Cutting Budgets, Scaring People

After a week away, I returned and did something I probably won't do again. I read every day of the newspaper that was published while I was gone.

The news of the day, or week for that matter, is local governments setting budgets. Every city, county, village, is reeling with lower property values. Budget cuts in Miami-Dade County are to be $444 million.

The issue brings out the same tired debate: How do we keep doing the same thing with less money? How do we fund basic services (police, fire, trash pickup, libraries, etc...) and social services, and all the pet projects, capital projects, and keep paying salaries?

We can't. Everyone knows that, no one wants to discuss it.

In the criminal justice arena, the debate is simple: the minute governments start talking about budget cuts, do everything to scare the public into thinking that their "public safety" will be compromised.

Fear, works, everytime.

I know I'm a defense lawyer, and that anything I suggest is only to help criminals and attack the police, but this is my blog, so I'll write my suggestions anyway. (Cue the law enforcement talking points)

[1] Cease all speed traps and other planned traffic enforcement.

Speed kills, I know. But it really doesn't. Going 40 in a 30 in my neighborhood won't kill anyone more than going 20 in a 30 will. Going 90 on the expressway may kill someone, but there's not as many speed traps there as there are at that stop sign in the neighborhood where no one has ever stopped for 20 years. Enough.

[2] No one should be taken to jail for misdemeanors, except for domestic violence.

Yes, that includes DUI. I know, DUI is serious, the guy could have killed someone. But he didn't. Take him home, make him get a ride home, give him a promise to appear. What's the purpose of having a bunch of drunk people in jail for a few hours, except to satisfy the public's desire to see drunk people in jail?

Not a single other misdemeanor should require a night in jail at arrest.

[3] Remove all mandatory minimum penalties. All of them.

Mandatory minimum penalties are expensive. They cause more cases to go to trial, and have contributed to our aging prison population, which has exponentially increased prison health care costs.

Let's put the discretion back in the hands of prosecutors and judges. Victims can still have all the input they want.

[4] We can't prosecute everything. Let's start acting like it.

There is a county in Florida where 95% of all arrests are prosecuted. Why? What happened to looking at a case and saying, "yeah, he did it, but we have to prioritize how we spend our prosecution resources. I know "public safety."

Public safety refers to murder, rape, robbery, other violent crimes, DUI, and domestic violence (maybe I left something out). Public safety is not affected by selling flowers without a license, driving without commercial vehicle markings, peeing on the sidewalk, drinking in public, and other "get the homeless off the streets" crimes.

[5] Prosecutors need to "strongly encourage" legislatures to stop enacting new criminal offenses.

Every year, some prosecutor somewhere loses some case and drafts some law so when that case comes up again, he won't lose. Then we start prosecuting people for "battery on a lifeguard during a riptide."

We have plenty of laws. Too many.

[6] Stop sending everyone to jail for everything.

When I first became a public defender, I was told by a supervisor "some of our clients belong in jail." Some people belong in jail, but we have reached a point where probation and diversion is the exception. Why is that? I think it's to satisfy the public's thirst for jail. We're all paying for it, but no one seems to care. "Lock 'em up." OK, morons.

There is a move afoot to have more diversion options for first time drug offenders, but most of these "commissions" are filled with "former" everythings. Former judges, former prosecutors, former cops. Why is it that only "former" people have the guts to propose reasonable reforms to the system? We all know the answer.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

JUDGE, A Client Is Not A Lawyer's Keeper

This morning, while waiting for my case to be called, I popped into another courtroom after hearing a police officer in the hallway say "man, he's on the warpath today."

Upon entering the judge's courtroom, I heard lots of yelling, from the judge.

"WHERE'S YOUR CLIENT?"

"WHERE'S YOUR LAWYER?" "YOU BETTER CALL HIM AND GET HIM HERE."

Over and over again.

"Call and get him here?"

Really?

Now as lawyers, especially criminal lawyers who are normally in court several days a week, we know how this works. On any given day a judge is "tired of" clients being late, lawyers being late, interpreters having to be in other courtrooms, court reporters being late (and heavens forbid needing a break), and all the other typical "stuff" that occurs in criminal court.

I understand. But you're the judge, and yelling about it, resolves nothing.



