Nifong? Guilty!

Well, at least one conviction came out of the Duke Lacrosse fiasco. Courtesy of the Lie Stoppers blog comes the news that Torquemada himself, former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was today found guilty of criminal contempt for withholding from the defense exculpatory DNA evidence. The only disappointment is that the court sentenced Nifong to the minimum – one day. Not nearly enough. But now he is a convicted felon.

Son of Eagles Coach Facing Additional Charges

In an update to an earlier post, Britt Reid, the son of Philadelphiav Eagles head coach Andy Reid, has been charged with, among other offenses, driving under the influence. The charges arise out of an incident that occurred last week outside of a Dick’s Sporting Goods store in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania. Reid the Younger was, at the time of his latest arrest, awaiting sentencing on separate weapons and drug related charges. His bail was revoked last week, and he now resides in county jail. I would expect yoing Mr. Reid will now be looking at serving some time as a guest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (I would think 6 months or so). I hope that for his family’s and his own sake he can get his life in order and deal with his problems. Then his father can get back to worrying why his team can’t win big games.

Judge In Fumo Case Refuses To Disqualify Defense Lawyers

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported earlier today that Judge William Yohn, who is presiding over the federal prosecution of Pennsylvania state Senator Vincent Fumo denied a prosecution motion to disqualify lawyers from the Philadelphia firm of Sprague & Sprague from defending Fumo. Judge Yohn’s decision is a clear setback for the prosecution. If you’re going to shoot at the king, you’d better kill the king. For some reason I expect that the Sprague firm defense team will be working just that much harder to makie the prosecution’s life difficult. Score this early round for Senator Fumo.

City of Durham Caving Already

Earlier I posted about the Duke Three’s possible lawsuit against the City of Durham arising out of the Crystal Mangum fiasco. Today. Tony Mauro posted on the Washington Legal Times’ BLT Blog on this same issue. Interestingly, Tony’s post contained this tidbit:

According to the Herald-Sun, the city has already held closed-door meetings to consider its response and is planning on meeting with the lawyers to discuss the “basis for a lawsuit and perhaps terms for an out-of-court settlement.”

Interesting, indeed. I would expect to see the city cave pretty quickly on this one.

Duke Lacrosse Players Prepare To Sue City of Durham

Courtesy of the Duke Basketball Report (I’m a Duke alum. Get over it.) comes the news that the three lacrosse players wrongfully accused of rape by Crystal Mangum are preparing to sue the city of Durham, North Carolina. Most interesting to me is the identity of the two lawyers representing the Duke Three, Brendan Sullivan and Barry Scheck. Both of these guys are heavyweights of the highest order. Folks of a certain age will remember Sullivan from his representation of Lt. Col Oliver North during the Iran-Contra scandal (“I’m not a potted plant.”) Scheck, of course, is one of the nation’s foremost DNA gurus, and a moving force behind the Innocence Project.He was, you will recall, a critical member of O.J. Simpson’s “Dream Team.” The involvement of these tweo tremendous lawyers suggests that the City of Durham has A LOT to worry about. Stay tuned.

 Update: As always, KC Johnson at the Lie Stoppers blog has the skinny here and here.

Conservative Criminal Defense Lawyers

Following upo on my earlier post, and Scott Greenfield’s challenge to me to explain my politics (and Mark Bennett’s reminder that I have not yet done so), I’d like to say a few words about why I think there is no inherent contradiction in a criminal defense lawyer being a political conservative or voting for Republican candidates. Let me preface this by saying that, on at least one point, I part company with my fellow right tinger Shawn Matlock. I do not believe in mandatory minimum sentences. I think that mandatory minimums remove from a judge the ability to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances that affect a possible sentence. That’s why we have judges – to make those decisions. If you don’t like the sentences they are handing out, there’s a solution. Its called the political process. Change the judges or change the law. That said, here’s my two cents on the politics issue.

As a conservative, I believe in the Constitution and the system of justice that it established. Those are bedrock principles by which I live my life and conduct my law practice. I am what some might describe as a constitutionalist. The rights that the Constitution bestows belong to us all, especially those accused of crimes and facing the loss of their freedom. In the same spirit that John Adams represented the British soldiers charged with murder (or was it manslaughter) after the Boston Massacre, I see representing the accused as a duty, and a privilege, of the advocate. I believe in law and order (and will probably support that Law & Order guy for president), but also believe that law and order also means that we don’t railroad folks, send them off to prison and take their freedom without being scrupulously fair about protecting their rights. and part of that process is allowing a vigrous defense. The right to a defense, moreover, is essentially meaningless if only the incompetent step up to provide it.

