<%@ Page Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/MasterPage.master" Title="NCCJR Blog" %>

Friday, November 27, 2009

It has to start

by Todd Newmiller

“It has to start somewhere.
It has to start sometime.
What better place than here?
What better time than now?”

-Rage Against the Machine, “Guerrilla Radio”

After getting my weekly dose of Bill Moyer’s Journal on Rocky Mountain PBS, I turned on the radio and was met by the sounds of RATM. System of a Down is playing now. These are all reminders. At some point along the way, the depression, the monotony of this existence, overwhelmed my will to fight, overpowered my impulse to write. There is so much work to be done in this world, so many reforms long since overdue, and the only ways I can participate in that work from inside this prison cell are through kindness to my fellow prisoners and by writing. Always by writing.

New disciplines and reestablished disciplines start with that seemingly insurmountable first step of deciding to stop contemplating, and to simply do the thing contemplated. Writing is my promise to myself that I haven’t given up.

“Drums and bells, flags and pennants are the means by which
one unifies the ears and eyes of the people.”

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

As time passes and as I look, ever more critically, at the state of American culture, at the state of American legal proceedings, I become more and more convinced of a deep vein of sadism, pervasive throughout both our culture and our institutions. How else to explain the kinds of draconian sentences imposed by courts, the indifference to truth, the irrationally punitive approach of both our courts and our penitentiary system?


To take individuals convicted of property crimes or drug crimes and to subject them to habitual criminal sentences of 36, or 48, or 96 years, or to Life sentences, simply doesn’t make economic sense. The economic damage done by the vast majority of these people never attained the level of what it costs to imprison each of them for a single year. This is insanity.

But even in economically supportable cases, there seems a meanness, a joy in making another human being suffer, that confounds me. The great pleasure that the public has taken in Bernie Madoff’s 150 year sentence is bizarre. Here is a man that has caused a great deal of suffering for a large number of people, none of which will be changed by his incarceration. In his state of utter disgrace, he certainly poses no continued threat of fraud, at least not to anyone with any sense at all. It would seem much more logical to me to give the man his freedom, within certain strictures, to restrict or prohibit outright his working with financial instruments, and to commit a sizable portion of his continued earnings to a victims’ relief fund. Justice, as embodied in our legal institutions, should look more like logic, and far less like bloodlust.

[Editor's note: Todd Newmiller is incarcerated in Colorado where his conviction remains under litigation. He has always maintained his innocence. Details of his case are available at http://bearingfalsewitness.com.]
Bookmark and Share
by Todd Newmiller at 0 Comments

When you've been tagged by Evelin

by Richard Barbuto

A few weeks ago I was "tagged" on facebook by Evelin Petes.  Evelin is an activist in a number of areas having to do with criminal justice issues so notwithstanding my actually not knowing what being tagged meant I clicked on the provided link.

I was taken to a place where the question was being asked as to why Gov. Rick Perry of Texas should judge anybody.  Based upon my knowledge of Rick I concluded that he should not be in charge of anything much less judging other people. This was not a hard concept to get my arms around.  All one has to do is read a few speeches and listen to him.  Additionally, no grown man should call himself "Rick" if he wants to be taken seriously.  That includes Rick Lazio who is a conservative running for Gov. in NY.

Not wanting to spend a lot of time thinking about Rick, I broadened the question  to be that of why do the least intelligent most prejudiced that walk among us seem to have the most to say?  Seriously.  And that took me to the Dunning-Kruger effect or, do assholes know they are assholes?

My good friend Scott Greenfield, a lawyer and blogger of some note, http://blog.simplejustice.us/ alerted me to Dunning-Kruger some years ago.  According to Wikipedia:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it".
The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than actuality; by contrast the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than relatively more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."
"The phenomenon was demonstrated in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then both of Cornell University. Their results were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December 1999."
"Kruger and Dunning noted a number of previous studies which tend to suggest that in skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (as Charles Darwin put it). They hypothesized that with a typical skill which humans may possess in greater or lesser degree,

  1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill 
  2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others. 
  3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
  4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill."  

Does this explain a lot, or what?  The assholes really don't know they are assholes.  Who knew?

So the next time you hear or read a venomous, mean spirited and unintelligent "pundit" spouting off you will now have a deeper meaning of what motivates them.  Remember the Dunning-Kruger effect.
 
So now, thanks to Evelin, I have an idea.  Let's take all the vicious, stupid people and put them in one spot and make Rick their governor? They deserve him. I will leave the idea of fencing them in up to the reader.  What do you think?  And if you get tagged by Evelin, pay attention.
Bookmark and Share
by Richard Barbuto at 3 Comments

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

When judges don't judge

by Richard Barbuto

First of all, let me be clear about this: there are many good and decent people who are fine judges.  Okay?  So no comments please about how I am suggesting that all judges are terrible.  This blog is about judges who either don't like to make decisions or when making decisions always take the easy way out.  In fact, I am going to use real cases where I was a participant so I actually know what went on.

The first case took place in Bronx County shortly after the events of 9/11.  During that tumultuous time many cops who were witnesses in criminal trials were busy working on 9/11 related matters.  The then-governor of New York decided it would be a good idea to suspend the "speedy trial" law so that defendants awaiting trial (and therefore, not having been found guilty of anything) could not get out of jail on speedy trial grounds.  I must digress for a moment.  With many exceptions, New York defendants are to be brought to trial within 6 months or their case will be dismissed.  If prosecution witnesses are not available prosecutors cannot try their cases and therefore run the risk of not getting defendants to trial in 6 months.  Hence, the governor's suspension of speedy trial law.  Most people thought this was a good idea.  After all, if you get arrested you must be guilty of something.  More importantly, working on 9/11 matters was paramount. Prosecutors loved this.  All they had to do was march into court and proclaim that their police witnesses were unavailable due to 9/11 duties.  