There are things in life called "traffic" and "accidents" and "lines at security." I know you don't drive in the same traffic, as you travel like the Jetsons. I know you have reserved parking, and don't wait in line. Most others do.

With all due respect, deal with it. There's a difference between someone willfully not showing up to court, and someone who is trying their best in the big city.

Deal with it.

And one more thing; stop yelling at the client because his lawyer is not there. His lawyer was paid to be in court and is responsible for him or herself. That poor client did nothing but write a check and follow directions. Why are you stressing him out for something he didn't do?

Say what the other judge said today; "We'll pass the case for your lawyer." Then you can tell your assistant to go yell at the lawyer.

And use your inside voice.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Immigration, Meet Laches

Laches (f. French, lachesse, laches ) [1] is an equitable defense, or doctrine. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, that other party is no longer entitled to its original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim's being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay.

I can't link to the story, because it's an Incisive Media, National Law Journal, Daily Business Review "you want to read online you gotta pay story," but here's the short version:

Guy comes to American from his native Italy at the age of 13 in 1961. In '77 he's convicted of arson and criminal mischief. I don't know the details, but with the attachment of a criminal mischief charge, I can't imagine it was a raging wildfire.

He's paroled in '84, marries a U.S. Citizen in '91, has four children and ran a restaurant.

Great.

Then he goes to Italy and is detained upon returning to the U.S. He's released while the gubmnit decides what to do, which is eventually to have him deported, sorry "removed." (Sounds so much nicer)

In 2001, 24 years after his conviction, he's ordered back to Italy, the country he left 48 years ago.

I know, I know, "he should of thought of that when he lit the fire," "We need to get rid of all these criminals," etc..... I know where this country's collective head is on this issue.

The "reluctant" 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals cited "considerable confusion" in federal court decisions around the country and left it to Congress and Homeland Security to "reconcile."

Our courts appear to happily stay out of two places, Immigration, and the Bureau of Prisons. These agencies have almost unbridled power.

I have a personal story here.

A friend, convicted of "driving the car" during a small drug trafficking operation was convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison. He was also ordered deported.

Upon his release from prison, he walked out, and started his life. He got married, started a business, got credit, all under his real name. The gubmit did nothing, for 22 years.

Then, at 6:30 a.m. one day. they came and got him. He now lives in his native country. He hasn't been there in over 25 years.

He was and is no threat to anyone. The gubmit knows this.

This goes on everyday. Some stories are noticed, others just a "day in the life" of our sick twisted immigration policies.

All in the name of "public safety," right folks?

It's time to introduce the concept of Laches as a defense on immigration cases. This is a pathetic, draconian use of our laws, and it's time a valid defense of Laches is permitted in these cases.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Health Care Reform And Public Defenders

I'm one of those sitting back watching the health care reform debate and shaking my head. So many lies, so many idiots. Not a single intelligent debate is to be had anywhere.

The town hall meetings are an orchestrated joke. That the media claims some of these screaming nuts are actually "scared of what's going to happen to their health care," is a disgrace. Not one of these chanting nut jobs has read any health care legislation or knows a single detail of possible reform. They're no different than the people standing at the polls on election day who for a sandwich and a few dollars are touting a certain candidate, and wearing their shirt.

So maybe we can have a somewhat lucid debate here.

Let's agree that the rich will always have better everything. Better cars, better food, better housing, and they'll get richer (the rich get richer, that's how you say it, right?)

Now when it comes to lawyers and doctors, that's a matter of perception.

When celebrities and general "rich" people "get off," it's only because they "paid for justice." If any celebrity or "rich" person was represented by any of our great public defenders, we would, well, not know what to say.

We, meaning the same idiots that are paraded into town hall meetings, assume that private lawyers are great and public defenders suck.

We also assume (we meaning those ignorant maniacs attending town hall meetings) that our health care is great (if we have it) and anything else, well, will kill us.

So here's my question, bear with me:

When someone is arrested, they have options. If they can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to them (you all watch Law & Order, you know). If you can afford one, hire one. Certain lawyers are in private practice. Some are in private practice but take court appointed cases, and some work as full time public defenders.

Why can't we have a health care system like this?

