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/
Monday, June 14, 2010
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/
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Chicago Police Commander under allegations of torture
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127020916
This story from NPR is slightly off topic in that it deals with justice issues outside of Dallas. But it was so fascinating that I had to post.
The caption reads: "Former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge leaves a federal building earlier this month as attorneys prepared for his trial. Burge is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice and is a key figure in an investigation of alleged police torture."
The story discusses an indepedent investigation which revealed over 100 instances of police toture. The victims were forced to confess to crimes they may or may not have committed.
Click on the link to read or listen to the report.
----------------------------------
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas, for more information, please visit http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/
This story from NPR is slightly off topic in that it deals with justice issues outside of Dallas. But it was so fascinating that I had to post.
The caption reads: "Former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge leaves a federal building earlier this month as attorneys prepared for his trial. Burge is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice and is a key figure in an investigation of alleged police torture."
The story discusses an indepedent investigation which revealed over 100 instances of police toture. The victims were forced to confess to crimes they may or may not have committed.
Click on the link to read or listen to the report.
----------------------------------
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas, for more information, please visit http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Specialty Courts run amuck
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/crime/stories/042710dnmetdaljails.3f9babf.html
According to the Dallas Morning News (DMN), Dallas County will attempt to open yet another specialty court- except there isn’t anything special about state-jail felony property crimes. The County Commissioners have decided to create a property crimes special court for defendants charged with state-jail felonies with a criminal record. The article partly blames the overcrowding of the Dallas County Jail on this group of offenders. Stating that if the defendants would just take the first deal offered by the DA’s office, then they would be moved to the State Jail Facility and out of the county’s hair. The problem with these pesky defendants is that they don’t accept the prosecutor’s first offer and instead wait for the offer to improve – which it does. Six months later, when the case is set for trial (but not actually going to trial), the prosecutor reduces the offer and the defendant agrees.
So, the County Commissioners have decided the best solution to this problem is to form a new court (with a new judge, new bailiffs, new clerk staff, new prosecutors; in a new courtroom). In this new court, instead of waiting six months for a trial that does not happen accompanied by a better plea offer, the defendant will wait less time and will be given a larger plea offer. The hope is, according to the article, that the defendants will accept the higher offer sooner and go to jail for longer.
What?
If the problem is that the prosecutor’s first offer is not the best offer, and the defendant knows this, then why not simply train the prosecutors to make the first offer, the best offer. Isn’t that cheaper than creating a whole new court? Let’s use the article’s example: the initial offer is 12 months. Defendant counters with 6 months. Negotiations stall and the case is set for trial. Trial is set 6 months down the road (my thoughts on the inefficiencies of the Dallas County trial docket to be found later in a separate entry). Day of trial prosecutor reduces the offer from 12 months to 6 months. Defendant agrees and pleads guilty that same day. Why not just offer 6 months at the onset?
Apparently, I’m not the only person that thinks this speciality court a stupid idea. In a later article, DMN reported, the criminal district judges told the Commissioners that they were not willing to transfer their state-jail felony property cases to the new court. Sounds like this silly plan may die. I'll post more as I learn more.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/crime/stories/DN-dalcounty_12met.ART0.State.Edition1.4c875f2.html
-----------------------------------
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas - Texas. You can learn more about Ms Dunn at http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/crime/stories/042710dnmetdaljails.3f9babf.html
According to the Dallas Morning News (DMN), Dallas County will attempt to open yet another specialty court- except there isn’t anything special about state-jail felony property crimes. The County Commissioners have decided to create a property crimes special court for defendants charged with state-jail felonies with a criminal record. The article partly blames the overcrowding of the Dallas County Jail on this group of offenders. Stating that if the defendants would just take the first deal offered by the DA’s office, then they would be moved to the State Jail Facility and out of the county’s hair. The problem with these pesky defendants is that they don’t accept the prosecutor’s first offer and instead wait for the offer to improve – which it does. Six months later, when the case is set for trial (but not actually going to trial), the prosecutor reduces the offer and the defendant agrees.
So, the County Commissioners have decided the best solution to this problem is to form a new court (with a new judge, new bailiffs, new clerk staff, new prosecutors; in a new courtroom). In this new court, instead of waiting six months for a trial that does not happen accompanied by a better plea offer, the defendant will wait less time and will be given a larger plea offer. The hope is, according to the article, that the defendants will accept the higher offer sooner and go to jail for longer.
