Alternatives to MFW

Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> writes:

> In article <ompomelet-BC2BDE.20201007052008@news.giganews.com>,
> Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Anyway let us know the details of your case if you've been released to
>> > discuss it.
>
> Okay, followup...
>
> 18 y/o girl got caught at 04:00 during a call for an attempted
> break-in. She was not the perp but the cop had asked her for ID at
> the bar. She did not have it on her so when they went to her car to
> get her purse, there was a glass jar full of weed in plain sight on
> the floorboard of the passenger side...
>
> She saw that the cop had seen it so she turned her back to the cop and
> put her hands behind her back. He actually cuffed her in front and put
> her in the back of the police cruiser and left her with her cellphone,
> then turned on the back seat recording system.
>
> Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back of
> a police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
> inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it. You'd not be back
> there if you were not under arrest.
>
> Anyway, on searching the car, he found another 2 oz. baggie of pot
> stuffed into the map pocket behind the front passenger seat as well as
> a pot grinder and a box of baggies on the front floor and a glass pot
> pipe (used) and a postage scale in the console in front as well as a
> money clip up front with $410.00.
>
> Pretty obviously a selling setup...
>
> The girl called her boyfriend (her fellow dealer) on the phone and
> told him what was happening, and that she was "going to jail for the
> whole pound".
>
> That's the long and short of it.
>
> Her defense attorney tried to get the evidence tossed and tried to
> discredit the cop. I happen to know the officer (and said so during
> voie dire when asked) and he is a very good officer even tho' I mostly
> only know him as a CPA instructor. I'm currently enrolled in the
> local Citizens Police Academy, a program I HIGHLY recommend to anyone
> that wants to do it. :-) I'll be joining the Alumni Association and
> doing volunteer work for the PD when I am done. Said officer was also
> the one that gave me my last speeding ticket back in January. <g>
>
> Anyway, her defense did a very poor job for the kid. She was TWICE
> given the option of an extended class A misdemeanor prior to trial but
> thought she was smart enough to beat the system...

It sounds like her defense attorney did a very good job for the kid, and
she just wasn't smart enough to take the deal. You can't blame the
defense attorney if a) the person actually committed the crime and b)
they won't take the deal the prosecution offers.

Perhaps I am a bit sensitive on this subject, as my father spent a good
chunk of my life growing up as a public defender, but I think that
people are far too eager to blame these sorts of mistakes on the
attorney rather than the accused. Criminals, as a class, are not very
intelligent. In fact, that's probably why they went into crime in the
first place. If they had the intelligence or skill to do something else
they probably would.

> Nope.
>
> If you ever have a chance to plea bargain, TAKE IT! Statistically,
> your jury will nearly always hand down a heavier sentence.

That's assuming that you actually committed the crime. I know of at
least a couple of cases personally where someone took a plea bargain for
something they didn't do because they were afraid of the consequences of
being convicted where that was probably a mistake.

Confessing to a crime you didn't commit is not a good thing either.

> There was slightly over 8 oz. of weed which is a felony charge.
>
> We'd been given the option of giving her a lower charge, and 4 of us
> really wanted to do that. After re-reading the charges etc. a few
> times, we 4 finally gave in and we turned in a unanimous verdict after
> about 3 hours of deliberating. It was not an easy thing to do but we
> all felt a bit better about it after hearing more of the background
> and history. The judge came to the jury room afterwards and spoke
> with us...
>
> That's usually the way it is. ;-)
>
> Hopefully she will learn her lesson and get clean. Turns out she was
> also abusing xanax and had a large stash of it under the drivers seat
> and tested positive for it on UA. We'd not been told that little
> detail...

Thanks for doing your duty. Hopefully this particular person can clean
up her life.

Jason

"Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:87skws5z0l.fsf@xmission.com...
> Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> In article <ompomelet-BC2BDE.20201007052008@news.giganews.com>,
>> Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

.....>> Her defense attorney tried to get the evidence tossed and tried to
>> discredit the cop. I happen to know the officer (and said so during
>> voie dire when asked) and he is a very good officer even tho' I mostly
>> only know him as a CPA instructor. ....

I'm surprised the defense lawyer didn't strike you, especially given that
the case turned in large part on the cop's credibility. There might have
been a good strategic reason (you seem like a very fair person and he may
have felt that way) but leaving you on seems like it would be a huge gamble.

>> Anyway, her defense did a very poor job for the kid. She was TWICE
>> given the option of an extended class A misdemeanor prior to trial but
>> thought she was smart enough to beat the system...
>
> It sounds like her defense attorney did a very good job for the kid, and
> she just wasn't smart enough to take the deal. You can't blame the
> defense attorney if a) the person actually committed the crime and b)
> they won't take the deal the prosecution offers.
>

I've seen many cases where the defense lawyer practically begs client to
take a good plea deal where there's overwhelming evidence of guilt but the
defendant goes to trial and gets nailed. (When the judge assesses a tough
sentence, they call it "paying rent on the courtroom.") Worst case I saw was
a habitual but nonviolent drug offender who was caught with a small qty of
dope with indicia of sales. He was offered two yrs, went to trial and jury
gave him life. Ouch. That said, sometimes lawyers want their clients to
plead because they're not ready to go to trial or are even scared to go.
Those guys have no business practicing law.