The government creates a basic health care plan. It's not great, but it's there. They open a few hundred clinics across the country and staff them with doctors (some of the 50% of doctors who say they want out of medicine because they're not making money) Pay those doctors a decent salary.

Then, have some doctors sign on to take some of these patients in their private practice. These are akin to the private lawyers that take court appointed cases. The doctors that don't want to participate, can take care of the "rich" that have health care policies.

I know this is a terrible idea and there's 1,000 reasons why it will never work, but one thing I've noticed through this entire debate is that no alternative plan has been proposed. I assume then that those against health care reform just want things to stay the same. Yes? No?

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

In Houston, Criminal Defense Lawyer Andy Nolen Is The Best. Everyone Else Sucks

It's a new world folks. No longer does a criminal defense lawyer, or any lawyer, have to actually be "good." All they have to do is to pretend to be "good" or the "best" on the internet. Potential clients trolling the internet instead of getting referrals from people don't know the difference, and don't care. Their goal, the best and cheapest, not necessarily in that order.

Those searching Houston Criminal Defense Lawyers are quickly convinced that Houston's Andy Nolen is the best. This is a lawyer that's got the whole internet thing down. And he's the best, at everything. He's got much of the Texas Code scurrying around his website so that almost any legal problem leads you to him.

His Yahoo.com review page is filled with an outpouring (except one) of unbelievable reviews

Andy's background is, well, I write, you decide. He lists as his qualifications to be the best Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer that he was an Intern at the Harris County District Attorney's Office, had another Internship at the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Inmate Legal Services, and....... was in the Top 8% for....the.....Law School Admissions Test (LSAT).

I mean, Andy does have some awesome ways of doing things. According to Andy, his charging of flat rate fees "...has had the effect of increasing the number of cases I get
dismissed."

Wow!

Andy also will tell the prosecutor what he doesn't really think: "Even if I think your case is very weak, I will still try to persuade the D.A. that the case is horrible and should be dismissed."

It also appears that whatever you want, Andy will get it for you: "Often, there can be negotiated a variety of outcomes in any particular criminal case. That's why I take the time to explain the consequences of each choice and find out the needs and wants of my clients. Then I go get them the result they want."

I wish I could tell my clients that. I'm sure all the crappy Houston Criminal Defense Lawyers, awash in their desire to be as as great as Andy, could do the same.

In discussing what to wear to court, Andy also has a nickname for certain clients: "Advanced Game Players." (wonder where he got that term......?)

ADVANCED GAME PLAYERS ONLY:

See how the prosecutors judges, and court
staff are dressed and imitate them! They will
think your the best dressed defendant, I
promise you!

And then there's this. A Yahoo.com review page of some of Houston's good and great criminal lawyers. But on this page, where Andy Nolen is touted as the lawyer to hire, the others all suck.

Coincidence? I'm laughing too.

He also claims that Yahoo and Google think he's the best Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer. The text reads: "From the website of Andy Nolen, who practices in the Harris County ... BY GOOGLE AND YAHOO AS ONE OF HOUSTON'S: BEST CRIMINAL ATTORNEYS" Funny thing is, I didn't know Yahoo and Google gave such titles. Perhaps someone from Google and Yahoo can weigh in here, and with the Texas Bar.

Andy's reviews are amazing. Also amazing is that all the lawyers he practices with in Houston, someof which I personally know to be outstanding criminal defense lawyers, suck when compared to Andy.

And out comes the dirty little secret: Want business? Trash the competition. When someone comes in your office and you want the case, claim you've never heard of the other lawyer mentioned by the potential client (even if you just had coffee with him earlier that day). If a potential client mentions another lawyer, say "I didn't know he did criminal cases." Our friend Andy is just "lucky" I guess that his reviews on Yahoo make clear that there is no one else to hire in Houston, not even the lawyers with stellar reputations.

Now all is not perfect in Andy's internet world of marketing his practice:

As is seen here: "Would not recommend this attorney. Retained him for criminal case, paid him and after several resets, he stood us up in court. Never showed. Called, emailed, etc several times to find out why and where he was, and he has yet to return anything, including my money! I will be reporting him to the bar assoc and any other so called assoc he claims to be a member of. Leaving us stranded without any representation should not be tolerated and taking our money is theft.

