Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 13:18:54
In the movie, "Better Off Dead," with John Cusack, there is this sub-plot of the local newspaper delivery boy stalking Cusack to get his $2. Some people will go to great lengths to get their $2 in real life as well. Demetrius Heard of Lonoke County believed that he was also owed $2. To get his money back, he threatened the victim with a toy gun. For his unusual collection method, he was charged and convicted of aggravated robbery. The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the conviction. This case was unusual because the victim admitted that he owed Heard the $2. The Court said you can't be convicted of robbery for stealing your own money. Now, the Court didn't approve of this collection method, but just stated it was not a robbery. It could have been an assault ( creating imminent apprehension of bodily harm) but Heard wasn't charged with that - so is is a free man. I'm not sure if he gets his toy gun back or not.
http://courts.arkansas.gov/court_opinions/coa/2009a/20090527/published/cacr09-36.pdf
Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 12:53:07
In an interesting twist, the Arkansas Supreme Court today amended Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 5-2 and will now allow all cases to be cited, doing away with the distinction between published and unpublished opinions. Also, the Court will make the electronic version of opinions the official form, doing away with the need to have the classic law books found on most lawyers' shelves. Most of us just have them around for show anyway - who really reads that stuff ( besides legal nerds like me)
Here is the text of the new rule: http://courts.arkansas.gov/court_opinions/sc/2009a/20090528/published/09-540.pdf
Friday, March 27, 2009 - 11:57:00
The death penalty makes me nervous. It makes me nervous because there is always a chance the wrong person is being executed. For example, after reading the Devil's Knot, I still think the West Memphis 3 are guilty, but I'm not so sure that I would be for execution - as there will always be an uncomfortable lingering doubt in that case.
Maryland has a great proposal. Before a prosecutor can seek the death penalty - there must be DNA or biological evidence, a video tape of the crime, or a video tape of the confession. Something more than a shakey confession under hi-pressure seems only fair. Why not video tape confessions - it would protect the defendant as well as the police from allegations of unfair tactics. We know that even eye-witness testimony is unreliable - it seems fair to have a higher standard before we use the highest penalty.
Friday, March 27, 2009 - 09:23:41
I was reading about the "Arkansas Cradle to Prison Pipeline Summit," which will be held April 30. I'm all for programs to give teenagers structure activities etc., but it was some of the language of the article that irked me. In Neil Oman's article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette today, he states that the summit will bring together leaders to study the "problem" which is that one in three black (and hispanic) males born since 2001 are at a high risk of going to prison. "The will examine the underlying causes of the phenomena," the article states. On Saturday, May 2, conference participants will provide recommendations on “dismantling the cradle to prison pipeline in Arkansas.”
Maybe I'm a bad liberal, or a bad sociology student - but in my view, the reason a particular person goes to prison is not because "the system" failed them. Instead, it's because they chose to commit a felony and deserve punishment. I'm all for more drug courts, more treatment programs, more alternative sentencing, and a little leniency in non-violent sentencing - but we still need to hold individuals accountable.
I suppose I just have a philosophical problem with the pipeline analogy. A pipeline suggests that these young people are trapped in a one way path from which they cannot escape, which inevitably leads to prison unless someone removes them from the pipe. To me, even as someone who has been involved in the juvenile justice system for years, a more proper analogy would be a jetski to prison. Or, in more rural areas, maybe a four-wheeler to prison. Or, maybe I don't konw what I'm talking about and I'm just ignorant and callous.
Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 16:31:00
Here is an interesting case - Henry Mills v. Henry Mills. The younger Mr. Mills sued his father for the child support he never paid while he was still a child. I've always known that you can do this in theory, just never saw it actually done. Not only did he sue and win, he was awarded around $1000 in attorney's fees for a total of $13,000. He wasn't satisfied with this amount and appealled to get a higher amount of attorney's fees as well as interest on the child support that had not been paid for several years.
Also interesting is that although the trial court knew that the attorney was going to get 1/3 of any amount awarded, the judge only gave $1000 in fees. While on one hand this seems unfair - if the judge gave attorney fees as much as the attorney was taking - attorneys would simply start increasing the amount of the fees knowing they could pass it along to the defendants.
This is an interesting case for anyone who is really hurting financially now - and was not paid child support for years and years. If your ex has property or even a just a decent job - it might be worth your time to investigate further.
http://courts.arkansas.gov/court_opinions/coa/2009a/20090311/published/ca08-555.pdf
Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 14:20:25
I have written hundreds of appeals and I always try to avoid "flying off the handle" or being excessively flowery. Legal writers are always told - stick to the point. Judges don't want to have to read anything that wastes their time or goes off topic. I've been told many many times that I'm dead wrong on an argument - but never harshly. Today the Exective Director of the Committee on Professional Conduct was soundly rebuked by the Supreme Court in a disbarment case:
"On a final note, we must address a matter raised in Walker’s reply brief. Walker contends that the brief submitted by Ligon shows a “clear personal bias” and is “replete with sarcasm and vituperation masquerading as legal argument.” Although we do not find any impermissible bias in this case, we agree with Walker that the Executive Director’s brief is unprofessional in tone and improper in some of its content. Ligon’s brief contains unnecessarily sarcastic remarks and, at one point, invites the court to look outside of the record to examine matters that were not before the special judge. This is improper argument."