> Perhaps I am a bit sensitive on this subject, as my father spent a good
> chunk of my life growing up as a public defender, but I think that
> people are far too eager to blame these sorts of mistakes on the
> attorney rather than the accused. Criminals, as a class, are not very
> intelligent. In fact, that's probably why they went into crime in the
> first place. If they had the intelligence or skill to do something else
> they probably would.

Agree. And a tip of the hat to your dad. PD can be a thankless job.

.....> Thanks for doing your duty. Hopefully this particular person can
clean
> up her life.

Ditto that.

<imchardo@live.com> wrote in message
news:8cf05c20-333f-470f-9973-c2f50320aade@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 6, 3:08 pm, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ask a training question and see what happens!
>
> Point taken. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets tired of
> sifting through all the spam to find the legitimate posts....
>
> I don't have a training question at the moment. I'm just a long-time
> lurker who's discouraged to see so much life drained from the group.

I agree with you.

Where are you when I try to get gym related treads going?

When was the last time you posted or asked a health related statement.

Remember, this group is "like minded" people posting things that interest
them.

Don't open Spam, learn who's post not to open and you will save a lot of
your time and peace of mind.

Burr

On Thu, 8 May 2008, Omelet wrote:

> In article <ompomelet-BC2BDE.20201007052008@news.giganews.com>,
> Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Anyway let us know the details of your case if you've been released to
>>> discuss it.
>
> Okay, followup...
>
> 18 y/o girl got caught at 04:00 during a call for an attempted break-in.
> She was not the perp but the cop had asked her for ID at the bar. She
> did not have it on her so when they went to her car to get her purse,
> there was a glass jar full of weed in plain sight on the floorboard of
> the passenger side...
>
> She saw that the cop had seen it so she turned her back to the cop and
> put her hands behind her back. He actually cuffed her in front and put
> her in the back of the police cruiser and left her with her cellphone,
> then turned on the back seat recording system.
>
> Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back of a
> police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
> inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it.

For reals? She got a Miranda warning, right? Just no specific mention of
the recorder?

> You'd not be back there if you were not under arrest.

Well, yeah, but still. Particularly in this case, where it sounds like a
constructive thing - switch recorder on, leave her alone with her phone.
It's not quite entrapment, but YKWIM.

> Anyway, on searching the car, he found another 2 oz. baggie of pot
> stuffed into the map pocket behind the front passenger seat as well as a
> pot grinder and a box of baggies on the front floor and a glass pot pipe
> (used) and a postage scale in the console in front as well as a money
> clip up front with $410.00.
>
> Pretty obviously a selling setup...
>
> The girl called her boyfriend (her fellow dealer) on the phone and told
> him what was happening, and that she was "going to jail for the whole
> pound".
>
> That's the long and short of it.

Well, fair enough. If she's a dealer, she's a dealer, and she deserves the
sentence. In this case, your scandalous rules of evidence weren't used for
evil .

tom

--
For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found
that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work,
so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a
number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from
other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted
to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I
asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important
problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important
results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important,
and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working
on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming

In article <87skws5z0l.fsf@xmission.com>,
Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:

> > Anyway, her defense did a very poor job for the kid. She was TWICE
> > given the option of an extended class A misdemeanor prior to trial but
> > thought she was smart enough to beat the system...
>
> It sounds like her defense attorney did a very good job for the kid, and
> she just wasn't smart enough to take the deal. You can't blame the
> defense attorney if a) the person actually committed the crime and b)
> they won't take the deal the prosecution offers.

You did not see him during the trial... He was totally disorganized,
apologized several times for his notes being out of order and being
unable to read his own writing, etc. Stuff like that is not impressive.
:-(
>
> Perhaps I am a bit sensitive on this subject, as my father spent a good
> chunk of my life growing up as a public defender, but I think that
> people are far too eager to blame these sorts of mistakes on the
> attorney rather than the accused. Criminals, as a class, are not very
> intelligent. In fact, that's probably why they went into crime in the
> first place. If they had the intelligence or skill to do something else
> they probably would.

I understand that. But lawyers should be organized and not fumbling
around in the courtroom like an amatuer and ticking off the judge with
unreasonable objections etc.

> >
> > If you ever have a chance to plea bargain, TAKE IT! Statistically,
> > your jury will nearly always hand down a heavier sentence.
>
> That's assuming that you actually committed the crime. I know of at
> least a couple of cases personally where someone took a plea bargain for
> something they didn't do because they were afraid of the consequences of
> being convicted where that was probably a mistake.