At the time I was representing a man charged with a crime that carried a penalty of 25 years and his bail was not something he was ever going to make.  When the case was to be tried, the witnesses were unavailable due to 9/11 duties.  I decided to craft a motion not attacking the suspension of the speedy trial law but one designed to compel the prosecution to prove that the witnesses were actually working on 9/11 matters.  The case was plead out with a favorable disposition to my client.  I asked the judge how he would have decided the motion.  His response was something to the effect of that it was a good motion but he never would have decided it in favor of my client.  He would have "kicked it upstairs to the appellate division" and let them deal with it.  Way to go judge!

In a case in Long Island in NY a defendant was indicted for murder but under 2 very different theories, one for intentional murder and one for depraved indifference (reckless) murder.  Before there was a trial a judge dismissed the reckless murder saying the murder could not be both reckless and intentional but only one or the other.  Now the perfect screw-up began. 

The prosecutor failed to note the judge's decision on his file.  The court clerk noted the decision on the court file but in the wrong place.  The defense lawyer apparently did not put a copy of the decision in his folder.  The case was then transferred to another prosecutor.  Both the judge and the defense lawyer retired so the case naturally was picked up by another judge and defense lawyer.  When the case came to trial no one noticed that one murder count had been dismissed.  You know what is coming here.  The defendant was convicted on a previously dismissed count.  Moreover, because he was convicted of that count the other murder count was automatically dismissed.  This all came to light when an alert data entry person brought it to the attention of the district attorney's office before sentencing.

By this time it was very clear that there had been a massive muckup by everybody involved.  Life being what it is, however, no one admitted to any fault and the prosecutor fought to keep a conviction to a non-existent count in place and the judge went along with it.  The judge was not going to be the one that vacated a murder conviction.  Nope.  Not him.  He went right ahead and sentenced the defendant to 25 years to life on the murder.
 
I wound up doing the defendant's appeal and ultimately the murder conviction was vacated.  The point is that the judge had to know there would be a reversal.  He just wasn't going to do it.

One does not have to like the final results of either of these cases.  In fact, I chose them because the results will be troubling to some people.  My point is that judges are supposed to make decisions based on the law not on their personal likes or dislikes.  Furthemore, defendants should expect that when mistakes are made that judges will fix them, not exacerbate them.
Bookmark and Share
by Richard Barbuto at 0 Comments

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Watch "No DNA to Test: The Wrongful Conviction of Dwayne Provience"

by John Maki

Dwayne Provience is a client of the Innocence Clinic at University of Michigan School of Law. In 2001, Provience was convicted of murder and spent almost 10 years in prison, even though the Detroit police department possessed evidence at the time of his conviction that proved he was innocent.



The Michigan Innocence Clinic was founded in 2009. They focus strictly on non-DNA wrongful convictions. You can follow them on facebook here.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
by John Maki at 0 Comments

Monday, November 16, 2009

It Could Happen to You, Too

by John Maki

In January 29, 2009, Alan Beaman, a client of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, was exonerated after spending almost 14 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Beaman was convicted of Jennifer Lockmiller's murder in 1995 and sentenced to 50 years in prison despite the lack of any direct evidence of his guilt. During the course of lengthy post-conviction proceedings, Beaman's Center attorneys developed evidence showing that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence regarding another suspect in the case and had misled the jury with regard to critical timeline facts. Although the circuit and appellate courts continued to uphold the conviction, the Illniois Supreme Court unanimously reversed Beaman's conviction on May 22, 2008, finding that the trial prosecutor had violated Beaman's constitutional rights. The high court characterized the State's case against Beaman as tenuous and found it probable that the jury would have acquitted him had it known about the other suspect.

At that point, the McLean County State's Attorney's office had the option of retrying Beaman or dismissing the case against him. Eight months after the high courts decision, all charges against Beaman were dropped.

Here's a video about the Beaman case:


Please share it with others. What happened to Alan Beaman could happen to anyone.
Bookmark and Share
by John Maki at 0 Comments

Apathy or Ignorance

by Anonymous

Why is it so difficult to find support for reforming our broken criminal justice system from main stream America? Is it that they just don't care? Is it that they are not aware of what goes on around them every day? Is it that most Americans have no reason to worry about it one way or the other? Is it that the goings on within the criminal justice system is not a part of their world so they assume that God is in his heaven and all is right with the universe? Yeah, me too. I don't know either but here are a couple of observations.

Now I had never heard of a company by the name of "Moosejaw." I guess it is that down here in the "wilds" of South Georgia there is not much call for ski equipment and super cold weather clothing. But, it seems that Moosejaw decided that it would be a real attention grabber to build a new ad campaign based on the premise that being in prison is funny and something to make light of. One ad in the catalog shows a model behind bars wearing the latest fashion in fleece from Moosejaw and there is more. You even get your own "Jail Activity Book" just chock full of fun and games to help you while away the hours of your incarceration. How about this one, A "Don't Get Shanked In The Shower" maze. Great fun, right?

Moosejaw wonders why so few of its customers have "done time" and makes a joke that this is "unacceptable." Then there are the greeting cards to "assist" people doing time. There is one to "celebrate" the inmate's 25th anniversary. Now me, well, I love a good joke as much as the next guy but this is totally unacceptable.

