I've been focused elsewhere today but here are several items that each might deserve its own, separate post if I had time:
Did faulty medical evidence help secure molestation convictions?
The SA Express-News has
posted online their story of the possible wrongful conviction of four women accused of child molestation in the '90s. The "San Antonio Express-News investigation — including interviews with witnesses and experts and a review of police reports, medical studies and thousands of pages of trial transcripts and other court documents — raises troubling questions about the scientific legitimacy of medical evidence deployed against the women, whether authorities checked a previous rape allegation made by the girls and whether anti-gay views prejudiced Ramirez's jury."
Reasonable suspicion is in the eye of the beholder
Check out a
discussion at Liberty and Justice for Y'all of the devolving state of reasonable suspicion at DWI stops, commenting on the Court of Criminal Appeals decision to overturn an intermediate court ruling to allow a stop based on "flimsy" cause. And speaking of DWI enforcement, Paul Kennedy has interesting posts up
here and
here about increasingly popular no-refusal policies, and
reports a rumor that state Sen. Dan Patrick wants to eliminate Administrative License Revocation hearings in a way that would conflate criminal and administrative governmental roles.
A matter of time
Tipping point or temporary plateau?
The overall number of people in the United States under control of the criminal justice system - in prison, jail, on probation, or on parole - declined last year for the first time since such data began being gathered in 1980 according to a new
report (pdf) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
I was just sent a review copy of Rev. Alan Bean's new book "
Taking out the trash in Tulia, Texas," which tells the story of the infamous Tulia drug stings from one of the front-line warriors fighting to free those wrongly convicted. Also, I saw an interesting looking book on the shelf while I was Christmas shopping and then noticed
a review of "
The Killer of Little Shepherds: A true crime story and the birth of forensic science."
Restorative justice and shame
At Women in Crime Ink
Vickie Pynchon writes that "The concept of reintegrative shaming was first introduced by restorative justice theoretician John Braithwaite as a means of
distinguishing between shame that stigmatizes criminal offenders (and thus increases crime) from shame that condemns wrongdoing but forgives and respects the offender, hopefully reducing recidivism and decreasing crime."
Here's an excellent quote from Alexander Hamilton on the need for a robust clemency policy, writing as
Publius in
Federalist Paper No. 74: "Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel." Notice the author was not only concerned with pardons for innocence, but also for "unfortunate guilt." Today, of course, executive pardon power is extraordinarily "fettered" and quite frequently "embarrassed" (think
Mike Huckabee), disregarding Hamilton's sage and prescient advice.
Has the CCA made a "decision" about the DP hearing in Houston?
ReplyDeleteSee the links under "Inquire no more."
ReplyDeleteRE: Matter of Time
ReplyDeleteLawyers say that "tough cases make bad law" and the same is true for medicine.
The case cited concerns an uncommon treatment for a very rare problem, and regardless of the details it is unlikely to be in any way representative of inadequate funding producing improper medical care.
That's not to say that such won't happen in the future, I just don't see it happening yet.
RE:Reasonable suspicion is in the eye of the beholder
ReplyDeleteAppellant was driving his vehicle near the Sixth Street bar district in Austin.
It was late at night.
Austin police often observe people driving while intoxicated near this area late at night.
Appellant stopped his vehicle closely behind the officer’s unmarked vehicle at a traffic light.
Appellant’s vehicle exhibited a lurching movement forward after he had stopped at the light.
Appellant’s vehicle moved forward again as if to try to change lanes at the light, but he was too close to the officer’s unmarked vehicle to execute the lane change.
Grits, the above is reasonable suspicion to the "T", and the opinion of Paul B. Kennedy, one of the top DWI attorneys in the Houston area is nothing more than "hot air". He makes his living and nice one at that from getting drunks off the hook and back out onto our roadways. This ruling just makes his job a little harder and he doesn't like it. Getting an opinion on the CCA decision from him is like asking a Pimp if the prostitution laws are too tough, of course everyone knows what the Pimps answer is going to be.
The Texas CCA was correct to uphold the trial courts ruling.
11:58: It was B.W. Barnett at Liberty and Justice for Y'all, not Kennedy, who wrote about the Third Circuit's DWI decision. Please try to debate the message, not the messenger, especially when you don't actually know who the messenger is!
ReplyDeleteAnd despite your explanation, I still don't get how it's reasonable suspicion that the guy didn't have room to change lanes and so he didn't. IMO the intermediate court got it right.
Don't separate the parts from the whole. It was everything else as well Grits, not just the lane change. I understand you don't like the ruling, but i have to agree with 11:58. Sounds like the officer articulauted himself well and lo and behold, he was right.
ReplyDeleteOn your side of the argument though, there are too many officers who do stop and detain using RS whose articulable facts are much more suspect and flimsy than this one.
Merry Christmas.