I do understand that. But if you ARE guilty and the state has lots of
evidence like they did in this case, trying to rely on a technicality
can get you in trouble.

>
> Thanks for doing your duty. Hopefully this particular person can clean
> up her life.
>
> Jason

Thanks. I hope she does too. I feel badly about having to give an 18
year old kid a felony charge that will haunt her for many years to come.
With any luck, it'll teach her a much needed lesson.
--
--

Peace! Om

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a Bitch."
-- Jack Nicholson

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805082357510.10697@urchin.earth.li >,
Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> > Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back of a
> > police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
> > inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it.
>
> For reals? She got a Miranda warning, right? Just no specific mention of
> the recorder?

You no longer get Mirandized on arrest. Not until they start asking you
questions. It's an interesting practice and I'm dubious about it's
legality, but it's used as evidence all the time.

>
> > You'd not be back there if you were not under arrest.
>
> Well, yeah, but still. Particularly in this case, where it sounds like a
> constructive thing - switch recorder on, leave her alone with her phone.
> It's not quite entrapment, but YKWIM.

I know exactly what you mean. ;-)

>
> > Anyway, on searching the car, he found another 2 oz. baggie of pot
> > stuffed into the map pocket behind the front passenger seat as well as a
> > pot grinder and a box of baggies on the front floor and a glass pot pipe
> > (used) and a postage scale in the console in front as well as a money
> > clip up front with $410.00.
> >
> > Pretty obviously a selling setup...
> >
> > The girl called her boyfriend (her fellow dealer) on the phone and told
> > him what was happening, and that she was "going to jail for the whole
> > pound".
> >
> > That's the long and short of it.
>
> Well, fair enough. If she's a dealer, she's a dealer, and she deserves the
> sentence. In this case, your scandalous rules of evidence weren't used for
> evil .
>
> tom

<sigh> I know, but I still feel a bit bad.
--
--

Peace! Om

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a Bitch."
-- Jack Nicholson

In article <482370f4$0$7695$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:87skws5z0l.fsf@xmission.com...
> > Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> In article <ompomelet-BC2BDE.20201007052008@news.giganews.com>,
> >> Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> ....>> Her defense attorney tried to get the evidence tossed and tried to
> >> discredit the cop. I happen to know the officer (and said so during
> >> voie dire when asked) and he is a very good officer even tho' I mostly
> >> only know him as a CPA instructor. ....
>
> I'm surprised the defense lawyer didn't strike you, especially given that
> the case turned in large part on the cop's credibility. There might have
> been a good strategic reason (you seem like a very fair person and he may
> have felt that way) but leaving you on seems like it would be a huge gamble.

The DA was surprised too. He's the one that picked me.

>
> I've seen many cases where the defense lawyer practically begs client to
> take a good plea deal where there's overwhelming evidence of guilt but the
> defendant goes to trial and gets nailed. (When the judge assesses a tough
> sentence, they call it "paying rent on the courtroom.") Worst case I saw was
> a habitual but nonviolent drug offender who was caught with a small qty of
> dope with indicia of sales. He was offered two yrs, went to trial and jury
> gave him life. Ouch. That said, sometimes lawyers want their clients to
> plead because they're not ready to go to trial or are even scared to go.
> Those guys have no business practicing law.

I think this lawyer was not really ready to go to trial. He'd been very
ill the previous week and was not truly prepared with his attempt to get
the case thrown out which was what he was trying for.

>
> > Perhaps I am a bit sensitive on this subject, as my father spent a good
> > chunk of my life growing up as a public defender, but I think that
> > people are far too eager to blame these sorts of mistakes on the
> > attorney rather than the accused. Criminals, as a class, are not very
> > intelligent. In fact, that's probably why they went into crime in the
> > first place. If they had the intelligence or skill to do something else
> > they probably would.
>
> Agree. And a tip of the hat to your dad. PD can be a thankless job.

Ditto too. :-) Being a PD can be a thankless job.

>
> ....> Thanks for doing your duty. Hopefully this particular person can
> clean
> > up her life.
>
> Ditto that.

Cheers!
--
--

Peace! Om

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a Bitch."
-- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote in message
newsmpomelet-58ADB5.10091209052008@news.giganews.com...
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805082357510.10697@urchin.earth.li >,
> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> > Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back of
>> > a
>> > police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
>> > inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it.
>>
>> For reals? She got a Miranda warning, right? Just no specific mention of
>> the recorder?
>
> You no longer get Mirandized on arrest. Not until they start asking you
> questions. It's an interesting practice and I'm dubious about it's
> legality, but it's used as evidence all the time.

Miranda warnings are only required for custodial interrogation, so the
suspect has to both be in custody and interrogated.
>
>>
>> > You'd not be back there if you were not under arrest.
>>

Courts have held that a handcuffed suspect placed in the back seat of a
cruiser is not necessarily in custody/under arrest. Go figger.