I am not going to take up your time here telling you all of the reasons that it is unacceptable as Matt Kelley has done his usual good job of doing that in his post at change.org. What took me by surprise, though in retrospect I don't know why, were the responses attacking Matt's position.

Comments included reference to the "'underprivileged' trash of our society, then went on with "How can you defend criminals?? They are serving time for a reason", "GO MOOSEJAW!! I think I'm going to buy a hoodie and march in the upcoming Christmas parade", "Stop sticking up for the prisoners. They've got bigger things to worry about, and I'm guessing they don't really need you protestors to fight their battles for them," Who will if we don't? "each and every one of them committed some crime severe enough to end up in prison", and here is IMHO the best of the bunch, "While I do support an education system for inmates, I cannot support providing any assistance after they are let out." I guess this means that he is ok with spending millions to build new prisons to house the recidivist but not a dime to prevent it.

Then, to cap off an already bad day, I get up this morning and read the following in the "Squawk Box" section (you can make short anonymous comments on anything) of my local paper. "Ever notice that most crimes are committed by people either on probation or just out of prison on parole? Crime could be reduced 50% by just keeping these people in prison." I can't help but wonder how the squawker proposes to know who will fail and who won't. Maybe I'll "Squawk" and ask him.

One respondent to the change.org post said that "The only thing this campaign delivers well is ignorance and insult." and goes on "Moosejaw's wonderful customer service doesn't make up for the fact they made a huge error of judgment. They are perpetuating stereotypes about inmates and prison life at the expense of actual thought." Very well said I think.

So......back to the question. Is it apathy or ignorance?

The same commentor went on to say, and I paraphrase, "There are many lines of work that will contribute to improving society, cutting recidivism, providing better treatment while men and women are locked up & develop viable, safe alternatives to caging people. Some of this work is educating youth, some of it is educating prisoners and some of it is educating the public."

He goes on to say, "I think part of educating each other is not excusing naive ad campaign's like Moosejaw's because it is perceived to have an element of humor. It also has an element of scorn for the 2.2 million American citizens who are currently incarcerated." No disagreement here.

I would like to suggest that perhaps the apathy of most Americans is due to ignorance. Sadly we have a largely unknowing (Ignorant) and uncaring (Apathy) populace regarding criminal justice issues and reform. The responses and comments that I have referenced offer clear evidence of the unknowing and I will concede that the uncaring is, in all likely hood, because of the unknowing. It is a good thing that most of our citizens never come in contact with our criminal "injustice" system but for those of us who, for whatever reason have, the struggle to educate them and to solicit their assistance in our struggle to make things better continues.
Bookmark and Share
by Anonymous at 0 Comments

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Veterans' Day Thoughts

by William Newmiller

Last week, the Army Times ran an editorial calling for treatment--not incarceration--for veterans suffering from substance abuse and caught up in the crossfire of the "war on drugs." Often lost in the sad statistics about incarceration under current drug laws is that many of those inmates are veterans who have served our nation under fire.

Consider these sobering statistics from the recently released report "Healing a Broken System: Veterans Battling Addiction and Incarceration," by the Drug Policy Alliance:
  • 140,000 veterans were incarcerated in state and federal prisons.
  • 46 percent of veterans in federal prison were incarcerated for drug law violations.
  • 15 percent of veterans in state prison were incarcerated for drug law violations, including 5.6 percent for simple possession.
  • More than 25 percent of veterans in prison were intoxicated at the time of their arrest.
  • 61 percent of incarcerated veterans met the DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence or abuse.
  • More than half of veterans in federal (64percent) and state prisons (54 percent) served during wartime.
  • 26 percent of veterans in federal prison and 20 percent in state prison served in combat.
  • 38 percent of veterans in state prison received less than an honorable discharge, which may disqualify them for VA benefits.
Bookmark and Share
by William Newmiller at 0 Comments

Saturday, November 7, 2009

A Little Blog Food for Thought

by Anonymous

A few days ago, over my morning coffee, I happened to see a very small, back page, below the fold, article in my local newspaper. Almost missed it and that goes to part of the problem with our badly broken criminal justice system. More on that later.

 
The small headline said something about Pennsylvania judges pleading guilty to sentencing irregularities then a little follow up but not much substance. I say to myself, "self, there has got to be more to this than what the Herald has buried in the back of the paper," so I did a little research on the net and sure enough the picture got much larger and much clearer.

 
What I found was that two of the people that are supposed to protect "We The People" were in effect "selling" children into slavery for their own personal gain. Selling them to privately owned prisons. A juvenile justice advocacy group said more than 6,500 juveniles were affected and most won't be retried.

 
It seems that this has been going on for some time as the two former judges, Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan were awaiting trial on guilty pleas entered through a plea bargain back in February. They both entered a plea of guilty to charges that they accepted more than $2.6 million in kickbacks in exchange for rulings that benefited the owners and builder of PA Child Care in Pittston Township and Western PA Child Care in Butler County. They pled guilty to fraud and tax evasion and were expecting sentences of somewhere in the neighborhood of 87 months but, surprise, surprise, the judge threw out the plea agreement saying that they hadn't accepted responsibility for their actions. They're now awaiting trial on a 48-count indictment.

