Radley Balko has more (Mar. 22, Mar. 23, Mar. 31, and again Mar. 31) on how the use of these devices tends to turn criminality into a carefully cultivated cash cow. For more, see Mar. 10, 2004 (and links from there) and Jul. 22, 2004.
While at The Agitator, check out the news of legislative proposals to confiscate for a month cars with overly loud radios (Mar. 22; Contra Costa County, Calif.) and (over-)regulate online dating services (Mar. 20; California legislature).
If you happen to blog about political/campaign issues from your employer’s computer at work, watch out: you may be caught in the web of campaign-finance regulation under draft rules from the Federal Election Commission. (Eugene Volokh, Mar. 23; Ryan Sager, “Mice and Free-Speech Cookies”, New York Post, Mar. 30; Log and Line; Captain’s Quarters). For more, see Mar. 4 and Mar. 17. More: May 20.
I’m scheduled to be a guest today at about 2:10 p.m. Eastern on Grover Norquist’s “Leave Us Alone” radio program streamed on the RighTalk network.
In a rancorous fourteen-month divorce trial, John Ofori-Tenkorang disputed the existence of his marriage to Jacqueline Anom, claiming marriage photos had been falsified; claimed to have routinely thrown away bank records, failing to disclose what the judge concluded were assets exceeding $1.7 million; and “wouldn’t stipulate that he wasn’t a close relative of his wife’s, or under the care of a conservator — two grounds for invalidating a marriage, forcing those issues to be proven in court.” Judge Kevin Tierney compared Ofori-Tenkorang’s tenacious assertion of legal issues to the 1942 battle deep inside Russia: “German troops surrounded the Soviet city of Stalingrad on the Volga River. They used aerial attacks, artillery bombardment and intensive panzer assaults. The city was reduced to rubble. Virtually no building stood.” (Thomas B. Scheffey, “‘Stalingrad’ Defense Tactics Prove Costly in Divorce Case”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Mar. 28).
More: reader (and historian) John Steele Gordon (his site) writes:
It sounds like the judge is a better jurist than a historian. Stalingrad, backed by the Volga River, wasn’t surrounded. That’s how the Russians were able to resupply their troops and hold the city. Then, with Zhukov’s offensive, in November, 1942, it was the Germans who were surrounded and trapped in the Stalingrad pocket.
Those reports from Bristol, England last summer (“It’s sunny, stay inside”, Jul. 6) turn out not to be an isolated case: in Montgomery County, Maryland, ordinary sunscreen lotion is considered a medication for which a doctor’s note is required, while in adjacent Howard County, a student who wishes to use sun protection cream must bring in a parent’s note and the bottle must be kept with the school nurse. The American Cancer Society, which favors wide sunscreen use as a protective against skin cancer, is upset. (Daniel de Vise, “Bill Would Legislate Maryland Students’ Use of Sunscreen”, Washington Post, Mar. 29)(via Taranto). More on zero tolerance: Kris Axtman, “Why tolerance is fading for zero tolerance in schools”, Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 31.
Cochran is most famous for, with the help of a passive Judge Ito, gulling a jury into acquitting double-murderer O.J. Simpson, but he was in a number of other notable cases: for example, as a young deputy city attorney, he unsuccessfully prosecuted Lenny Bruce for obscenity in 1964. Cochran was already a prominent Los Angeles attorney when he joined the nightmarish “Dream Team,” and then parlayed his national fame into a successful personal injury business while continuing to play the celebrity trial game. To his partial credit, whenever asked if he thought Simpson was innocent, he carefully couched his reply to dodge the question by noting that Simpson always maintained his innocence. (Adam Liptak, NY Times, Mar. 30).
A confession: though Cochran wouldn’t have known me from Adam, someone digging through the LA Superior Court files might find a case where he and I were both on the caption page as co-counsel. I disagree with many of Cochran’s outside causes, and disagree with many of the results he achieved, but his skills were unquestionable–he was by far the most charismatic man I’d ever met, even when he was wearing a suit in a shade of yellow no other person I know could’ve gotten away with.
I’m not inclined to criticize him today. Cochran took advantage of flaws in the system on behalf of his or her clients, and did that about as well as any other trial lawyer of his era. Blame–and fix–the system, not the man for whom the system provides the economic incentive to act against society’s best interests.