In article <48247847$0$20161$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Omelet" <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> newsmpomelet-58ADB5.10091209052008@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805082357510.10697@urchin.earth.li >,
> > Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >> > Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back of
> >> > a
> >> > police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
> >> > inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it.
> >>
> >> For reals? She got a Miranda warning, right? Just no specific mention of
> >> the recorder?
> >
> > You no longer get Mirandized on arrest. Not until they start asking you
> > questions. It's an interesting practice and I'm dubious about it's
> > legality, but it's used as evidence all the time.
>
> Miranda warnings are only required for custodial interrogation, so the
> suspect has to both be in custody and interrogated.
> >
> >>
> >> > You'd not be back there if you were not under arrest.
> >>
>
> Courts have held that a handcuffed suspect placed in the back seat of a
> cruiser is not necessarily in custody/under arrest. Go figger.

True. Sometimes they are just "detained".

I've learned a LOT in the CPA class. Detainment seems to cover a broad
base. You are detained, for instance, at a traffic stop.

A more serious case, I could be detained in handcuffs in my own home if
I shot a home invader until the cops sorted out who was whom and what
was what.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people
until they put their foot down." -- Stephan Rothstein

Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> writes:

> In article <87skws5z0l.fsf@xmission.com>,
> Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> > Anyway, her defense did a very poor job for the kid. She was TWICE
>> > given the option of an extended class A misdemeanor prior to trial
>> > but thought she was smart enough to beat the system...
>>
>> It sounds like her defense attorney did a very good job for the kid,
>> and she just wasn't smart enough to take the deal. You can't blame
>> the defense attorney if a) the person actually committed the crime
>> and b) they won't take the deal the prosecution offers.
>
> You did not see him during the trial... He was totally disorganized,
> apologized several times for his notes being out of order and being
> unable to read his own writing, etc. Stuff like that is not
> impressive. :-(

It's always unfortunate when a lawyer isn't as prepared or polished as
he or she should be. Especially when they are court appointed.
Unfortunately some lawyers are never likely to be good in front of a
jury. Still, the fact that you didn't hear about the fact that the
accused was under the influence of Xanax (and had some in her car) after
the trial, and the fact that she was given the option of pleading the
charges down to a misdemeanor pretty much prove that the defense
attorney was doing his job.

The real problem with this particular case is that there was a lot of
damning evidence against the accused.

>> Perhaps I am a bit sensitive on this subject, as my father spent a
>> good chunk of my life growing up as a public defender, but I think
>> that people are far too eager to blame these sorts of mistakes on the
>> attorney rather than the accused. Criminals, as a class, are not
>> very intelligent. In fact, that's probably why they went into crime
>> in the first place. If they had the intelligence or skill to do
>> something else they probably would.
>
> I understand that. But lawyers should be organized and not fumbling
> around in the courtroom like an amatuer and ticking off the judge with
> unreasonable objections etc.

It is hard to disagree with that.

>> > If you ever have a chance to plea bargain, TAKE IT! Statistically,
>> > your jury will nearly always hand down a heavier sentence.
>>
>> That's assuming that you actually committed the crime. I know of at
>> least a couple of cases personally where someone took a plea bargain
>> for something they didn't do because they were afraid of the
>> consequences of being convicted where that was probably a mistake.
>
> I do understand that. But if you ARE guilty and the state has lots of
> evidence like they did in this case, trying to rely on a technicality
> can get you in trouble.

Yes, that's just plain stupid.

>> Thanks for doing your duty. Hopefully this particular person can
>> clean up her life.
>>
>> Jason
>
> Thanks. I hope she does too. I feel badly about having to give an 18
> year old kid a felony charge that will haunt her for many years to
> come. With any luck, it'll teach her a much needed lesson.

I can imagine. Like I said, spending my summers around people in
similar situations has jaded me more than I care to admit. It is
important to always remember that juries deal with human lives. It
speaks well of you that you are concerned for the individual. I should
certainly be less callous.

Jason

In article <87skwrxf6f.fsf@workhorse.earlhome>,
Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:

> > You did not see him during the trial... He was totally disorganized,
> > apologized several times for his notes being out of order and being
> > unable to read his own writing, etc. Stuff like that is not
> > impressive. :-(
>
> It's always unfortunate when a lawyer isn't as prepared or polished as
> he or she should be. Especially when they are court appointed.
> Unfortunately some lawyers are never likely to be good in front of a
> jury. Still, the fact that you didn't hear about the fact that the
> accused was under the influence of Xanax (and had some in her car) after
> the trial, and the fact that she was given the option of pleading the
> charges down to a misdemeanor pretty much prove that the defense
> attorney was doing his job.

He was retained, not court appointed, but I see your point. :-)
Is some of that decided by the judge?