 
Now, if that's not enough, attorneys appeared before a federal judge to argue whether the two former judges and some others are immune from liability in a lawsuit that alleges juveniles were improperly incarcerated. It seems that the doctrine of judicial immunity provides judges wide protection from liability for decisions they make on the bench. Say what??? A least there seems to be someone with a little sanity. One of the attorneys for the juveniles, acknowledged that the doctrine gives judges broad protection but argued that the conduct of Conahan and Ciavarella was so extreme that it fell outside those protections. Do ya' think?? One of the judges routinely denied juveniles their right to an attorney and pressured juvenile probation officials into recommending detention. Another attorney for the juveniles added, “Ciavarella made his own rules. He may as well have set up a courtroom in his garage and put on a black robe because he was acting outside the constitution."

 
Here is part of the official summary from the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

 
The defendants are alleged to have engaged in honest services fraud by taking millions of dollars from two unnamed persons in connection with the construction, expansion and operation of juvenile detention centers in Luzerne County and elsewhere. The criminal information charges that, between 2004 and 2007, both judges filed materially false annual statements of financial interests with the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts in which they failed to disclose the sources of income they received from these unnamed persons, and in which they failed to disclose their financial relationship with these businesses. At the same time the Judges were allegedly concealing these payments and financial ties, it is alleged the Judges took discretionary actions in a number of matters involving the juvenile detention facilities without recusing themselves from those matters and without disclosing to parties involved in the proceedings their conflict of interest. These actions are alleged to have included:

 
  • Taking official action to remove funding from the Luzerne County budget for the Luzerne County juvenile detention facility, effectively closing that facility;
  • Ordering juveniles to be sent to these facilities in which the judges had a financial interest even when Juvenile Probation Officers did not recommend detention;
  • Entering a “Placement Guarantee Agreement” to house juveniles in a facility in which the judges had an interest guaranteeing that the Court of Common Pleas would pay an annual “Rental Installment” sum of $1,314,000, without disclosing payments received by the judges; and,
  • Summarily granting motions to seal the record and for injunctive relief in a civil case relating to a juvenile detention facility in which the judges had a financial interest.

I mentioned earlier that the tiny article in my hometown paper may be part of the problem. Here is why. Where is the outrage? Buried on the back pages of my hometown paper and how many others? Did you see it in your morning paper? A good article at change.org drew a grand total of 8 comments and this is on a blog dedicated to Criminal Justice Reform. Where is the outrage? Does anyone out there really care about the broken system and the impact it has on its victims? The answer to that is a resounding no. Not unless they are themselves victims or have a loved one, family member, friend, etc. who is a victim.

 
And speaking of Blog food for thought, do you by any wild stretch of the imagination think that these two are the only ones involved in this sort of activity? How many adults may be victims of the same corrupt system? Does anyone need further evidence that "Prisons R Us" is a bad idea? The idea of allowing anyone to profit from the misfortune of others, even self inflicted misfortune, is abhorrent to me.

 
It will be interesting to see how the trial comes out and what about those who paid the bribes, what is to be done with them? 
Bookmark and Share
by Anonymous at 0 Comments

The SLEOs of Maricopa County

by Richard Barbuto

Government agencies love acronyms and important names for themselves. They especially like names that have the words organized crime, racketeering or the ever present catch all, law enforcement, in them. Thus we have in NY the JOCTF or the Joint Organized Crime Task Force, The Organized Crime and Racketeering Intelligence Unit (an oxymoron if ever there was one) and LEO's (Law Enforcement Officers). For those of you that watch NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service), the character named McGee will almost every week utter the words "I'll send a BOLO (Be On the Lookout) to the local LEO's (local cops).


Given recent events in Marocopa County, AZ, I have decided a new acronym for LEO's is warranted. You know, something that is more descriptive or accurate to the true state of affairs in what we euphemistically call the criminal justice system. As a preliminary matter I have come up with SLEO's where the S" stands for Selective. That way we can have our own little acroym to describe LEO's that enforce the laws they like and ignore those that they consider inconvenient. But I am getting ahead of myself here. Back to Maricopa County.


Apparently, during a sentence in open court, a court officer decided it would be a good idea to go into the defense lawyer's brief bag and took a paper belonging to her. The defense lawyer had her back to this activity but was notified by her client of the court officer's behavior. This supposedly took place in front of some prosecutors as well. When the defense lawyer brought the theft to the attention of the judge, the judge in response told the defense counsel to calm down, which she apparently did. There is a video of this event available:

The defense lawyer, seeking to take this further, asked for a hearing on the entire matter but was told by yet another judge that she (the defense lawyer) would have to tell the court and court officers, what was written on the piece of paper. In other words, she would have to violate the attorney-client privilege so that the court officer could properly defend himself. As far as I know, the defense lawyer has declined to do this.


Let's take a look at the actions of some of the people in this most bizarre occurrence. The court officer would seem to be guilty of a petty larceny not to mention an interference with the attorney-client privilege. The court officer, paying no attention to the law of larceny, did what he felt like.


This is nothing new for LEO's. They routinely violate the law when they knowingly elicit false confessions, when they knowingly plant evidence on a suspect and when they knowingly lie on the witness stand because in their minds it is for the greater good and, after all, who would know better than them? The fact that they are violating a person's constitutional rights or otherwise lying and engaging in unlawful behavior is of no moment to them. SLEOs select the laws they will pay attention to and ignore the others.

As long as we are on the subject let's talk about the prosecutors and the judges as well.

The prosecutors perhaps thought it was okay to witness a crime and do nothing about it. In their defense, maybe they did not see the criminal act although I'm told they were standing very close to where the offending behavior took place. The prosecutors are the only lawyers in the courtroom who are actually charged with the duty of doing justice. If the prosecutors in any case are not that interested in justice maybe they could just tell us ahead of time and spare us the legal fiction.