In fairness, I am probably more of a libertarian conservative, or a Goldwater conservative, get the state off my back guy in my politics ( I am in favor, for example, of decriminalizing the use of most most drugs, as well as prostitution). Those views are, I believe, wholly consistent with being a defense lawyer. Suspicion of the State in one sphere necessarily spreads, and leads to general suspicion of the state. I am, mind you, not a George W. Bush style conservative (and can the fellow who gave us No Child Left Behind really be said to be a conservative in any sense of the word?), but did vote for him twice. Why? Because, on balance, I expect that a vote for Bush probably meant greater freedom than a vote for Gore in 2000, or a vote for Kerry in 2004, although none of the options were all that appealing.

In short, to me that hallmark is freedom, within an ordered structure. Ordered liberty was the term that Edmund Burke used. Ordered liberty requires that we safeguard the rights of the individual such that those rights are meaningful, and that we insist on the sanctity of the rule of law and procedural fairness. These are distinctly conservative traits – although, to be sure, not principles exclusive to conservatives – and fully consistent with zealous defense of the accused.

Britt Reid Arrested Again

Philly.com reported earlier today that Philadelphia Eagles coach Andy Reid’s son Britt was arrested this afternoon after failing a sobriety test. Britt Reid is currently awaiting sentencing on charges arising out of a February road rage incident. What most troubles me about this story is this bit:

Lawrence said today’s arrest occurred in the parking lot of a shopping center off Chemical Road. A clerk at Dick’s Sporting Goods recognized Reid as he was about to leave the store. The clerk believed that Reid was intoxicated and called police, said Lawrence.

What made this clerk think Reid was intoxicated? And what made him call the police? What is he, a Cowboys fan or something?

3rd Circuit Finds Probation For Tax Evasion Is “Unreasonable”

The federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals has found that a sentence of house arrest and probation imposed on a convicted tax evader was “unreasonable” and that the defendant ought ot have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The ABA Journal reports on the ruling here. The Third Circuit’s opinion in the case, United States v. Tomco, raises the specter of dramatically expanded appellate review of criminal sentences, and appears to be a departure from the court’s approach to criminal sentencing generally in the post-Booker era. Judge D. Brooks Smith, a Bush appointee to the bench, filed a strong dissent, taking the panel majority to task for conducting essentially a de novo review of the sentence, rather than merely assuring that the sentence was logical and that the trial court had “meaningfully considered” the appropriate sentencing factors. Judge Smith, in his dissent, argued that the trial judge had exhaustively and throughly explained the reasons for his sentence, and that the sentence was thus entitled to proper deference on appellate review. With a split panel decision in a case that represents a departure from circuit jurisprudence on the issue, I would expect to see an en banc hearing and, whoever prevails at that stage, a cert. petition to the Supreme Court, which might very well be granted as the Court continued to deal with the fallout from its indecisive Booker decision.

Wild Bill Hagy, RIP

This post has nothing at all to do with criminal law or practice. I just read on the Baltimore Sun website the news that Oriole super fan wild Bill Hagy dies today. I grew up as a Baltimore Orioles fan, and am still a rabid fan to this day, notwithstanding what Peter Angelos has done to the franchise. Orioles fans of a certain age – roughly my age and older, will remember Hagy’s antics from the Orioles glory days in the late 70’s and early 80’s, as he led the O-R-I-O-L-E-S cheer from Section 34, and later, from atop the O’s dugout. Those were better days. I only wish Wild Bill could have lived to see the O’s returned to glory. May he rest in peace.

There Are Indeed Two Of Us (At Least)

I would like to thank Shawn Matlock for his kind words today about this blog. I urge you to read Shawn’s blog, not just because he is a right thinking fellow when it comes to politics (although that counts), but, mainly, because his blog is excellent and his insights are interesting and valuable. And for those of you who think that Matlock and I are both nuts and that one cannot be both a criminal defense lawyer and a conservative, more on that in a bit.