All the way back in last week of December, 2011, I took a moment to jot down my wishes for 2012. I’m sure you read it. Or ignored it. One of the two.
Right on cue, out come articles about the 200 new laws which go in effect on January 1 of 2012. 200 hundred of them! Before you google it up (or look at the link I’m about to post), make a mental list of all the laws we NEED to enact. All of the laws you just can’t live without. All of the laws necessary to keep this great state going. Maybe you should even take a moment to reflect upon how much better your life was because of the new laws enacted for 2011:
Wasn’t 2011 fantastic? Done thinking about what must-have laws we need for 2012? Now take a look. Did your laws make the list?
Reading that article, there is no doubt that many of those laws sound like really good ideas. Not every good idea needs to be a law, though. Especially the ones that are going to be nearly impossible to enforce. Should people be aiming laser pointers in airplane cockpits? No. Should there be a law against it? Before you tell me that there should, tell me how people are going to get caught. Some pilot, flying hundreds (if not more) of feet over the planet, sees the tell-tale dot of a laser pointer and does what, exactly? Instead of outlawing laser pointers, maybe we should outlaw flying. It would be much easier to catch the law-breakers in that scenario. Safer, too. I’m guessing that less people die in laser pointers each year than in airplanes.
Maybe simply having the law will eliminate the problem? Just like prohibiting murder has stopped killings. Whatever. When pointing lasers is outlawed, then only outlaws will point lasers. If you can get past the feel-good nature of the descriptions of those laws, they’re not changing much of anything.
Despite these laws, I don’t count 2012 as a failure… yet. Most of these laws have been on the books for some time, and we are just coming up on their enactment date. When I babbled about my three wishes for 2012, I was hoping that our lawmakers don’t dedicate as much time to passing unnecessary laws in 2012 as they did in 2011. Or 2010. Or 2009…
In less grumpy news, I’m headed out of town until after the new year. My feeble mind can’t deal with all of the pseudo-celebrities and their New Year “celebrations” (Kim Kardashian New Years Party, I’m looking at you). I’ll be hiding where T.V., the internet, radio and all those new laws will have a hard time getting me. If you try to find/call/email me, good luck. I’ll be in the back country along Lake Superior. If you happen to find yourself in an “emergency” situation, though, you might consider some helpful tips to keep you out of trouble until I return.
Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon, Michigan
Ah, 2011. I barely knew you, and already you are leaving me. Going out with quite a bang, too. When we’d all rather be scarfing on holiday eats and watching drama-free football, we can’t turn on the TV without being barraged by criminal law nonsense. Notwithstanding the “Johnny Knox Origami Incident” the Bears’ biggest story of the month has been the arrest of Sam Hurd for his purported involvement in a street pharmaceutical distributorship. Even non-sporting entertainment is afflicted. Lindsay Lohan is conspiring to be one of the biggest stories of December (not only because of her Playboy shoot, but also because she seems to be “buying in” to her probation). And, don’t even get me going on Jerry Sandusky. Oh, wait. You already did.
Can’t a guy just flip on the TV and watch an episode of “Sledge Hammer” without all this criminal law balderdash?
Maybe I am just a little bit bitter that I didn’t get Sam Hurd’s case. I mean, we did both go to the same college… and have both spent a lot of quality time at Soldier Field. I’ll get over it, though. The case is in Dallas, and I’m not a fan of a state where guys wear big belt buckles to make up for small pistols, anyway.
The intensity of media coverage for criminal law related cases over the last year has got my pea-brain wondering what the future will be like. Forget the stories of last year. I’m hoping for more important stories next year. Stories that I think are important. Stories that look something like this:
1. Just Say No.
A few years back, a friend of mine was running for a State Senate seat. I didn’t know him very well at that point. After hearing the news, though, I saw him in court. Grabbing him as he was walking out I said, “Hey Ray… what is your ‘platform’?” He spun quick and said plainly, “No new laws!” “What does that mean?” I asked. “You know those ‘yes’ or ‘no’ buttons legislators press to vote for or against a new law? Well, I’m going to take a stack of files, put it on the ‘no’ button, and walk out.” It’s a shame he wasn’t elected. About a billion new laws have passed since then.
Nancy Reagan has her “War on Drugs” and I have my “War on Laws”. I’m not an anarchist, just a minimalist. My thoughts on this are simple: Our full-time legislators have passed dumb, new criminal laws every year. You see, in order to be elected, they have to be “tough on crime.” Who is tougher on crime than somebody passing a new criminal law?