As for the judges, I have long been under the impression that judging means making decisions. Not all decisions are easy decisions. Nevertheless, judges still have to make them. The last time I looked judges don't just get to make the easy decisions. Parenthetically, I have always marvelled at people who wish to become judges but then don't want to make any decisions.

The judge who made the decision that the defense lawyer would have to violate the attorney-client privilege in order to proceed to a hearing in this matter was clearly trying to avoid having a hearing with decisions, and perhaps troubling ones, that would have to be made. If that is not the case then the judge needs to go back to judge school and bone up on his constitutional law. When one unlawfully removes a piece of paper that is privileged, it is a theft. It has nothing to do with the attorney-client privilege.

There has been quite of bit of controversy about the state of justice in Maricopa County of late. It seems clear that there are people within the criminal justice system who may not exactly be doing their jobs. In discussing this problem I do not wish to leave out criminal defense lawyers. The criminal bar in Maricopa County no doubt has some wonderful lawyers. It is not easy being a criminal defense lawyer but we are the people that stand between the government and our clients. The police and prosecutors don't love us and if you think the judges do you are probably in the wrong profession. It is up to us when under attack to come together and protect ourselves and our clients. Nobody else is going to do it. Whining about a situation rarely solves the underlying problem. The criminal defense bar in Maricopa County needs to figure out how to best perform their duties as well.

The Bill of Rights was not enacted to protect the citizenry from overzealous defense lawyers. Use it. Don't let the SLEOs abuse it.
Bookmark and Share
by Richard Barbuto at 2 Comments

The Economics and Politics of State Prisons

by Jeffrey Deskovic

As readers are well aware, I spent 16 years in prison prior to being released as a result of exoneration. Through that experience, I learned a great deal about prisons. I also learned additional information since obtaining my freedom.

It is with that lens that I read and thought about a recent New York Times op-ed piece. Robert Gangi, who is the Executive Director of the Correctional Association of New York, which is a not-for-profit organization that monitors prison conditions, explored the costs of empty prisons to taxpayers. His article stated that New York State has gone from 71,600 prisoners in 1999 to approximately 59,300 now.

Gangi writes, “Nevertheless, mainly because of opposition from the Correction Officers’ Union and politicians from the upstate areas where most of our correctional facilities are, the state has been slow to close prisons. It was not until earlier this year that policymakers in Albany, confronted with fiscal crisis, mustered the will to shut three prison camps and seven prison annexes, a total of about 2,250 prison beds, in a move that is expected to save $52 million over the next two years.” Gangi goes on to say that the state could go further, given that there are currently 5000 empty beds in 69 prisons.

The fact that the Correction Officers Union would oppose closing unnecessary prisons, and that they would instead prefer the state to spend the projected $52 million over two years, wasting the money, merely for the purpose of not losing some correction officer jobs, I find to be outrageous.

But this type of corruption and warped thinking is what can happen when the financial well-being of entire towns, groups and individuals becomes intertwined with prisons and incarcerating people. That fact led me to reflect further about the various ways in which, for better or worse, the economic well-being of communities becomes dependent upon the functioning of prisons and the incarcerating of people. I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves, whether each item that I mention is a good thing or bad.

Further Modification Of the Rockefeller Drug Laws; laws which used to result in excessively long prison sentences for people who were either caught using a small quantity of drugs or merely possessing them. As I wrote about a year and a half ago, when I was incarcerated I witnessed people who had been sentenced to 15, 20, 25, and 30-year prison sentences under the old law, which in many instances provided longer sentences than some people had received for crimes such as assault, arson, robbery, burglary, and even murder.

As I see it, people who have drug habits should receive treatment in rehabs, not be sent to prison. In terms of people who are caught possessing small quantities of drugs, they should also be similarly dealt with. As for drug dealers and/or those who are caught with a large enough quantity of drugs that it becomes obvious that possession with intent to distribute is what the offenders were engaged in, they should be punished.

For many years the Correction Officers Union successfully lobbied lawmakers against modifying these laws because of their concern that it would result in fewer prison bed spaces needed and, hence, fewer Correction Officer positions. In effect, the union with the consent of at least most of its membership lobbied for policies that would result in incarceration knowing that they would benefit from such policies. To me, that sounds like modern-day slavery.

Prison Construction Companies: I remember reading in a few publications while I was still incarcerated reports of prison construction companies lobbying for the building of more prisons, and then turning around and bidding for those contracts. With plenty of money to contribute to political campaigns and to lobbying, in many ways these large companies are similar to the military/industrial complex which President Eisenhower warned us about: the very places that directly benefit from policies help to push them through

Providing of Correction Officer Jobs: In many rural communities, especially in upstate New York, there is little to no industry and very few jobs. The prison becomes the area’s main employer and thus becomes part of the life blood of the town’s economy. Towns like Elmira, Clinton, and Attica immediately come to mind.

There were quite a few correction officers that I came across whose relatives worked in the prison, and sometimes who were second and third generation prison guards.

Civilian Staff: Prisons also provide a wide variety of other jobs that the general public may not be aware of. Some of those jobs involve functions that, in one way or another, maintain the prison, such as plumbers, laundry workers, cooks who oversee the prison cooks, grievance workers, building maintenance workers, commissary workers, and an array of various administrative positions, many of which seem like unnecessary bureaucratic fat that could be done without. In Elmira, I recall a Department Of Security, a Department of Programs, a Department of Administration, and a Superintendent. Considering that there are a number of positions called Captains who are higher than all other positions save the departments, it would seem to me that the Superintendent could get by with the captains.

There are also a number of secretaries, as well as a business office who maintain records of the prisoners’ accounts.