>
> The real problem with this particular case is that there was a lot of
> damning evidence against the accused.

It was pretty overwhelming. Basically, she got caught red handed.

> >> Thanks for doing your duty. Hopefully this particular person can
> >> clean up her life.
> >>
> >> Jason
> >
> > Thanks. I hope she does too. I feel badly about having to give an 18
> > year old kid a felony charge that will haunt her for many years to
> > come. With any luck, it'll teach her a much needed lesson.
>
> I can imagine. Like I said, spending my summers around people in
> similar situations has jaded me more than I care to admit. It is
> important to always remember that juries deal with human lives. It
> speaks well of you that you are concerned for the individual. I should
> certainly be less callous.
>
> Jason

It's hard not to get that way sometimes. :-) Probably helps that I work
in health care. I still see everyone as a "person"...

Cheers!
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people
until they put their foot down." -- Stephan Rothstein

"Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message

......>> I do understand that. But if you ARE guilty and the state has lots
of
>> evidence like they did in this case, trying to rely on a technicality
>> can get you in trouble.

The Fourth Amendment is not a technicality. BTW, I think more people do not
get fair trials because of "technicalities" than those who get off because
of them.

Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> writes:

> In article <87skwrxf6f.fsf@workhorse.earlhome>,
> Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> > You did not see him during the trial... He was totally disorganized,
>> > apologized several times for his notes being out of order and being
>> > unable to read his own writing, etc. Stuff like that is not
>> > impressive. :-(
>>
>> It's always unfortunate when a lawyer isn't as prepared or polished
>> as he or she should be. Especially when they are court appointed.
>> Unfortunately some lawyers are never likely to be good in front of a
>> jury. Still, the fact that you didn't hear about the fact that the
>> accused was under the influence of Xanax (and had some in her car)
>> after the trial, and the fact that she was given the option of
>> pleading the charges down to a misdemeanor pretty much prove that the
>> defense attorney was doing his job.
>
> He was retained, not court appointed, but I see your point. :-)

It simply brings up another important point. It never hurts to talk to
the public defender first. The public defenders generally spend a lot
of their time in court, and they may well have more practice than some
random lawyer you would retain yourself.

My father used to laugh at people that would spend their own money and
get a horrible lawyer when they could of had his services for free.

You can always retain your own lawyer if you think that the public
defender doesn't know what he is doing or if he isn't spending enough
time.

If your public defender is completely incompetent that helps in the
appeal. If you retained the lawyer yourself and he's horrible, then
that's your own fault. As you saw paying money does not necessarily
guarantee you a vigorous defense.

> Is some of that decided by the judge?

Sure, but the lawyers have to argue for it. Quite a bit happens in a
court case before it goes to trial. That sort of stuff would generally
be admissible. There must have been something irregular in how the girl
was tested and how the police found the Xanax. The defense attorney
would have had to point that out and argued against it.

>> The real problem with this particular case is that there was a lot of
>> damning evidence against the accused.
>
> It was pretty overwhelming. Basically, she got caught red handed.

Exactly. She then decided to try and get off on a technicality instead
of owning up to what she had done and receiving a significantly lighter
sentence. She then forced 12 of her registered voter peers to spend
several days in jury duty listening to all of the sordid details.

Just thinking about it is making the callousness is creep in again. How
amazingly irresponsible.

>> >> Thanks for doing your duty. Hopefully this particular person can
>> >> clean up her life.
>> >>
>> >> Jason
>> >
>> > Thanks. I hope she does too. I feel badly about having to give an
>> > 18 year old kid a felony charge that will haunt her for many years
>> > to come. With any luck, it'll teach her a much needed lesson.
>>
>> I can imagine. Like I said, spending my summers around people in
>> similar situations has jaded me more than I care to admit. It is
>> important to always remember that juries deal with human lives. It
>> speaks well of you that you are concerned for the individual. I
>> should certainly be less callous.
>>
>> Jason
>
> It's hard not to get that way sometimes. :-) Probably helps that I work
> in health care. I still see everyone as a "person"...

It's always nice to deal with health care professionals that care. I've
seen plenty of people that work in health care that were pretty jaded as
well.

Jason

"Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
>
> .....>> I do understand that. But if you ARE guilty and the state has lots
> of
>>> evidence like they did in this case, trying to rely on a
>>> technicality can get you in trouble.
>
> The Fourth Amendment is not a technicality. BTW, I think more people
> do not get fair trials because of "technicalities" than those who get
> off because of them.

I am a huge fan of fair trials, and I would rather see guilty people
acquitted than someone innocent get convicted. I do *not*, however,
subscribe to the notion that our criminal justice system is badly
broken.

Take this situation, for instance. It is possible that because of a
technicality that the taped conversation in the squad car and the
evidence found in the search of the accused's automobile could have been
thrown out. That's precisely what happened to the fact that there was
Xanax in the car and that the accused was under the influence when she
was arrested.

