BoldlyRide

A female has been killed in cold blood - by a juvenile. Manslaughter is out of the question. The juvenile intially gave false information to law enforcement but eventually confessed to the crime and to three other unsolved fatal shootings. The investigation contains some gruesome details. The killing was committed at close range with a small caliber weapon. However, because of the characteristics of the victim, there was some question about the point of entry for the fatal shot. The top of the skull was removed but the entry wound and trajectory of the bullet were not revealed until the skin was removed from the face - the victim was shot between the eyes. The perpetrator is expected to enter a guilty plea and pay restitution in the neighborhood of $1,000.00 - for the killing of the cow. As for the other fatalities, 3 deer, the appropriate law enforcement personnel will evaluate the situation.

All the cops in the county, two crossing guards, and a hall monitor were in on a local drug bust. The road was blocked off and the thin blue line had metamorphed into a great, green, flak-jacketed caterillar that hit the gate doing 98 and executed the felony arrest warrant and the accompanying search warrant. The booty included some arrests and enough drugs to keep Molly Hatchet's roadies supplied for at least 45 minutes. Of course, all of this was preceeded in the morning hours by the legal stylings of my boss and myself at the probable cause hearings for the charges and the warrant; and we did a bearly passable job with it - only because the officer provided a fine affidavit and warrant for us to use. This was our first search warrant.

Later, at 4:45 p.m., law enforcement called during the execution of another arrest warrant where the druggie admitted to certain contraband on the premises, but then refused to give consent for the search. Did they have probable cause to search, or would they need a warrant? Immediately, the finest legal minds in the room, honed to a razor edge by the constant opposition of pro se traffic court defendants and that nasty corner on the end of the stair railing, fired out the quick and precise answer, "Uh, is it in plain sight? What else did the druggie say? I think we better get a warrant, and some fries would be nice too." Unlike the earlier warrant, where we had a knowledgable officer with completed paperwork, in this case we had nothing. We got some information over the phone and cobbled the paperwork together and rushed to get the warrant before the judge had to leave. The officer who showed up is among the nicest of gentleman, but he didn't happen to know didley about what the court was going to require for the warrant - and neither did the prosecutors. Laurel & Hardy or Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle dumber were the show. At one point the judge (a patient and helpful soul) suggested that we might just want to get our act together and then get the warrant later at his house. That nice offer was declined and a warrant was finally issued. Unfortunately, the judge was probably late for his appointment and the red badge of idiocy blazed brightly on our side of the bench. As one might expect, a good portion of today was devoted to remedial measures so that future appearances might fare better.

Here
http://www.nbc-2.com/Articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=26732&z=69
is a video of a defendant irritating a judge. You've really got to envy the defense attorney whose client tells the judge, "Come on, you're smarter than that" at his sentencing.
I think I would have requested the gag to go with the manacles and chains.

Here at the county of cattle and crimes, I observed an interesting court trial yesterday. The defendant was a former local police officer. He claimed denial of due process because the citation that he received had his first court appearance approximately 25 days after the day he received the citation. He pointed out that the infraction rule (come on, who reads those) clearly stated that the first appearance had to be not less than 5 days nor more than 21 days from the date of the citation. The prosecutor had not much to say with regard to the novel argument. The court took the matter under advisement as it was a question that had never arisen and some research would be needed to answer the question. It did give me an opportunity to consider what I would have said in that prosecutor's place; I would have said the following:
"Due process means ample or sufficient process to protect the defendant's rights. In this case, the procedural rule provides for a specific window of time for the defendant's first appearance and that window was missed in this case. However, the defendant has still had his day in court and the extra time that he was allowed to have has not in anyway harmed him. He has presented no witnesses whose memories might have lapsed in the short extension of time allowed in this case. He has not demonstrated or claimed any harm because of procedural irregularity. The rule provides no specific remedy for this particular irregularity, but typically, procedural irregularities do not equate to a "get our of jail free card." (Inspite of what some jailhouse lawyers will profess.) Therefore, the proper course is to determine whether there has been any prejudice because of the irregularity, and in this case there has been none. The defendant has had sufficient and ample process." - Of course, had I actually been in the prosecutor's chair, I would have likely babbled incoherently, but without the spotlight trained on me, I was free to come up with the above while the man actually in the arena did the babbling.
In speaking with the judge later, he indicated his research indicated that the question was whether the defendant was prejudiced by the procedure, and since he wasn't, no problem. Of course, then it occurred to me that even with the time to think about it, I had still missed the magic word, "prejudice." But at least my ramblings would have been in the right neighborhood, even if I had missed the correct legal term.

UPDATE: Two items, 1) I see that my rambling did include the word "prejudice" and 2) there is actually a criminal rule that says no dismissals if the error is harmless - it's amazing what you can find in that mysterious rule book.

As long as I'm on a book review rant, here are two things:
I ditched Turow's book and exchanged it at the library for Brad Thor's The First Commandment. This is a very good book that is difficult to put down. I didn't get any thrilling courtroom drama, but I did get an exciting read that kept me up late. I give it 4 bandoliers out of 5. I can see that I need to read the rest of Thor's Scot Harvath books.

I also note that this blogger http://bamber.blogspot.com/ has a review of Twilight that I can agree with, "[this book] is evil." However, I could only bring myself to read a few pages from the middle of the book before I made the call that it was without redeeming features.

In the prosecutorial zone (which I believe is just north of New Guinea and some what south of harmless error) a train wreck was narrowly averted. A case that went from a felony to a misdemeanor to "he's going to plead so don't worry about preparing for trial" and then to "you're star witness has memory problems so we'll be going to trial" (plus the influence of the new United States Supreme Court case dealing with the loss of the right to firearms for any conviction where the underlying facts involved violence against a household member) did not go to trial. We used a little imagination and the guy agreed to a conditional dismissal with voluntary probation for year, including some specific treatment and counseling.

On another case that is just starting, as we go in for the probable cause hearing, the officer informs me that we can't actually tie the guy we're charging to the crime, other than by some weak hearsay - which is probably enough to get us through the PC hearing. 1st I have to thank the officer for clarifying that point for me as I had not recognized the tenousness (if that's even a word) of the link. 2nd I had to let the court know that we would not be proceeding with the PC hearing as there was some additional information I felt we required. 3rd I instructed the officer to continue the investigation, including talking to the other 2 people who were supposed to be present when the crime was committed. I'm trying to put to use the thinking that was presented to us at the prosecutor training about getting the case built and made certain before we even charge the guys - to avoid wrongful convictions or wrongful acquittals.

I got all excited about a new legal thriller, Turow's Laws of Our Fathers. I found it neither legal nor thrilling. I have to admit that I only got about 150 pages into the 500 plus page munster cheese log before I was forced to make a judgment. I kept thinking that it would get better; it finally did get, but the getting was distinctly not better: No court room excitment and investigation; too much acid reflux reflection on the characters in the late 60's and early 70's; too much vulgarity and profanity. My determination: Vomit in print. No redeeming features. A must not read under any circumstances.

On the law and order front, only one traffic court defendant decided he wanted his trial. He got one, immediately preceding a guilty verdict. Meanwhile back at the juvenile ranch, a bad boy faced up to his crime and the big issue is how to get him treatment and whether that will have to be through detention or private treatment. Finally, over at the misdemeanor probation salon, a pie chart of my discussion with the misdemeanor probation officer, broken down by subject, would show the majority of our time spent in the discussion cattle markets, and only a fraction on issues of probation -- a fringe benefit of this rural practice; and I like it like that.