There are guidance counselors whose job it is not to work as a mental health guidance counselor but instead inform prisoners what programs they need to take to satisfy parole requirements, the adding of names to a prisoners calling list, and filling out evaluation forms that are done every three months, which consists of interviewing the prisoners for 10 to 15 minutes. Other than that brief interaction, that is usually the only time they come in contact with the prisoners who are on their case load.

Quack Medical Staff: Many medical staff work in prisons. Some are nurses, who work regular shifts, and there are a couple of doctors who work at the prison a few days a week. The level of medical care generally provided by the medical staff was below average, with Tylenol often serving as the answer for everything. Beyond that, their bedside manner was not good.
Many, given their competence level and the way that they communicate with the prisoners, would not be able to hold a similar job in the outside world.

Some medical personnel in Department of Corrections across the country have been discovered to lack proper training, not to be licensed, or holding a degree from a bogus educational institution. In some instances, they have even been previously disciplined.

Commissary: The commissary is like a store in prison where prisoners can purchase stationary items and some limited food items. It was my understanding while I was incarcerated that the commissary itself was entered into a contract with the state to provide the items for purchase. It was rumored, though I never saw proof, that the state was receiving a kickback from the companies. I think that this should be an issue that is looked into. Commissaries therefore represent a financial opportunity for the company that holds the contract.

Given that many prisoners have no friends or family to send them items, the commissary is the only means of purchasing needed items, so a type of monopoly exists. At times the commissary would exploit that by raising prices, although the prison slave wages of 16, 22, 25, 32, 38 cents an hour would remain the same.

Phone Companies: In many states, including New York, phone companies have made deals with either the state or the Department Of Corrections to provide the phone service prisoners use to call their friends and family. But they were grossly overcharging the prisoners’ families for this, and the state was receiving kickbacks from the exorbitant profits obtained at the expense of the prisoners’ friends and families. In New York, when Eliot Spitzer became Governor, he changed this policy, and thus the lawsuit which had been filed in response to this issue was dropped. But many other states continue to engage in the practice.

Local Stores: The Department Of Corrections has a policy that in some prisons prisoners are given the opportunity to purchase television sets for in-cell use. Many prisoners have to give up receiving food packages sent from home; instead, food items would have to come directly from local stores. The problem is that many stores won’t ship items to prisons. In some towns, local grocery stores in prison towns get their business from visitors who will often stop at those stores either before or after the visit and purchase the items to be sent.

Industry: Many, though not all, prisons have “industry” in them, which means that there are companies that employ the prisoners, at better pay than the normal prison wages, but still at really low rate, to work in their industry. Some of the different types of industry include making license plates and manhole that in some states, there are clothing companies operating with prisons. One name that comes to mind is Inkarcerated. Their slogan was “when quality is a life sentence.”

There is also a company called Corcraft, where according to the website NYSEGOV.com, “Some 3,500 inmates work in Corcraft, making clothing, bedding, office supplies and other items that are sold to state and local government as well as to not-for-profit organizations.” Corcraft, like many other companies, pays far, far below minimum wage. Is it exploitative?

Private Prisons: In some states, private companies have built prisons toincarcerate state prisoners on a contractual basis. Such companies are looking to run a prison at a profit. Some examples include Wackenhut and Corrections Corporation of America. As I see it, not only is it unseemly to seek to make money off prisoners being incarcerated, but in order to generate a profit the prison will be seeking to save money however it can, even if that means limiting essential services.

Another aspect of private prisons is that prisoners who live many states away will be transported to them, thus placing them in an unfamiliar geographical environment and making prisoner visitation all but impossible except for the financially well off.

Gangi’s article stated that there are currently 5000 more empty beds within 69 prisons and that therefore New York State could close still more prisons that are not needed. Taking the above referenced figures and quickly multiplying by two, the state would be saving an additional $100 million. At any point in time, especially during these hard financial times, I would think that it would be prudent for the state to do so.

There are various other ways that Gangi references through which still more money could be saved through safely reducing the prison population which would therefore lead to empty beds and hence a lack of needing more prisons. I have thought about his ideas, and I agree with them. I will state his ideas, but elaborate on them in my own words.

Modification of Zero Tolerance for Technical Parole Violations: Gangi reports that last year more than 9000 people were returned to prison for technical violations of parole, such as missing a meeting with the parole officer or breaking curfew. Some alternatives could include a warning system, or the imposition of fines. Other possibilities include lengthening the time period of paroled supervision and house arrest.

Granting More Prisoners Work Release: When George Pataki became Governor, he excluded prisoners who had been convicted of violent crimes from being eligible for work release. I think that having a categorical rule banning such prisoners from being eligible for the program is a mistake, and that instead each prisoner should be evaluated on a case by case basis, including considering the prisoner’s disciplinary record, the educational programs that they have completed, and indications of whether they have been rehabilitated and would, if released on work release, not be likely to reoffend. As I see it, the denial of such prisoners to participate in work release makes little sense and is quite costly.

Granting Parole To Deserving Prisoners: Within the first year of my release, I wrote an article in The Guardian called “The Parole Game”, in which I went over, in detail, en masse denials of parole even to applicants who have demonstrated that they would, if released, live and remain at liberty without breaking the law. Given that the reason for incarceration is to keep society safe, when it is no longer the case individuals are a threat to society, they should be granted parole. In terms of the punishment purpose, that was already accomplished through serving a prison sentence. There were plenty of times throughout my incarceration where I witnessed prisoners going to the parole board and being denied, even though it seemed obvious that they would not pose a danger to society if released. Their continued incarceration made no sense. Similarly, there was no shortage in Elmira prison of prisoners who were quite old and/or sick. Surely they posed no threat to society, and certainly their medical needs could not be properly cared for.