If the Supreme Court says that the Professional Conduct Committee Executive Director's brief is "unprofessional in tone," improper, and sarcastic, what kind of example does that set for the rest of us ? Of course, now I'd like to see that brief and decide for myself whether it is in fact unprofessional - or just "flowery."
http://courts.arkansas.gov/court_opinions/sc/2009a/20090312/published/06-1493.pdf
Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 12:04:19
A Jonesboro attorney was fined $2,500 and suspended for 3 months for trying to coerce a client to have sex with him. I thought people normally went to jail for that....
http://www.kait8.com/global/story.asp?s=9994353
For all the facts from the discipline committee, go here: http://courts.arkansas.gov/opc/20090226/2007-021.pdf
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 12:59:21
While I'm not one of those to say that because we now have a black president - there is no need for a civil rights movement - I do agree that the civil rights movement has lost its way. I have no doubt that there is still plenty of room to improve as far as race relations - but I'm not sure the NAACP is the right organization to lead that charge.
Case in point - the Arkansas House of Representatives is currently considering making failure to use a seatbelt a primary traffic offense, meaning, you can get a ticket just for not having a seatbelt on. The NAACP has objected to this bill over racial profiling concerns. I just don't see the racial angle in this bill. I can't see that this has anything to do with race as it obviously applies to everyone. Can you imagine having a march to protest this bill ? ( not that anyone has suggesting a seatbelt law protest march) It seems to me that the NAACP is more paranoid about giving police a reason to pull people over than they are public safety of everyone who drives a car. Such a narrow focus makes the organization appear irrelevant - especially if the bill passes overwhelmingly.
That being said - the police have been known to use minor traffic violations as a reason to pull people over. However, at night I would feel confident saying they don't know the race of the person who they are pulling over. I've had police tell me that they let most of these minor offenses slip until midnight - because after midnight, people are more likely to be out drinking, looking for drugs, and are more likely to be caught with weapons. Meaning, if you are a in a high crime neighborhood diving a car with expired tags, don't be surprised when you get pulled over.
I can think of lots of areas where the NAACP could more effectively lobby. More drug treatment centers, more options for juvenile offenders, greater transparency in hiring. But they should really stay away from something as race-neutral as a mandatory seatbelt law.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009 - 18:35:30
I think Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich's choice to replace Barack Obama as Illinois senator is a fine man. It's not his fault that Gov. Blagojevich allegedly tried to sell the senate seat to the highest bidder. The U.S. Senate should just realize some things must be tolerated, and let him serve until a special election is held.
In away it's the classic unstoppable force versus immovable object. Under Illinois law- Blagojevich has the authority to appoint Obama's successor. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is also correct that the Senate has the authority to decline to allow Roland Burris in, which is exactly what they have done. It's just an awful mess - in part because no one is saying that Harris is anything but an ethical, upstanding citizen who clearly had no role in being the Governor's pick.
Although the Senate might think it has the authority to deny Burris - the court's have held otherwise in the past.
What are the "qualifications" to be a U.S. Senator. Besides great hair ? The qualifications are minimal. A senator must be at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen and "an inhabitant" of the state.
Although the federal judiciary is loathe to interfere in such things as who is qualified to be a U.S. Senator when the U.S. Senate finds someone is not qualified, they have weighed in on this issue in the past.
In 1969, the Supreme Court, in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, ruled that the House of Representatives could not refuse to seat Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., a New York Democrat who was accused of putting his wife on the payroll and misusing travel funds to vacation in the Caribbean. Despite those charges, he had been reelected by his constituents in Harlem. Powell sued the Speaker of the House, the Sergeant at Arms, the Doorman, and the Senate Clerk.
"The Constitution does not vest in the Congress a discretionary power to deny membership by majority vote," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren. Congress may "judge only the qualifications set forth in the Constitution." To exclude a representative, Warren wrote that the House of Representatives should have voted on the issue, with 2/3 required to expel. The case essentially said you have to let a representative take the oath - then you can try to expel for lack of qualifications. The U.S. Congress had an affirmative constitutional duty to administer the oath to, swear in, and enroll upon the rolls, the candidate member as a Member of Congress. I think Reid has probably jumped the gun on this issue.
For Burris' part, he is handling it well. He refusing to make it a racial issue, which is it not. He really has nothing to lose here, as this was an unexpected gift handed to him.
Burris might win the battle but lose the war. Let's say he wins in court - and they have to let him have a vote. This doesn't mean they have to let him be part of the Democratic Caucus right? Nor does it mean they have to let him be on any committees, or even pay for his staff. There are all sorts of other ways the Senate can strip Burris of any meaningful power, even if he wins the right to be the official Senator. No matter what - it looks like the citizens of Illinois will be the ones who end up suffering.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 - 14:16:13
After eight years of the disasterous economic policies of George Bush - we have a great gift - new leadership, new ideas, and no national elections for some times.
We are facing horrible economic instability -- and what does the Republican National Committee want us to focus on ? "Questions" about ties between President-elect Obama and his advisors concerning their contact with the embattled and scandal-plagued Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Even John McCain has the decency to discourage this type of smear campaign. Actually, I hope they keep at it, because it will further reinforce the fact that they have no ideas, no decent candidates, and nothing to offer but negative attacks and cynicism. The Republicans are obviously no real threat for some time - so I'm not even going to mention them again for a long, long time.
http://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/2008/12/questions-remain-obama-blagojevich.html
