Death Eligible

I was in court recently on an 88 defendant gang case in Federal Court in Los Angeles. The judge asked the U.S. attorney how many of the defendants were “death eligible.” The U.S. attorney responded that they were waiting from approval from Washington D.C. on 9 of the defendants. It struck me that this prosecutor who seems like a very nice guy, is a murderer. He is going to ask a jury to kill 9 of the people who were sitting in that courtroom and the United States government was going to give him the authority to do that. The judge, who is also a very nice judge, seemed completely un-phased by the whole procedure. How can we as a nation condone killing when we’re trying to punish people for killing? Where is the logic in that? Readmore »»

A Prosecutor by any other name is still a prosecutor

It drives me crazy when I see ads for defense attorneys that say, “former prosecutor”. Why would I hire a former prosecutor to defend me? I want a defense attorney. Former prosecutors are, by nature, prosecutors. Their inherent bias is that people are guilty. They are not by nature compassionate, non-judgmental people who will believe that someone is wrongly accused by their former colleagues. And they do not, despite hope, get special treatment by their former colleagues because they are former prosecutors. In fact, I was in court one day in the jury room where DAs and defense attorneys meet to discuss cases and there was a blackboard in the room. Written on the blackboard it said, “If you tell me you’re a former DA, the offer goes up.” I am not now nor have I ever been a prosecutor. I am a dyed in the wool, bleeding heart, “true believer”. I couldn’t prosecute someone. I couldn’t find someone guilty of I were a juror because I know that the system is flawed and that the only people who ever truly know what happened are the people who were there. Who am I to judge? I give everyone the benefit of the doubt because we are all human. That is not in the nature of a prosecutor. Someone who prosecuted people for 20 years is not suddenly going to change their very nature. Prosecutors usually leave their jobs as prosecutors because they decided they wanted to take a shot at making more money. This is not to say they’re not intelligent and capable lawyers. And some do become very committed to the cause. But, I believe that they’re cut from different cloth. Readmore »»

The Turn of the Wheel

Federal Judges are chosen by the turn of a wheel, literally. After an idividual is indicted, or charged with a crime, they are arraigned in the magistrate court. At the arraignment, they enter a plea of not guilty to the criminal charges. The magistrate judge or his clerk then spin a wheel (or look through a stack of cards or do something on their computer) and a judge is "randomly" selected. Athough sometimes it is curious that the same judge ends up being "randomly" assigned to all of the complex cases involving certain issues. One Judge in our court seems to get all of the large gang cases in that court because he has a special expertise in dealing with these cases and the individuals involved.

The New York Times recently reported that this very same "turn of the wheel" will determine which judge will preside over the highly controversial trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of the alleged terrorists involved with the attacks of September 11, 2001. This trial will last years and will require the judge to have security around the clock, most likely for the rest of his life. It is actuallly quite common for any judge presiding over any case involving cases with allegations of extreme violence and life or death sentences.

This "turn of the wheel" changes the course of the judges life as well as the lives of the individuals whose cases are assigned to the particular judge. There is a moment in every federal arraignment when the defense attorney holds his or her breath while waiting to learn which judge has been assigned to their case. The whole ethos of the case is determined why which judge will preside not to mention the rulings on bail issues, motions invovling the defendants' constitutional rights and the potential sentences imposed. This flies in the face of what we are taught to expect about equal protection. That fundamental right does not just deal with civil rights but the adminstration of justice as well. Should this "random" act have so much weight in the lives of those effected? Readmore »»

The Immigration Conundrum

The New York Times reported today that 300 illegal immigrants who had been convicted of "serious or violent crimes" were arrested in Los Angeles today. At least 100 have been removed from the country and others are awaiting deportation proceedings. An assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security said, "These are not people who we want walking our streets."

But that's not the whole story.

Illegal immigrants are arrested everyday. They are usually individuals who have lived here for years. Most of them have families, wives, parents and children here. They have jobs and most of them have no ties to their home countries. Many of them had a green card at some point in time but lost it due to a conviction. Many convictions that are deemed minor in any other circumstance are deemed "aggravated felonies" for purposes of immigration. These individuals are deported upon their release from incarceration for their criminal offense. When they return to the U.S., which most of them do because their families are here, they are arrested at some point for what we call "illegal re-entry." They are appointed a lawyer and spend from 18 months to 57 months in Federal Prison before being relased to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement who holds them for up to 90 days before droppping them off at the other side of the border where they have nothing and no one. How many millions of dollars are we spending prosecuting and incarcerating these individuals? Yes. A message must be sent so they don't just return ad infinitum but is this really the solution? Readmore »»