However, that wouldn't have changed the *fact* that this particular
person was a drug dealer. It would have only changed what facts would
be given to the jury.

In this particular case it would appear that the policemen did a good
job.

Jason

Dnia 2008-05-08 DZ napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You fall off? Anyway, there are two possible approaches at combating
>> this sticking point. One is to use lower reps and build strength to the
>> point that 12 rep with old weight becomes easy enough to do 15, the
>> other is to train for 20 reps and build them sacroplasms, or whatever it
>> is which fails at 12. Maybe both, at two different days?
>
> Such mixing doesn't work well for me. At different points in the past
> I trained for 40 pullups and then for 170 lb weighted, but I don't
> think I could train for both at the same time.

I'm not saying that one should chase two rabbits, so to speak. I'm just
saying, that if your one rabbit hides in the hole above 12 rep plateau,
there is a possibility to approach it from two ends. Low rep training
does increase max bodyweight reps too. The only time I was roughly
proficient at pullups I used to do many sets of low reps three times a
week*. I'm not sure how much I could do on my max set then, but way more
than ever before or since, so it's at least possible to do it this way
too.

*)- When I got stronger, I simply pulled myself higher to compensate
and keep the rep number low. I ended up touching the base of my palms
to my nipples and squeezing for a count of some. Not bad for me,
taking in account that when I started I could do about two pullups.

> Training for max reps
> feels very taxing, something they also say about those 20 rep
> squats. Perhaps you'd need milk with that.

I guess that is why some people choose to do low rep training on some
days even when trying to simply improve their max bodyweight number.

>> Guys successful at pullups do them about three times a week, using
>> various grips and set/rep numbers (speaking in general terms, of
>> course).
>
> I do some variation of pullups everyday, but it leaves no place for
> things like curls. I would do an odd set of rows sometimes.

Neither I did any when I used to do pullups often, but I was fairly
strong at arm wrestling anyway. I won a match with a guy who could beat
me any way he wanted before. Fairly too, no tricks on my part.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

In article <4825052b$0$31718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
>
> .....>> I do understand that. But if you ARE guilty and the state has lots
> of
> >> evidence like they did in this case, trying to rely on a technicality
> >> can get you in trouble.
>
> The Fourth Amendment is not a technicality. BTW, I think more people do not
> get fair trials because of "technicalities" than those who get off because
> of them.

It was not an illegal search. The glass jar of pot was in plain sight on
the passenger side floorboard. Plain sight evidence is sufficient to get
you arrested.

Once you are under arrest for probably cause, the rest of the search
does not violate the 4th amendment.

Besides, that was not the technicality he was trying for. He was trying
to prove a break in the chain of custody back and forth from the crime
lab where the pot was tested. He also tried to prove illegal detainment
by the bartender, but was unable to do so.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people
until they put their foot down." -- Stephan Rothstein

In article <877ie2yhz8.fsf@workhorse.earlhome>,
Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:

> Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > In article <87skwrxf6f.fsf@workhorse.earlhome>,
> > Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > You did not see him during the trial... He was totally disorganized,
> >> > apologized several times for his notes being out of order and being
> >> > unable to read his own writing, etc. Stuff like that is not
> >> > impressive. :-(
> >>
> >> It's always unfortunate when a lawyer isn't as prepared or polished
> >> as he or she should be. Especially when they are court appointed.
> >> Unfortunately some lawyers are never likely to be good in front of a
> >> jury. Still, the fact that you didn't hear about the fact that the
> >> accused was under the influence of Xanax (and had some in her car)
> >> after the trial, and the fact that she was given the option of
> >> pleading the charges down to a misdemeanor pretty much prove that the
> >> defense attorney was doing his job.
> >
> > He was retained, not court appointed, but I see your point. :-)
>
> It simply brings up another important point. It never hurts to talk to
> the public defender first. The public defenders generally spend a lot
> of their time in court, and they may well have more practice than some
> random lawyer you would retain yourself.

I'll keep that in mind should I ever need one. <g>
I do understand too that the defendant is somewhat responsible anyway
for payment to a PD.

>
> My father used to laugh at people that would spend their own money and
> get a horrible lawyer when they could of had his services for free.
>
> You can always retain your own lawyer if you think that the public
> defender doesn't know what he is doing or if he isn't spending enough
> time.
>
> If your public defender is completely incompetent that helps in the
> appeal. If you retained the lawyer yourself and he's horrible, then
> that's your own fault. As you saw paying money does not necessarily
> guarantee you a vigorous defense.

Word.

>
> > Is some of that decided by the judge?
>
> Sure, but the lawyers have to argue for it. Quite a bit happens in a
> court case before it goes to trial.

And quite a bit happens while the jury is taking a "break".

> That sort of stuff would generally
> be admissible. There must have been something irregular in how the girl
> was tested and how the police found the Xanax. The defense attorney
> would have had to point that out and argued against it.