Good Time: Yet another way to downsize the prison population, which will in turn result in less needed space and hence open up the door to closing more prisons, would be the passage of a good time bill. In a nutshell, I support a bill which would enable rehabilitated prisoners who have demonstrated that they are no longer a danger to society, to earn time o. of their sentence minimums. This would provide an incentive to prisoners to take advantage of the limited educational opportunities that do exist in prison, and would further give themselves an incentive to turn their lives around so that when they are released, they will live productive, crime free lives.

In Indiana, for example, prisoners may apply to the courts for time off their sentences upon completion of the GED program. The way that things stand now, there is no incentive for prisoners to turn their lives around, and the rehabilitation that does take place does not despite the prison system, not because of it.

Throughout the course of my 16 years in prison, I came across many prisoners who were surely would be no threat to society if they were released. Yet they were doomed to remain incarcerated for a good many more years.

To give a clearer picture of the prototypical prisoners that I remember when I say this, here are the characteristics of some that I remember: Prisoners who had completed college education programs and a number of vocational trades, who had gone for years without a misbehavior report and generally had an overall good prison disciplinary record, who the guards themselves , and even the civilian staff regarded as being of little to no threat. Some of them even where trying to give back to society, to the extent that helping other prisoners constitutes assisting society by facilitating the rehabilitation process.

Some examples include working as teacher aids helping others to learn how to read and write, and/or helping them work toward obtaining a GED. In other instances some worked in a similar fashion in the vocational shops. Still others worked in various capacities as a type of liaison between the administration and the population, such as on the Grievance Committee or on the Inmate Liaison Committee, whose job it was to take up the concerns of the population and discuss them with representatives of the prison administration.

[Editior's note: This article originally appeared in The Westchester Guardian and is published here by permission with minor editing changes.]
Bookmark and Share
by Jeffrey Deskovic at 5 Comments

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

The Right to Not Be Framed

by William Newmiller

Monday's Washington Post reported that "Iowa prosecutors hoping to persuade the Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit against them for allegedly fabricating evidence that led to the 25-year incarceration of two innocent men," opened their brief with this astonishing claim: "There is no Freestanding Constitutional 'Right Not To Be Framed.'"

Today, the Supreme heard arguments in the case, reported by the New York Times. To a non-lawyer, like myself, it's amazing that the proposition should even be subject to litigation. After all, aren't prosecutors expected (by statute in most states) to seek truth and justice? How could seeking truth and justice ever be consistent with the notion that framing an innocent defendant is not a violation of due process?

The bizarre reasoning of the prosecutors facing consequences for framing two innocent men is that they are entitled to absolute immunity, not only for their conduct at trial, but also for conduct leading up to trial. Lawyer Stephen Sanders, arguing on behalf of the prosecutors, claimed ''If a prosecutor's absolute immunity in judicial proceedings means anything, it means that a prosecutor may not be sued because a trial has ended in a conviction.''

According to the report in the Times, some justices seemed to side with Chief Justice John Roberts who said, "We're concerned about the chilling effect on prosecutors."

I suspect most reading this will think that prosecutors should take a chill, should think again, should resist the temptation, should back off, should reconsider, should think about the oath they took to seek truth and justice....instead of framing an innocent defendant.

Not being considered in the case is the responsibility the errant prosecutors carry for letting the real perpetrator of the crime get away with it.
Bookmark and Share
by William Newmiller at 0 Comments

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Lives impacted by our current justice system

by Jody

"Jody, can you help me?" asked the strained voice on the other end of the phone line. I recognized it right away as the voice of the father of my ex-roommate--a man who recently lost his wife to cancer, and his daughter (my friend) to drugs. "I'll try" was my response, but by the sound of his voice, I knew that my friend was in deep trouble.

For the past few years, I've listened to people's stories and have read and written books in the true crime genre. I'm familiar with how the legal system works through my connections, friendships, and my involvement in the national movement to bring awareness to media bias that leads to wrongful convictions. These stories have touched me and I've taken the victims into my heart. But I've never been so close to a case.

I want to make it clear that I believe my friend to be guilty of the crime for which she was charged. She plead guilty. She was on drugs and her life has been a mess since her fifty-year-old mom's body first became ravaged by cancer. However, this is a girl who had been sheltered, home-schooled, and had never eaten steak before I cooked it for her. Her family home didn't have central heat and air, and during the time that I lived in it, I would get up in the middle of the night to stoke the fire to keep warm. Her family is a hard working, simple living family, and they are "good people." She was the baby of the family, and a good girl, but her life took a turn for the worse and she threw away all of the values her family had taught her and abandoned her firefighter husband for drugs.

The crime she was charged with was exploiting an elderly person for money. Apparently, she lived with her husband's elderly aunt and abused the woman's ATM card during a period of a couple of months. The aunt has since died and her heir filed charges against my friend when he realized the money was missing. My friend faced a judge with a public defender who only "stood there," according to her father, and the attorney convinced my friend and her father to take a blind plea and promised them she would receive 30 days in a county jail and a 7 year suspended sentence. As you hear with all of these cases, what was promised did not happen. My friend was given a sentence of ten years in prison on her first felony charge.