Now I understand that the Texas Bar's Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct have "Integrity" spelled wrong on page 2 but that's no reason for Texas lawyers not to have any.

There's only two possibilities here: 1. Andy did this. 2. Someone working on Andy's internet charade did this. Doesn't matter. Andy has to do something about it, now."

Will he?

Oh, and Andy, if you're going to list your case results on your page, you may want to explain why you've had no results since 2007, and how you've never lost a case.

Andy?

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

The Sex Offender Game, Our Disgrace

For those that haven't heard, there's a bunch of sex offenders living under a bridge in Miami. Not a bridge in the middle of the Everglades, but a pretty bridge that goes to a pretty place (Miami Beach, or what you millions of tourists refer to as "South Beach.") where pretty people spend pretty money.

Now there's a lawsuit. City versus State.

Yesterday the State tried to move the case out of Miami, to Tallahassee, way up in North Florida where people are perfectly fine to have sex offenders living under a bridge in Miami.

It's ok to have sex offenders living under a bridge, as long as the chamber of commerce can hide it, and the media pays no attention. Not here in Miami where unfortunately for the "leaders" of our community, they're stuck trying to fix it. Now mind you, most people are outraged that these sex offenders are living under a bridge, instead of in prison for the rest of their lives.

It's fun watching the problem grow while leaders punt. Not a single politician wants to fix this, because it's like reforming health care. There are many good, sound ideas, that no one wants to hear.

Every comment regarding the inhumane treatment of sex offenders is met with "what if it happened to your daughter?"

Thankfully it's not just a "criminal justice system" problem. It's now a "Welcome to Miami" problem.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

The AG Speaks About Reforming Criminal Justice, And Now, American Idol

This past Monday at the ABA annual meeting, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke of things that anyone practicing in the criminal justice system, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges, know to be true.

The entire speech is here. You should read it. All of it.

He made much sense. He spoke the truth. Politicians everywhere are fearing the possibilities. Today's politician gets elected on one issue - public safety. Public safety means putting people in jail, period.

No one in the general public really cares, nor will much change. No one around my courthouse is even talking about what he said. How about yours?

He said that "too often our public debates about law enforcement policy become mired in rhetoric or recrimination, when they instead should focus on reform and on identifying innovative solutions to our common problems."

Reform? Isn't that what building more prisons is all about?

"We must move beyond the narrow parameters that have constrained our nation’s debate about criminal justice policy over the last several decades. There is no doubt that we must be "tough on crime." But we must also commit ourselves to being 'smart on crime." "It is time to move past politics and ideology, and to move forward to a criminal justice system that is predicated on the fact that we need it to be fair and effective. In sum, we need to adopt what works."

Question: how does moving beyone narrow parameters of the guilty should all rot in jail and instead adopting what works, like rehabilitation, get politicians elected?

"Getting smart on crime requires talking openly about which policies have worked and which have not. And we have to do so without worrying about being labeled as too soft or too hard on crime. Getting smart on crime means moving beyond useless labels and catch-phrases, and instead relying on science and data to shape policy."

Ut-oh. We're not going to have to talk about "career or sex offenders, are we?" We're not going to have to put money in to public safety that is effective in preventing crime? We're not going to have to help those who are released back into society from prison (most)?

"Many lawmakers in the 1980s responded (to the increase in violent crime) by declaring, in rhetoric and through legislation, that we needed to get "tough on crime." States passed truth-in-sentencing and three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws. Some state parole boards became more cautious, while other states eliminated discretionary parole altogether. And the federal government adopted severe mandatory minimum sentencing laws, eliminated parole, and developed the federal sentencing guidelines."

Oh no, we're not going to look at those things? What am I going to say in my campaign mailer, that I've done anything about education or healthcare?

"The federal government and the states spent billions of dollars for new prison construction to house the rapidly increasing number of persons convicted or sentenced under these policies. The results were dramatic. The number of inmates in American prisons increased seven-fold from 1970 to the present. Today, one out of every 100 adults in America is incarcerated – the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Don't say that Eric. That just causes people to look closer at our prison spending, and, well, we just can't have that debate. Prisons=jobs=politicians look damn good.