No, that was not it. See my previous post to Zen.

>
> >> The real problem with this particular case is that there was a lot of
> >> damning evidence against the accused.
> >
> > It was pretty overwhelming. Basically, she got caught red handed.
>
> Exactly. She then decided to try and get off on a technicality instead
> of owning up to what she had done and receiving a significantly lighter
> sentence. She then forced 12 of her registered voter peers to spend
> several days in jury duty listening to all of the sordid details.

3 days, but it's still a valid point. <g> She also inconvenienced the on
call tech that had to cover for me.

> >
> > It's hard not to get that way sometimes. :-) Probably helps that I work
> > in health care. I still see everyone as a "person"...
>
> It's always nice to deal with health care professionals that care. I've
> seen plenty of people that work in health care that were pretty jaded as
> well.
>
> Jason

I know. :-(
We try to write them up whenever possible if we see them being less than
"professional".
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people
until they put their foot down." -- Stephan Rothstein

In article <87y76ix2b7.fsf@workhorse.earlhome>,
Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:

> "Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > "Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
> >
> > .....>> I do understand that. But if you ARE guilty and the state has lots
> > of
> >>> evidence like they did in this case, trying to rely on a
> >>> technicality can get you in trouble.
> >
> > The Fourth Amendment is not a technicality. BTW, I think more people
> > do not get fair trials because of "technicalities" than those who get
> > off because of them.
>
> I am a huge fan of fair trials, and I would rather see guilty people
> acquitted than someone innocent get convicted. I do *not*, however,
> subscribe to the notion that our criminal justice system is badly
> broken.
>
> Take this situation, for instance. It is possible that because of a
> technicality that the taped conversation in the squad car and the
> evidence found in the search of the accused's automobile could have been
> thrown out. That's precisely what happened to the fact that there was
> Xanax in the car and that the accused was under the influence when she
> was arrested.
>
> However, that wouldn't have changed the *fact* that this particular
> person was a drug dealer. It would have only changed what facts would
> be given to the jury.
>
> In this particular case it would appear that the policemen did a good
> job.
>
> Jason

Officer "R" (protecting his anonymity) is a very good officer with lots
of experience... He's a bit emotionless because he used to do collision
investigation where there were injuries or deaths.

I refused to look at the pictures he was showing when he did the traffic
presentation in class...

His message was "speed kills".
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people
until they put their foot down." -- Stephan Rothstein

On May 9, 6:53 pm, Jason Earl <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
[...]

> It's always unfortunate when a lawyer isn't as prepared or polished <snip>

JWM is back?

(looks around)

IZZAT YOU AT THE JUICE BAR HIDING BEHIND THE FERN, JOHN??? GET OUT
HERE RIGHT NOW!

--

On Tue, 06 May 2008 19:39:31 -0400, Dally <Dally@myself.com> wrote:

>http://www.minionreport.com/forum/index.php

Gee, a group that instructs you to read its FAQ first... and the FAQ is empty (of anything
group-specific)

On Thu, 08 May 2008 12:18:58 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <ompomelet-BC2BDE.20201007052008@news.giganews.com>,
> Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>18 y/o girl got caught at 04:00 during a call for an attempted break-in.
>She was not the perp but the cop had asked her for ID at the bar. She
>did not have it on her so when they went to her car to get her purse,
>there was a glass jar full of weed in plain sight on the floorboard of
>the passenger side...
>
>She saw that the cop had seen it so she turned her back to the cop and
>put her hands behind her back. He actually cuffed her in front and put
>her in the back of the police cruiser and left her with her cellphone,
>then turned on the back seat recording system.
>
>Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back of a
>police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
>inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it.

Had she been given Miranda before then?

>Anyway, on searching the car, he found another 2 oz. baggie of pot
>stuffed into the map pocket behind the front passenger seat as well as a
>pot grinder and a box of baggies on the front floor and a glass pot pipe
>(used) and a postage scale in the console in front as well as a money
>clip up front with $410.00.

How come _I_ never meet the hot 18-year-old chicks pre-equipped with cash and drugs??

On Fri, 9 May 2008 09:13:48 -0700, "Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Omelet" <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>newsmpomelet-58ADB5.10091209052008@news.giganews.com...
>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805082357510.10697@urchin.earth.li >,
>> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>> > Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back of
>>> > a
>>> > police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
>>> > inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it.
>>>
>>> For reals? She got a Miranda warning, right? Just no specific mention of
>>> the recorder?
>>
>> You no longer get Mirandized on arrest. Not until they start asking you
>> questions. It's an interesting practice and I'm dubious about it's
>> legality, but it's used as evidence all the time.
>
>Miranda warnings are only required for custodial interrogation, so the
>suspect has to both be in custody and interrogated.
>>
>>>
>>> > You'd not be back there if you were not under arrest.
>>>
>
>Courts have held that a handcuffed suspect placed in the back seat of a
>cruiser is not necessarily in custody/under arrest. Go figger.