What?
If the problem is that the prosecutor’s first offer is not the best offer, and the defendant knows this, then why not simply train the prosecutors to make the first offer, the best offer. Isn’t that cheaper than creating a whole new court? Let’s use the article’s example: the initial offer is 12 months. Defendant counters with 6 months. Negotiations stall and the case is set for trial. Trial is set 6 months down the road (my thoughts on the inefficiencies of the Dallas County trial docket to be found later in a separate entry). Day of trial prosecutor reduces the offer from 12 months to 6 months. Defendant agrees and pleads guilty that same day. Why not just offer 6 months at the onset?
Apparently, I’m not the only person that thinks this speciality court a stupid idea. In a later article, DMN reported, the criminal district judges told the Commissioners that they were not willing to transfer their state-jail felony property cases to the new court. Sounds like this silly plan may die. I'll post more as I learn more.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/crime/stories/DN-dalcounty_12met.ART0.State.Edition1.4c875f2.html
-----------------------------------
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas - Texas. You can learn more about Ms Dunn at http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
My First Execution
Billy Galloway will be my first execution. He is set to die tonight. Thus, I am already violating my one-blog-entry-per-week plan.
When I joined my previous firm fresh from law school, Galloway was the first large case I was assigned. The federal magistrate judge in Dallas appointed the firm to represent Galloway during his federal death penalty petition for writ of habeas corpus. This meant that the firm would be the last lawyers Galloway would have.
Since Galloway, I have taken on several other death penalty cases. I never intended to be a death penalty lawyer, but there you have it. There is something interesting about all of the death penalty cases and in Billy Galloway's case, its the trial lawyers.
I was able to depose the trial lawyers (a rarity in criminal law) and was nauseous and near tears at the end of it. The lawyers truly cared for Galloway - one lawyer met with Galloway in the jail for one hour every Sunday for a year. They were not strategizing about the case...just talking. They formed a deep bound; maybe too deep. The objectivity necessary to handle a criminal case was lacking.
The lawyers took on the role of father at the expense of their role of legal advocate. Galloway's lawyers admitted that they never read a Supreme Court opinion requiring death penalty lawyers to investigate and present mitigating evidence. Moreover, they never read the American Bar Assocation Guidelines for Capital Cases which acts as an instruction manual for all death lawyers.
When I joined my previous firm fresh from law school, Galloway was the first large case I was assigned. The federal magistrate judge in Dallas appointed the firm to represent Galloway during his federal death penalty petition for writ of habeas corpus. This meant that the firm would be the last lawyers Galloway would have.
Since Galloway, I have taken on several other death penalty cases. I never intended to be a death penalty lawyer, but there you have it. There is something interesting about all of the death penalty cases and in Billy Galloway's case, its the trial lawyers.
I was able to depose the trial lawyers (a rarity in criminal law) and was nauseous and near tears at the end of it. The lawyers truly cared for Galloway - one lawyer met with Galloway in the jail for one hour every Sunday for a year. They were not strategizing about the case...just talking. They formed a deep bound; maybe too deep. The objectivity necessary to handle a criminal case was lacking.
The lawyers took on the role of father at the expense of their role of legal advocate. Galloway's lawyers admitted that they never read a Supreme Court opinion requiring death penalty lawyers to investigate and present mitigating evidence. Moreover, they never read the American Bar Assocation Guidelines for Capital Cases which acts as an instruction manual for all death lawyers.
You see, here's the problem with Galloway; he did not want to fight his case. He wanted to die. And his lawyers, acting in the fatherly role, wanted to give Galloway what he wanted. As a death lawyer, your job is to keep the client alive - period.
That did not happen. Neither his trial lawyers nor us could save Billy Galloway. He will be executed tonight.
Introduction
I am a criminal defense attorney practicing mainly in Dallas County. I have done this job for six years and have become rather opinionated about Dallas Justice. In the modern age, opinionated people blog. So, here I am…blogging…for the first time. This is new territory for me. I hope that through my blogging, I can become better informed and release some stored-up opinions I have about Dallas Justice. I commit to one blog entry per week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