"....just as everyone should agree that incarceration is – and will continue to be – part of the answer, everyone should also agree that it is not the whole answer. And so, we at the Department of Justice will continue to put the people who threaten our communities where they belong – behind bars. But we will also recognize that imprisonment alone is not a complete strategy for enforcing our nation’s criminal laws, and we will act on that fact."

Can't wait. Pardon me if I just carry on with my practice without holding out much hope for a visable reduction in those incarcerated after a conviction, for anything.

"Many jurisdictions simply cannot afford the monetary costs of focusing exclusively on incarceration, to say nothing of the social costs associated with high rates of imprisonment."

Oh Eric, there's always money for jail. Always.

So what can we do to lower the crime rate further, to make American communities safer, and to get smarter on crime? We need to add new tools and new strategies to our existing efforts to fight crime. One of these strategies is to look several steps past the point where we put people in prison, and to consider what happens to those people after they leave prison and reenter society.

"We know that offenders who have participated in the federal Bureau of Prisons’ residential drug abuse treatment program are 16% less likely to be re-arrested, have their supervision revoked, and be returned to prison, than similar inmates who did not receive such treatment before their reentry into society. They are also less likely to use drugs once released. We also know that inmates who work in prison industries – which operate at no cost to the taxpayer – are 24% less likely to commit crimes again, than inmates who do not work in the program. The Bureau of Prisons’ programs designed to address educational deficiencies – ranging from Adult Basic Education to high school level classes – are also effective in reducing recidivism. Inmates who participate in these programs are 16% less likely to commit crime again compared to those who do not. And inmates who are released through halfway houses are more likely to be gainfully employed, and therefore less likely to commit crimes again, than inmates who are released from prison directly into the community."

Oh no, programs? Can we still use the "those bums get cable TV" talking points?

Here's the punch line: (Hold the laughter)

"In other words, being smart on crime means understanding that our work to prevent crime does not end when prison time begins. It means working to develop policies – rooted in data – to address what happens after incarceration in order to prevent the next crime before it occurs." Under my watch, the Department of Justice will likewise embrace modern, evidence-based methods to drive our policy-making process as well as our enforcement efforts to protect our fellow citizens.

"One specific area where I know we can do a much better job is the way in which we deal with non-violent drug offenders. We know that people convicted for drug possession or for the sale of small quantities of drugs compose a significant portion of the prison population."

Yeah, but I thought that was a lie. My politicians tell me that all drug offenders in prison are actually very violent people, or will be if we let them out. Especially if we let them out a few months early.

"Although this Administration is still in its first months, we have already started to implement a data-driven, non-ideological approach to crime. For example, I have asked the Deputy Attorney General to conduct a comprehensive, evidence-based review of federal sentencing and corrections policy. Specifically, the group is examining the federal sentencing guidelines, the Department’s charging and sentencing advocacy practices, mandatory minimums, crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparities, and racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing. The group is also studying alternatives to incarceration, and strategies that help reduce recidivism when former offenders reenter society. We intend to use the group’s findings as a springboard for recommending new legislation that will reform the structure of federal sentencing.

Oh Eric, you are dreaming.

"We no longer must choose between more prisoners or more crime: we can reduce our dependence on incarceration and we can reduce crime rates. At the same time we can increase the integrity of our criminal justice system."

I can't wait.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

When Public Safety Trumps Justice

There is a common thread that runs through any discussion of lying cops. First we start with the premise that cops lie. Then someone says "well not all cops lie," or "yeah, but those are isolated incidents." Then the discussion of dash cams and recorded interrogations begins with someone invariably saying "we need to trust the cops."

There are those who don't trust cops, period, and there are those who believe that hey, if a cop lies to get a "bad guy" off the street, so what?

The most recent discussion began with this video of what is nothing less than a conspiracy to obstruct justice. It was not done in a murder case or a multi-defendant drug trafficking case, but a DUI case. A misdemeanor DUI case.

Here's the question: Is this the first time, in the history of law enforcement, that this has happened?

Of course not.

It goes on all the time, unrecorded, disputed by prosecutors and ignored by judges, and all in the name of "public safety." How many times does a criminal defense lawyer hear stories like this only to hear the client say, "but no one will believe me over the cop."

They're right.

Then we have to move the discussion to "but cops put their life on the line every day, and never know when some gun-toting asshole will put a bullet in their head." True.