But he said she HAD been placed under arrest at her car. Seems a pretty clear
case of both arrest and custody being established.

On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:09:12 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805082357510.10697@urchin.earth.li >,
> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> > Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back of a
>> > police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
>> > inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it.
>>
>> For reals? She got a Miranda warning, right? Just no specific mention of
>> the recorder?
>
>You no longer get Mirandized on arrest. Not until they start asking you
>questions. It's an interesting practice and I'm dubious about it's
>legality

But you voted to convict anyway? Sounds like you didn't do your job.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:16:11 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <4825052b$0$31718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
>>
>> .....>> I do understand that. But if you ARE guilty and the state has lots
>> of
>> >> evidence like they did in this case, trying to rely on a technicality
>> >> can get you in trouble.
>>
>> The Fourth Amendment is not a technicality. BTW, I think more people do not
>> get fair trials because of "technicalities" than those who get off because
>> of them.
>
>It was not an illegal search. The glass jar of pot was in plain sight on
>the passenger side floorboard. Plain sight evidence is sufficient to get
>you arrested.

But was the car _hers_ ?

>Once you are under arrest for probably cause, the rest of the search
>does not violate the 4th amendment.

It's not that broad. The search of the _car_ was fine at that point, but
the cop could not have proceeded to, say, search the cars of other members
of her party, her home, etc. But nothing written to this point established that
she owned or possessed the car, or that the evidence physically connects to
_her_ (fingerprints, dog-smellin' prints, 8x10" color glossies, etc.)

>Besides, that was not the technicality he was trying for. He was trying
>to prove a break in the chain of custody back and forth from the crime
>lab where the pot was tested. He also tried to prove illegal detainment
>by the bartender, but was unable to do so.

"Lucas Buck" <sbcpark@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:4fcc24lpl9rptl4vo08qht04jae8vrm6fr@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 09:13:48 -0700, "Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Omelet" <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>newsmpomelet-58ADB5.10091209052008@news.giganews.com...
>>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805082357510.10697@urchin.earth.li >,
>>> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>> > Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back
>>>> > of
>>>> > a
>>>> > police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
>>>> > inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it.
>>>>
>>>> For reals? She got a Miranda warning, right? Just no specific mention
>>>> of
>>>> the recorder?
>>>
>>> You no longer get Mirandized on arrest. Not until they start asking you
>>> questions. It's an interesting practice and I'm dubious about it's
>>> legality, but it's used as evidence all the time.
>>
>>Miranda warnings are only required for custodial interrogation, so the
>>suspect has to both be in custody and interrogated.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > You'd not be back there if you were not under arrest.
>>>>
>>
>>Courts have held that a handcuffed suspect placed in the back seat of a
>>cruiser is not necessarily in custody/under arrest. Go figger.
>
> But he said she HAD been placed under arrest at her car. Seems a pretty
> clear
> case of both arrest and custody being established.

That was a general statement but the question of whether someone is under
arrest/in custody is a legal question which is normally for the court to
answer. A cop or suspect can opine that the suspect is under arrest and that
is certainly taken into account in the overall set of facts but the judge
usually makes the final call. I said "usualluy" because Texas law goes a
little further and sometimes allows the jury to separately determine whether
statements were taken in violation of the law, even if the judge has already
decided they were lawfully taken (during deliberations the jury doesn't know
the judge has done this, though). If the jury finds the statement was taken
illegally they are instructed to disregard it in their deliberations. Of
course, that's akin to unringing a bell, but there are cases where juries
have acquitted because they made this finding and are able to disregard the
defendant's statement and look solely to other evidence of guilt. Is this
boring?

"Lucas Buck" <sbcpark@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:elcc24tno1tc6ttkv2n82r85dck7t53et7@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:16:11 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <4825052b$0$31718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>> "Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> .....>> I do understand that. But if you ARE guilty and the state has
>>> lots
>>> of
>>> >> evidence like they did in this case, trying to rely on a technicality
>>> >> can get you in trouble.
>>>
>>> The Fourth Amendment is not a technicality. BTW, I think more people do
>>> not
>>> get fair trials because of "technicalities" than those who get off
>>> because
>>> of them.
>>
>>It was not an illegal search. The glass jar of pot was in plain sight on
>>the passenger side floorboard. Plain sight evidence is sufficient to get
>>you arrested.
>
> But was the car _hers_ ?
>

That's a really good question because mere knowledge of the drugs is not
enough to establish possession. But IIRC she said something that established
her as a co-possessor. Police work is made a lot easier because criminals
often essentially convict themselves.

In article <elcc24tno1tc6ttkv2n82r85dck7t53et7@4ax.com>,
Lucas Buck <sbcpark@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:16:11 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4825052b$0$31718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > "Zen Cohen"