In reality, many of the new laws have done more to suck “regular” people into the tangled web of criminal court than make our lives better. Plus, they’ve cost us Millions of tax payer dollars. Keep in mind that every person cited for speeding more than 30 MPH over the limit is now entitled to an attorney. Can’t afford one? Then you get the public defender (paid for by tax payer dollars). The same thing happened to many “Driving without a valid license” cases a few years back. The trend is, unfortunately, going consistently in the “cost more, not reduce crime in any appreciable way” direction. I don’t like that. Personally, I’d rather spend my money on important things (like pizza) than pay for the public defender of some kid who was out joy riding.
I can’t think of any new criminal laws we “need” in the next few years. Of course, I couldn’t really think of any ground we didn’t already have covered last year. Here’s to hoping that 2012 sees no new ones passed, and taxpayer money saved. I won’t hold my breath.
2. Get your mouth shut.
What does Mike Ditka have in common with Nancy Grace and people who comment on internet newspaper articles? Nothing. Nancy Grace, other talk show personalitities, and the people who fuel their fame have no problem going bonkers on the tv and internet knowing half the facts and even less about the law of high-profile criminal cases. Ditka, on the other hand, is a rational and well spoken man. He offers only calm, important and reasonable advice. Like, “get your mouth shut.”
I agree with Ditka. I’ve already explained how incessant, opinionated media attention can cause huge problems with the criminal justice system. Aside from that, it just gets old. If a plumber, an actuary, a priest and a criminal defense attorney all introduce themselves at a dinner party, it seems that everybody has already formed a belief about how/what/why the criminal defense attorney does what they do… and those folks are usually more than happy to share their opinions. I never hear people telling their brand-new plumbing acquaintances what they “should” do when installing a toilet. Oddly, I’d rather talk about plumbing than the law.
I don’t want to sound bitter, though. I love what I do. It is actually very exciting. Sometimes I’ll even talk to people about it. Sometimes.
Tammy
However, those silly opinion shows that use 30 second clips of courtroom action and roll into 20 minutes of debate supported by neither actual knowledge of the facts nor law involved need to fade off into cable TV oblivion. In the 80’s we had a lot less law and a lot more Tammy Faye Baker on TV. Bring back the era of bad makeup and over-the-top TV evangelism, if that’s what it takes. Here’s to hoping 2012 is the year that we let Nancy Grace and her TV pals get their mouths shut. I know it won’t happen, but it’s my dream world so I’ll call it as I want it.
3. Doctors killing people -or- Physician Assisted Suicide… I don’t care what you call it.
The Hippocratic Oath says something about not killing people. Or causing them to die. I’m not sure. I’m also not sure about your opinion on physician assisted suicide. Just like you’re not sure on mine. You’re not going to learn, either. You shouldn’t care about my opinion. I don’t care about yours.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about importance. There was a time, not too long ago, where the issue of a patient’s “right” to “death with dignity” (or, if you prefer, Dr. Jack Kervorkian’s criminal “assistance” of his patient’s use of a “death machine”) was the rage. All the kids were doing it. All the kids were talking about the issue, anyway. As I’m sure you recall, it was a huge. Lots of passion on both sides. Good arguments to be had either way.
Some will say that Kervorkian’s prison stint and recent death chilled the debate and moved it to the back burner of American thought. I would say that it is no more or less an issue now as it was then. It was, however, the most visible issue then because times were different. Times were a lot more simple. They were fun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dow_jones.png
In the height of Kervorkian’s “reign of death” the American economy was booming, unemployment rates were low and confidence in our future was generally positive. People were more worried about how they would pay for their kids to go to college than they were about whether or not they would have a job or place to live the next day. Sure, there was a war in the middle east then, too. It just wasn’t as long. Or as bloody… for us. We argued about fun things. Like for instance, what “the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In those times it was a little bit easier for the country to get wrapped up in a Doctor from Michigan who helped people terminate their lives. I, of course, wasted most of these fun years watching O.J.
If we can get back to bickering about “death with dignity” this year, I’ll call it a success. I’ll take that as a sign that the economy is headed in the right direction, and people feel more secure in their personal lives. The “death” debate, sure to be measurably more sensationalistic than it was the first time (it is, after all, the internet and cable news tv era), would probably drive me just as nuts as the present day debates do. I will be happy to have the change of pace. At least I think I will.
Unless, of course, Nancy Grace is half-informed and popping off about it on TV…
I hear some weird stuff. A lot of weird stuff. I don’t only hear it. I say it. It’s part of what we do. As lawyers who weren’t there when the “crime” happens, we don’t know the “truth”. We only know what facts we’re given. It’s the same for prosecutors. And the cops.
We take the weird facts and try to tell a story that makes sense. You know what kind of story you get when you start with weird facts? A weird one.