I just never understood the comparison.

This is not about "public safety." It's about "justice."

This comment I read says it all: "It's a tough call for me because lying about drugs & guns does take them off the street but violates personal freedom."

There you go. That's where we are.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Watching Cops Lie

Watch Hollywood, Florida cops lying about a report they're writing.

Courtesy of their dash cam.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

My Payback For "Newspaper Reporters Love Affair With Prosecutors"

When I wrote the below post a couple days ago, I had no idea that my federal sentencing yesterday would be the subject of an article in my local paper.

Another one, naming and quoting the prosecutor, and leading the public to believe that there was no defense lawyer.

Now, in defense of this reporter, he's a great guy, balanced as they come, with a great sense of the system. He's that good that you would never know from reading the article, that he was not at the sentencing. This is another new little secret of the printed press: They don't have the staff to actually attend things that they write about.

No, this story came from U.S. Attorney Press Releases, pleadings in the court file, and maybe, but probably not, a quick conversation with the prosecutor.

So the question is asked: ""Brian, is this about getting your name in the paper?"

Nope. My name's been in the paper plenty, and I'm not that hot on having my name in the paper when my client goes to prison.

The issue is: why the public continues to be fed stories about the prosecution of criminal cases, and not the defense? My client was facing decades in prison, and got two. How? That's the question I'm being asked, so I assume those reading the story in the paper are asking the same question. Actually, I know this is the question they are asking as it is part of the disgusting discourse in the comment section.

The second question is: How can reporters continue to call defense lawyers with a straight face and say "we want to get your side so we can write a balanced story?"

It is a complete coincidence that this story left me out just days after my post. Again, the reporter here, thought nothing of it, and probably didn't even realize it (until I emailed him this morning with a copy of my post below).

Cases are prosecuted and defended., by prosecutors and defense lawyers. The only place where this is not true is on the darling of the American public show "Law & Order.

It is a chronic problem in the print media, which I will continue to post about here.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Newspaper Reporters Love Affair With Prosecutors

Well there was a big defense win in ultra-conservative Pensacola, Florida Friday. A young defendant was charged with vehicular homicide in the deaths of two people as a result of a car accident deemed drag racing by the prosecution. He had the honor of being represented by defense lawyer Jack Wilkins.

As a result of the great work of Jack Wilkins, the defendant was found not guilty of the vehicular homicide and guilty of misdemeanor reckless driving.

Wow, Jack Wilkins must be some defense lawyer to be able to refute the state's evidence in a case like this one where two people died.

Clearly the public would want to know who the defense lawyer was and how this seemingly hopeless case turned into an almost across-the-board acquittal? What was the turning point in the trial? What was the impact of the defendant's testimony? How did Jack Wilkins attack the weak points, otherwise known as "poke holes" in the state's case?

Here's the front page story from the Pensacola-News Journal:

Man convicted of lesser charge in fatal crash

Man convicted of reckless driving in what troopers called drag race

Kris Wernowsky
kwernowsky@pnj.com

A jury found a Pensacola man guilty of misdemeanor reckless driving late Friday in connection with a 2008 crash that left two dead.

Christopher Borgesen, 23, of Pensacola originally was charged with manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter and leaving the scene of a crash involving death in the high-speed Sept. 11 crash that killed Morgan Walsh, 19, and William Schaefer, 21, both of Pensacola.

The jury found Borgesen guilty of the lesser offense after more than five hours of deliberation.

Circuit Judge Frank Bell will sentence Borgesen in August. He faces up to 90 days in county jail. He would have faced up to 15 years in state prison had the jury convicted him on the original felony charges.

Florida Highway Patrol investigators and witnesses said that Borgesen was drag racing with Schaefer when the crash took place. To obtain a manslaughter conviction, the state was required to prove that both cars were engaged in a race.

Assistant State Attorney John Simon spent most of his lengthy closing argument Friday trying to convince the jury that Borgesen shouldered responsibility in the deaths because he was a willing participant in the drag race.

Borgesen was arrested in October and accused of racing Schaefer, 21, the driver of the Honda Prelude that crashed through a guardrail on New Warrington Road and went airborne, the Florida Highway Patrol said.