In an attempt to help, I called a defense attorney and was told that it would cost $5,000 to file the paperwork to withdraw her plea, which has to be filed this week, and if the judge grants her a trial, it would cost upward of $10,000 and possibly $20,000 to go to trial, and she could get a longer sentence from a jury. Her father has only $6,000 saved and few assets to sell. He can pay to have the paperwork filed to withdraw the plea, but what will happen if the case goes to trial? Because of what I believe to be an incompetent public defender who only "stood there," my friend's father has two choices: 1) visit his daughter in prison for ten years or until she is paroled, or 2) find a way to come up with $20,000 and risk her being given more time. He's in a lose - lose situation and his family is devastated. Is this what our justice system has come to? Isn't there a protective measure in place for people who are uneducated about the law and how the justice system works that can prevent this type of thing from happening to the families?

Those in the justice system forget that when someone goes to prison that the family and friends are punished along with them. What can be done to change the laws to protect people like my friend from inept defense representation and to fully educate the family members on the choices that they will have to face if everything doesn't go as planned? It's time that we take a stand for not only those we believe have been treated unfairly in our current justice system, but also for the families who suffer along with them.
Bookmark and Share
by Jody at 0 Comments

Monday, November 2, 2009

The (criminal law) water cooler

by Richard Barbuto

Standing around the criminal law water cooler has exposed me to lots of different words and phrases that have a different meaning in the criminal law world than you might think at first blush. Many, but not all, of these phrases pop up in criminal trials and are either substitutes for reason or codes to deliver messages to jurors, attorneys or judges. I thought it might be fun to let everybody in on these things so there is no mistaking what is really going on.

"Common sense" - This is something one hears prosecutors use all the time. It will sometimes be used during jury selection and always in the prosecutor's summation. We hear this when the prosecutor implores the jury to use their common sense. Translation: Ladies and gentlemen, I do not have a shred of evidence as to why you should convict this dirtbag defendant but we all know he is guilty so let's get on with this and then go have a beer.

Closely allied with "common sense" is the "so what" argument. We see this one when the prosecutor has either a huge evidentiary hole in his case or the defense lawyer has come up with an irrefutable argument. I once exposed to a jury that the chief prosecution witness was a liar, a fraud and a drug user. The prosecutor's response: So what. I am not kidding. This really happened.

"Prosecution oriented" - This term refers to judges and means the judge will assist the prosecutor in every way possible to convict the defendant. I have been told that there are defense oriented judges but I have never actually seen one.

"Defense oriented" - This is a term used by prosecutors to describe a judge who once made a ruling in favor of a defendant before he knew better.

"Counselor" - This is one of my personal favorites. It is mainly used by detectives testifying at trial. It comes up in the following way. A defense lawyer will ask the question of a detective and a detective who will respond with "Well counselor" followed by the answer. The jury will then think that the detective is showing a lawyer some respect. What the detective is really doing in his answer is saying "Well asshole" followed by his answer. The idea here is for the detective to appear to be showing respect while in truth he or she normally hates defense lawyers. Parenthetically, the hate for defense lawyers evaporates when cops themselves are arrested.

"Flake" - A person is "flaked" when evidence is planted on or around them. The word can be used interchangeably with "lay down." The word originated when cops would carry an extra gun to lay down near a person they just shot who turned out to be unarmed. As you might imagine it is a lot easier to claim self defense when the guy you shot was armed. Of course, once there is a "flake" perjury will soon follow which brings us to ...

"Testilying" - I am not positive but I think this term was first used by Alan Dershowitz, but it really doesn't matter who thought of it first. This word refers to police types getting on a witness stand, swearing to tell the truth and then lying through the teeth. Let's face it, if a cop "flakes" you know he is not going to admit it now, is he?

The next time you have jury duty watch out for these words and phrases. If you are lucky you might be treated to a prosecution triple header. That's when the witness says "So what counselor, use your common sense." That witness might be testilying.
Bookmark and Share
by Richard Barbuto at 0 Comments

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Innocents Abroad -- and in South Carolina and Texas

by William Newmiller

As I drove home from work on Thursday, I listened to a story reported by the BBC's The World about tourist extortion by police in Cancun, Mexico. Scott and Michelle Fischbach form Minnesota were concluding their holiday on the Yucatan, when police pulled them over and demanded $300 in cash. They paid it. Seemed the wise thing to do. Michelle, a Minnesota State Senator, explained, "Well, it was pretty intimidating. I mean, it was three police officers. It was dark, it was late. We were in foreign country. None of us in the car spoke Spanish, and it was rather intimidating and so we felt like we didn't have a whole lot of choice."

Senator Fischbach also related that upon returning to Minnesota, she wrote a letter to Cancun officials reporting the incident. Since then, they've answered, sending her an apology and a check for $300.


I thought of other cases in the news of the innocent being victimized by authorities. Most of them didn't get such a positive and prompt response. Matt Kelley at change.org reported this week that "the South Carolina pardon board voted unanimously to clear the names of two men executed in 1915 for a murder they may not have committed. The men -- Meeks and Thomas Griffin -- were great uncles of syndicated radio talk show host Tom Joyner (left), who sought the pardons after learning last year about the men's story."

Meanwhile, in Texas, the controversy over the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham continues. It seems obvious in light of evidence and expert analysis reported by David Grann in the New Yorker that Willingham was innocent when he was executed, and that Perry had been so informed prior to the execution. But the machinery of death in Texas remains in denial.

As I approached my home, mulling over the three cases, the sad reality struck me: the falsely accused might have a better chance in Mexico than in the United States. Or maybe justice has to do with being a Senator or the relative of a celebrity--though the gentlemen in South Carolina surely would have wished for the family's celebrity to have arrive much sooner.
Bookmark and Share
by William Newmiller at 0 Comments