I did a trial in early 2011 where my client’s DNA was on a beer can found inside a building that had been burglarized. The full factual picture is way more involved than what I can explain here. Needless to say, that was the strongest/only physical evidence actually placing my client at the scene. After the trial, another lawyer asked me what I came up with for a closing argument. It was simple- another man (one who had decided to become a witness for the state) managed to come in possession of my client’s garbage (he was found in a truck full of it). That other guy was using my client’s old beer can as a cup from which to sip vodka, while he acted as a lookout at the scene of the crime. And he left the can there because he was stupid (I couldn’t help saying that part… and it made sense).
The other attorney I was telling this to told me that my theory was horrible. That may very well be. I can only play the hand I’m dealt. The jury heard all the evidence (not just my synopsis of the closing argument), and they agreed with me. That happens when the weird theory is supported by the weird facts.
Prosecutors come up with some of the worst stuff… especially if they are being too pig-headed to be objective. Theories that are weird but not based on weird facts tend to creep everybody out. Don’t believe me? Read about the Lake County Prosecutor whom the Sheriff wants fired. When DNA found inside a dead, 11 year old girl turned out to NOT be the DNA of his prime suspect, the prosecutor didn’t miss a beat. Instead, he decided that the 11 year old girl may have been sexually active, but the man who somehow “placed” his DNA inside her didn’t kill her. Instead, some guy whose DNA is not inside her did the killing. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Makes perfect sense.
One of my favorite documentaries is The Staircase Murder. It documents the defense efforts before and during the murder case of Michael Peterson. Peterson was a well-known author in North Carolina at the time his wife was found dead on their staircase. The documentarygood look at what sort of preparation really, really rich people get for their murder trials. One of my favorite things about it is that you really can’t be sure of what happened. You get to see how the trial played out. You get to here the prosecution’s theory- that the victim was bludgeoned with a fireplace poker. You get to see defense theories- that she, perhaps, fell. While everybody I’ve talked to who has watched it has a “gut” feeling, nobody is ever really 100% convinced either way.
My gut reaction the first time I watched it was that the victim was attacked but not by Peterson. Beyond that, I had no idea. There was just too much that didn’t add up. Too many things didn’t make sense. That case took place in 2003. I don’t want to ruin it for you, but the verdict did not go the way of the defense. I wasn’t shocked by the outcome, it’s just not the way I would have gone.
8 years later, the case is back in the news. He has been granted a new trial.
The exciting part for those of us who like the weirdness in criminal law isn’t that we get to go through the case again. It’s the defense theory that looks likely at the new trial: the victim was attacked by an owl. Yes. An owl.
I’m with you. That’s horrible. Having seen the documentary and read up on the theory, though, it makes sense. How else did an owl feather end up at the scene of the crime? Weird facts lead to weird theories, and this weird one just may make sense. Check the movie out and then keep an eye on this case. it should be fun.
I’m already sick of hearing about Rod Blagojevich’s sentencing. Not just because it’s Blago. Mostly because of the news story that surfaced yesterday regarding what prosecutors plan to argue: that Rod’s sentence should be lengthened because he has never accepted responsibility or shown remorse. I don’t know if he has, or if he hasn’t. I don’t really care.
I wish prosecutors would stop with that line of thought. Why? This line of thinking directly results in people who are actually wrongfully convicted receiving more harsh penalties than their “actually not innocent” counterparts. That is to say that a murderer who begs for forgiveness at sentencing might get a better sentence than a wrongfully convicted man who maintains his innocence. There is some seemingly legitimate thought to the idea that people wrongfully convicted of murder are more likely to end up on death row because they won’t take responsibility for “their” crime. So, it would be easier for my consciousness if nobody ever made that argument.
It’s impossible to not go full-guns at Blago, though. Just another way in which Hot Rod is ruining things for the rest of us, I guess.
In reading about the plight of our former Governor, I came across a story about that poor fellow above. That’s a mug shot. Much to my surprise, he is not the victim of a crime. He is the accused.
Unlike Blago, I’m going to go ahead and guess that this guy will not be shy in admitting the error of his ways- assuming his jaw hasn’t been wired shut.
I have a friend who once started ranting about getting pulled over by the cops for speeding. The gist of his complaint was that police should either give you the ticket or give you a speech, but not give you both a ticket and a speech. I don’t disagree with with that. With serious crimes it doesn’t have to be a complete “either/or” thing, though.
This guy in the picture? He already got the speech. In a bad, bad way, too. His speech didn’t come from the cops. By the looks of it, that talking came from from Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris speaks in sign language… with his feet.
I’m obviously not saying they shouldn’t charge this swollen headed gentleman. I am saying that if Blago should go to prison longer because he has not taken any responsibility, maybe this guy’s discolored head won’t be in prison as long as normal because he has taken some responsibility (whether he wanted to or not). That seems to be what the prosecutor’s argument should suggest, right?