The accident happened as the BMW Borgesen was driving and the Honda were headed south on New Warrington Road at a high rate of speed, according to an FHP report.

The Honda hit a fence and a guy-wire connected to a utility pole before slamming into a house at 16 Pen Court, killing Schaefer.

No one in the house was hurt.

Jennifer Velazquez was driving along New Warrington Road the night of the crash and testified that she witnessed Borgesen's BMW swerve past her. She saw Schaefer's car lose control. She also said she thought the two cars were engaged in a race.

Borgesen told the FHP that he knew the Honda had crashed, but he continued south on New Warrington Road, the report said.

"(Borgesen) stated that he ... went to Georgia's Laugh Inn to shoot in a pool tournament," according to the report.

Walsh, 19, a passenger in the Honda, died Sept. 14 at Baptist Hospital. Aaron Bates, 25, of Pensacola, also a passenger in the Honda, was injured in the crash.

No, I didn't leave any of it out. Apparently, there was no defense lawyer in this case.

In 15 years, I've never seen a prosecutor edited out of a news story about a criminal case. I often see no mention of the defense lawyer. This is sometimes due to pissy reporters acting spiteful towards defense lawyers who won't give a quote, and other times due to the reporter's bias against the defendant. Then there's the canned "tell me if you've heard this" response: "my editor cut it out."

So it shouldn't surprise me in this case that even in a case the prosecutor effectively "lost," that the paper couldn't help themselves. I guess the fairness in it is that reporters love prosecutors when they charge, when they win, and when they lose.

Now I know Jack Wilkins, and he's a pretty low key guy who probably doesn't give a crap, but in this case, regardless of whether Jack offered comment, his name belonged in this story. The public deserves to know that there are good prosecutors AND good defense lawyers in their community.

Having been one of those lawyers who didn't take the advice of "don't talk to the media, ever," I've developed great relationships with good reporters, and of course been the brunt of biased reporters wasting my time only to have any evidence of my involvement in the case or interview be cut out. I've written about this here, and here

As to the stale excuses, I wrote:

"My editor cut you out" and "I had a space issue," have run their course.

Do all of you in the media know that we hear these excuses daily? We would more believe the dog ate your homework. And why do you not tell your editor that the defense lawyer was very helpful in the story and you would at least like the story to be fair to both sides (THERE'S a concept!).

Last time I heard this excuse from the reporter, I called the editor. He told me the original draft never included any mention of me.

Oops.

So I played a little ping pong with the reporter and editor on that one and got two people trying to remember who was lying.

So here, in this Pensacola case, I emailed the reporter:

"Jack Wilkins must have done some job to win this case. Any particular reason the story is devoid of any mention of him?"

Response?

"It was edited out."

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

"We Have No One In Custody, Legally."

That was the Sheriff of Escambia County, Florida yesterday during an interview on cable TV regarding this horrific murder of the parents of 16 children in their home.

The three people arrested yesterday will be prosecuted for this unexplainable brutality, and if they are guilty, there is no doubt they will receive the maximum penalty for whatever they are eventuallly charged with.

But I'm tired of the semantics. I'm tired of the bullshit.

Let's review.

When I was growing up, both as a kid, and in the criminal justice system, there was no such creation as a "person of interest."

Everyone knows Miranda, you know, what we hear on Law & Order every 3 hours? "You have the right blah blah blah?"

Miranda applies to persons in custody.

In custody?

We defense lawyers litigate that every day.

In custody is determined on a "totality of circumstances." Was the person "free to leave?" (No one is ever free to leave while with a police officer, but we like to say that they are sometimes.) Was anything said to the person to lead them to believe they were a "suspect?" Were they in handcuffs, in the back of the police car, put in a room, taken somewhere, and on and on and on.

How do we take someone into custody, not arrest them, knowing they are a suspect, and not have to read them their "rights?"

We call them a "person of interest."

Person of interest=suspect.

But not legally.

When the Sheriff said yesterday that "we have no one in custody, legally," he was saying this:

"We have the murderers in custody, they are going to be arrested, but we are getting a "rights" free confession out of them before all that damn constitutional crap comes into play and we have to tell them they don't have to talk. So please lady, don't ask if we have anyone in "custody" 'cause we don't."