Walter’s Overlawyered entries on Cochran: Dec. 6; Apr. 29; Apr. 15; Aug. 29, 2003 (and links therein); pre-2003. (& letter to the editor, Jun. 8).
“Health and safety officers have closed Britain’s last ‘moving staircase’ fairground attraction, even though the ride has operated in complete safety for the past 72 years.” The owner of the former Butlin’s camp at Felixstowe says he believes the cakewalk, which has been running since 1933, is the last one left in Britain; “inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive have ruled that it must be closed because it no longer meets modern safety standards.” (David Sapsted, Daily Telegraph, Mar. 26; “Health and safety takes the cake”, Suffolk Evening Star, Mar. 25).
25-year-old Rhonda Maloney’s car was stuck in the snow early one February morning. Robert Harlan stopped, but not to help: he admittedly raped Maloney. Maloney escaped Harlan’s vehicle and flagged down a passing motorist, Jaquie Creazzo. Harlan responded to Creazzo’s rescue attempt by chasing after her, shooting her three times just outside the Thornton, Colorado police station, paralyzing her in the process. Harlan escaped; Maloney’s body, beaten and shot, was found seven days later. DNA and fingerprint evidence led to Harlan, who conceded the act in his trial, but sought to blame it on drugs. Nevertheless, a jury convicted him of first-degree murder.
At the penalty hearing, two women testified that Harlan had sexually assaulted them, as well. The jury was then instructed by the judge, as per Colorado law at the time, to make an “individual moral assessment” in deciding whether Harlan should receive a life sentence or the death penalty. (As a wise judge once noted to me, the judicial system cannot decide whether someone will die, but only when.)
In the closing arguments, Harlan’s attorneys invoked the Bible, and G-d’s mercy on Abraham, and asked the jury to impose a life sentence. With these instructions, some of the jurors allegedly consulted the Bible itself, and one juror says that a few considered the relevant provisions in Leviticus that countenanced a death sentence for murder. Eight years after the trial, the jurors were dragged in front of the court to testify; several jurors denied seeing a Bible in the jury room, but the judge resolved the disagreement by finding that the jurors did consult the Bible. By a 3-2 vote the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. The death sentence was revoked, and a life sentence without parole was given.
Tough question: we probably don’t want Leviticus to be the law of the land. The pork lobby would never countenance Leviticus 11:7-8. On the other hand, the Colorado Supreme Court acknowledged that it would’ve been appropriate for a juror to speak the phrase “eye for an eye” in the course of argument during deliberations. And, indeed, during the voir dire, Harlan’s attorney asked one of the jurors about his feeling about that maxim. If jurors can be trusted with following the law in the face of an oral discussion, why does the written word have such power to cloud jurors’ minds? The precedent won’t matter much: Colorado changed its law in 1999 to have judges determine death sentences, though, of course, Ring v. Arizona put the jury back in charge of the decision. It seems a hair was split awfully thin to overturn a death sentence. The dissent seems to have the better of of the argument. (People v. Harlan (Colo. Mar. 28, 2005)); People v. Harlan, 8 P.3d 448 (Colo. 2000); Kirk Johnson, “Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible”, NY Times, Mar. 29; History Channel documentary; “Murderers’ Row”, Westword, Jun. 7, 2001; Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar press release, Jun. 24, 2002). The Coloradoans Against the Death Penalty page on the case has additional links. Why didn’t the Court let a new jury resolve the question instead of simply impose a life sentence? I don’t know the answer to that.
Side trivia note: in November 2001, Justin Goetz, armed with three firearms, set the Creazzo family’s car on fire and threatened to shoot his ex-girlfriend, Creazzo’s daughter–but the paralyzed Creazzo defended herself by shooting Goetz first. (Sue Lindsay, “Man sentenced in bid to gun down good Samaritan (17 years in slay attempt)”, Rocky Mountain News, Oct. 3, 2002; AWARE page on Creazzo).
I was in the New York Post on Sunday, reviewing John D. Gartner’s book The Hypomanic Edge: The Link Between (a Little) Craziness and (a Lot of) Success in America, a book that straddles the pop-psychology and business genres. No real legal/policy content, but the byline does mention this site.