In criminal law, collateral consequences are those consequences of a criminal conviction that do not directly relate to the punishment of the offense. For instance, a direct consequence is prison; a collateral consequence is suspension of the right to vote.
In general, criminal defense lawyers are not obligated to tell their clients of all the collateral consequences of pleading guilty. But recently, the United States Supreme Court has determined that deportation of non-citzens is such a severe consequence that it merits notice before a guilty plea. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. __ (March 31, 2010).
The problem with requiring defense attorneys to tell their clients about all the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction is that there are sooooo many consequences. But thanks to the American Bar Association...help is on the way. According to an article in the "Criminal Justice Section Newsletter," Vol. 18, Issue 3, Spring 2010, the ABA is conducting a nationwide comprehensive collateral consequences of criminal convictions survey. Once the project is complete, any lawyer in any state will be able to type in the charged offense and receive a list of all the collateral consequences. The lawyer can simply hit "print" and hand the list to their client. Brilliant!
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas, for more information, please visit http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Our Own Little Part to Help with the case backlog at the Municipal Court
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/crime/stories/DN-munycourt_10met.ART0.Central.Edition1.298e02b.html
According to the DMN, the City of Dallas Municipal Courts are full. Full and overflowing. The City implemented a new "proof or plea"court. Meaning, the defendant could bring in proof of innocence (like a driver's license for driving-without-a-license ticket) or plead guilty. I guess the only difference between this special court and regular courts is that in the "proof or plea" court, there are no trials. According to the article, the backlog is improving the length of time pending trial, but it is causing more paperwork for the defense attorneys.
I am the co-chair for the Aid to the Homeless Committee of the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers. We organize a Municipal Community Court for the Homeless twice a year. At this Court, the individuals are sentenced to community service instead to be preformed that very day under the supervision of the Stewpot. This month, we had well over 400 homeless people apply to participate in the program. With 1-10 tickets per person, even a low turn out rate of 50% would alleviate 200-2000 tickets for the Municipal Courts. One could say that we are doing our own little part to help the case backlog on Main Avenue.
----------------------------------
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas, for more information, please visit http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/
According to the DMN, the City of Dallas Municipal Courts are full. Full and overflowing. The City implemented a new "proof or plea"court. Meaning, the defendant could bring in proof of innocence (like a driver's license for driving-without-a-license ticket) or plead guilty. I guess the only difference between this special court and regular courts is that in the "proof or plea" court, there are no trials. According to the article, the backlog is improving the length of time pending trial, but it is causing more paperwork for the defense attorneys.
I am the co-chair for the Aid to the Homeless Committee of the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers. We organize a Municipal Community Court for the Homeless twice a year. At this Court, the individuals are sentenced to community service instead to be preformed that very day under the supervision of the Stewpot. This month, we had well over 400 homeless people apply to participate in the program. With 1-10 tickets per person, even a low turn out rate of 50% would alleviate 200-2000 tickets for the Municipal Courts. One could say that we are doing our own little part to help the case backlog on Main Avenue.
----------------------------------
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas, for more information, please visit http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/
20/20 Arson Investigative Report
On Friday May 7, ABC broadcasted a 20/20 investigation into faulty arson prosecutions. It highlighted a famous arson investigator, John Lentini, who is on a mission to re-teach arson investigators about the “truths” of tell-tale signs. I heard him speak at a seminar on Actual Innocence in 2009. In a word – shocking. Nearly every arson “red flag” has been disproven by Lentini and other investigators. But what is most disturbing is that these same red flags are still being used by local arson investigators to arrest and convict people.
The 20/20 episode is available on-line at http://abc.go.com/watch/2020/166626/260464/fire-scientist-questions-arson-finding
----------------------------------
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas, for more information, please visit http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/
The 20/20 episode is available on-line at http://abc.go.com/watch/2020/166626/260464/fire-scientist-questions-arson-finding
----------------------------------
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas, for more information, please visit http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/
The value of preemptory challenges in voir dire
Quick background: before trial, both the prosecutor and defense attorney select a jury. Actually, “select” is not an accurate term, its more accurate to say “eliminate” jurors. First, people are weeded out that do to qualify for jury service (example: under the age of 18, or not a citizen). Then, questions are asked of the potential jurors to flush out any prejudices or biases that might affect the way the juror decides the case. If a juror is found to be biased, then he or she is eliminated for cause. But there is another way potential jurors can be eliminated – preemptory challenges or strikes. Strikes are reserved for jurors who do not have a bias but are otherwise undesirable to either the prosecutor or defense attorney. The juror can be struck for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. Neither attorney is required to explain their strikes. In criminal felony cases in Texas, each side is allowed to strike 10 jurors in this manner.
This leads me to the question: what is the value in preemptory challenges? If all the unqualified and biased jurors have been eliminated leaving a pool of only qualified impartial jurors, why eliminate any more people from service?
Lawyers often argue that, despite being qualified and impartial, there are some people that are unwanted. A classic example is a juror who has a close family member who is a police officer. The assumption goes that those people are going to be more likely to sympathize with the testimony of the police officers, thus the defense attorney does not want them on the jury. The defense lawyer will use 1 of her 10 strikes to eliminate this potential juror.
The problem with this argument is that striking people based on assumptions is just that – assumptions; stereotypes. Remember, if that juror had actually been biased in favor of the police, then he or she would have been eliminated for cause. But assessing a stereotype that all family members of police officers are sympathetic to the prosecutor to the detriment of the defense relies on an unproven assumption about that person. Should a citizen’s right and obligation to serve on a jury be cut because of a stereotype? Doesn’t a courtroom represent the victory of facts over stereotypes; truth over falsehood? What’s fair in being struck because an attorney assumed you were bad for her case?
This is a justice topic that I feel passionate about and promise future blog entries. This is just the beginning.
----------------------------------
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas, for more information, please visit http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/
This leads me to the question: what is the value in preemptory challenges? If all the unqualified and biased jurors have been eliminated leaving a pool of only qualified impartial jurors, why eliminate any more people from service?
Lawyers often argue that, despite being qualified and impartial, there are some people that are unwanted. A classic example is a juror who has a close family member who is a police officer. The assumption goes that those people are going to be more likely to sympathize with the testimony of the police officers, thus the defense attorney does not want them on the jury. The defense lawyer will use 1 of her 10 strikes to eliminate this potential juror.
The problem with this argument is that striking people based on assumptions is just that – assumptions; stereotypes. Remember, if that juror had actually been biased in favor of the police, then he or she would have been eliminated for cause. But assessing a stereotype that all family members of police officers are sympathetic to the prosecutor to the detriment of the defense relies on an unproven assumption about that person. Should a citizen’s right and obligation to serve on a jury be cut because of a stereotype? Doesn’t a courtroom represent the victory of facts over stereotypes; truth over falsehood? What’s fair in being struck because an attorney assumed you were bad for her case?
This is a justice topic that I feel passionate about and promise future blog entries. This is just the beginning.
----------------------------------
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas, for more information, please visit http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
