saul Kassin, a professor of psychology at the John Jay College
of Criminal Justice in New York City, and Richard Leo, a law professor at the
University of San Francisco, said the Beatrice case had an unusual aspect:
the role played during interrogations by a police psychologist who previously
had served as private therapist to some of those being questioned.
In general, false confessions, even by several people in the same case, are not that unusual,
Kassin said. About 25 percent of the cases where DNA evidence has led to exonerations
involve false confessions.
Some prior cases with multiple defendants include the four sailors who admitted
to the 1997 rape and murder of a colleague's wife in Norfolk, Va., though later DNA
tests led to the real killer, and the five New York City teenagers who confessed to a
1989 gang rape of a jogger in Central Park, a case later linked by DNA to a single, serial rapist.
In the Beatrice 6 case, five of the defendants acknowledged their guilt,
and at least four gave detailed statements about who was involved and
why they would brutally attack, sexually assault and murder Helen Wilson.
On Nov. 7, authorities announced that DNA from the case matched that of a
now-deceased Oklahoma City man, Bruce Smith.
The state is seeking pardons for five of the defendants and has declined
to seek a new trial for the sixth, whose conviction was overturned after
the new DNA findings.
Kassin and Leo said that a psychologist acting in the dual role of trusted
therapist and criminal interrogator would have had a powerful place of trust
and persuasion over suspects."That is a wide open target," Leo said,
of the involvement of Wayne Price, a licensed psychologist
who consulted with the Gage County Sheriff's Office on criminal behavior.
Price, reached several times recently, said he could not comment because
he is still a part-time sheriff's deputy in Beatrice.
Price did say he didn't recall much from the Wilson case,
which began with the murder in 1985 and ended in 1989
with the arrest and convictions of the six.
Court records indicate that he warned those he interviewed in 1989
that anything they said would be passed on to investigators.
When questioned about his conflicting roles during a pretrial deposition
in 1989, Price said, "What I find, I find. It makes no difference to me. . . .
When I have an emotional involvement or vested interest and can't do it objectively,
I will say so."The prosecutor in the Beatrice 6 case, former Gage County Attorney
Dick Smith, defended Price's involvement, saying it was mainly to have a
trained witness in case defendants sought to have themselves declared
mentally unfit to stand trial.Price, Smith said, was a sworn deputy
for the Gage County Sheriff's Office and there was nothing improper
with allowing him to do some interrogations.
Smith said he's still unsure if the 1989 confessions were completely false.
He presented other scenarios: Bruce Smith, the DNA-linked rapist,
might have arrived after the six others had assaulted Helen Wilson;
or might have been with the six others, who may not have left evidence;
or that evidence was missed."I can't say 100 percent sure they didn't do it," he said.
Experts Kassin and Leo said safeguards against false confessions include requiring
videotaping of police interviews in their entirety — the Nebraska Legislature passed
such a law limited to certain felonies last spring — and making sure that confessions
match facts known only to police.
Confessions are powerful tools in criminal trials, viewed as the "gold standard"
of evidence by legal scholars, according to Kassin.
In the Beatrice 6 case, only one of the defendants, Joseph White,
then a 26-year-old drifter out of Alabama, refused to confess.
He testified that he had nothing to do with the slaying but was found guilty
by a jury of first-degree murder. The verdict hinged mostly on the testimony
of three co-defendants who faced reduced charges in exchange for testimony
and guilty pleas.
Those three were: Ada JoAnn Taylor, 25, Deb Shelden, 31, and James Dean, 25.
Two other defendants pleaded no-contest to reduced charges:
Thomas Winslow, 23, and Kathy Gonzalez, 29.
One of White's attorney's in 1989, Toney Redman, recalled arguing in court
that those testifying were "so weak-minded" that their stories could not be trusted.
"I'm fully convinced now," he said this week, "that the police, if they wanted to,
could get any borderline personality person, who has alcohol and drug issues,
and scare them to death and get them to confess to anything."
The testimony of the main witnesses changed over time as they "remembered"
details.Taylor, for instance, in a videotaped interrogation session, initially said
that she couldn't recall much because she had memory problems.
She denies telling anyone she had committed a murder, and says
police told her she was at the crime scene.
Taylor eventually tells them that she and White and another man drove
in a light blue car to a house where an older lady was assaulted.
But an investigator questions the story, asking if she was "confused"
about the location.
"Yeah," Taylor responds, mentioning her personality disorder,
diagnosed by Price years earlier.
Later, after the videotape is turned off for 19 minutes,
Taylor comes back and implicates Winslow, describes his large brown and beige car
— the car police had believed was used in the crime —
and says she might have told others she was involved.
She also then tells investigators that she remembers that the location
was a red brick apartment building.
Sam Stevens, an investigator for the Beatrice Police Department,
also asks Taylor if she remembers "a struggle in the bedroom,
do you remember the light in the bedroom, was there blood on the sheets,
was there blood on the walls?"
"Yeah, yeah I do," Taylor responds.
Leading questions and feeds about crime-scene information
are common in false confessions, Kassin and Leo said.
Interrogators also are trained in a controversial questioning style,
called the Reid technique, to confront a suspect,
minimize any statements of innocence and
suggest morally justified reasons why the person committed the crime.
Suspects also are sometimes told that it's natural
to "block" or suppress memories of such gruesome events.
According to court records, Kathy Gonzalez in 1989 repeatedly denied
that she was involved in the Wilson case and told Price that
she didn't even know Winslow.
"You apparently don't want to," replies Price,
telling Gonzalez there was a good chance, based on statements
by others, that she was at the crime but blocked it from her memory.
He added that he could "work with" her on memory problems.
Winslow's attorney in 1989, John Stevens Berry, said his client
decided to plead no contest after White was found guilty by a jury
that deliberated only 2½ hours.
Berry said White's defense attorneys, Redman and Alan Stoler,
cross-examined the four co-defendants who testified against White,
questioning whether they really witnessed the events,
dreamed about them or were fed information.
Berry said that today, people are "scratching their heads"
over the mistaken convictions.•
Contact the writer: 402-473-9584, paul.hammel@owh.com
Contact the Omaha World-Herald newsroomCopyright ©2008 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