Legally.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Someone Get Me A "Former Federal Prosecutor."

I often joke that there are criminal defense lawyers and "former prosecutors" (practicing criminal defense). Some laugh. The ones that don't, know I'm talking about them.

I am not, a former federal prosecutor. I am not a former prosecutor. I am a criminal defense attorney. I formerly worked as a criminal defense attorney at the public defender's office, and I make sure I always let the appropriate person, reader, or audience know that I am a former public defender.

I do not, though, identify my basic existence with that former position of which I am very proud.

When I have appeared in print or on radio or TV, I never ask to be identified as a "former public defender." Again, I used to work at the public defender's office doing what I do now, criminal defense. I am a criminal defense lawyer. If I ever was a prosecutor, I would not want to live in the past and tell the world at every opportunity what I used to do.

Former federal prosecutors, and former prosecutors to a lesser extent, seem to find themselves using that title in curious situations.

This week on the Today Show there was a segment discussing what will happen to Michael Jackson's kids. Jeanine Pirro, former New York Judge and DA was commenting perfectly on California family law, never leading the audience to realize she knows nothing about California law besides what the person she called in California before the show told her. (Sorry to blow the secret that lawyers and judges know nothing about law in other states)

And there was this other female lawyer on the comfy couch. I didn't hear the whole segment, but I saw across the bottom of the screen: "Former Federal Prosecutor."

There are only two possibilities here. This woman is a former federal prosecutor now practicing family law, or she is, well, just a former federal prosecutor doing something else. Either way, who cares? Is there some theory that the custody of Michael Jackson's kids will become of interest to the U.S Attorney? I know we're upset no one's been arrested yet in MJ's death and no Law & Order episode has been "ripped from the headlines," but do we really need to suggest that a former prosecutor, sorry, former federal prosecutor is the only person to comment on....custody?

Why was this woman referred to as a "Former Federal Prosecutor?" Did she ask, or did the Today Show think it sounded good.

It doesn't end there.

One of the dirty little secrets of this title is that it is used to mask the terrible things that "Former Federal Prosecutors" and Former Prosecutors do after they stop being Prosecutors," like become defense lawyers.

That, they refer to as "Private Practice."

Look at any candidate for judge or state or local office. Look at their resume. "Former prosecutor now in private practice?" BINGO - defense lawyer. Criminal defense lawyer. Shhhhhh.

I've always wondered what the media's love affair is with "Former Prosecutors." To me, they simply perpetrate the notion that these are the lawyers who know everything and are best suited to answer questions in any situation, because they used to prosecute criminal cases.

It has long been the mantra that being a "former prosecutor" is a better pedigree than being a former public defender. That's absolutely true. Former prosecutors are more likely to be hired at big firms who believe that clients will want to hire them to defend. They are more likely to be appointed to the bench, elected to office, and of course, plastered on TV to answer questions, about anything.

Even if they are now, "in private practice."

Shhhhhhhh.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Releasing Prisoners, Fear Mongering, The Predictable Public

As soon as I saw the headline for this story this morning: "Up To 10,000 Illinois Prisoners May Be Released"

I dead-bang predicted word for word the tone of the story.

1. There would be mention that this is due to the depression (I know some call it a recession).

"Up to 10,000 convicted criminals could soon be released early from prisons across Illinois. It's all because of the state's budget mess"

2. The prisoners are all non-violent inmates but the writer will make some crack that questions this premise:

"The state's making a list of thousands of so-called non-violent inmates..."

3. The words "public safety" would be included to begin the fear mongering:

Rep. Jim Durkin. "Public safety? Not the place to cut. That is the last place you should cut the budget is public safety. The greatest responsibility of the governor and the legislature is to keep the citizens safe. And I don't agree with this approach."

Good job Jim, three times.

4. Oh, and Jim used to put people in prison and thinks that at least some of them actually belong there:

"I threw a lot of those guys in prison back in the '90s, and they probably, a number of them, belong there."

5. The public would be hyperventilating:

"Oh, my God. I don't agree with that at all," one woman said."

Oh.my.God.

6. Another member of the public would make an absolutely brilliant statement:
"I don't like that at all," a woman said. "You know, because I think people have been placed there for a reason."

You know, yeah.

7. The inmates would have little time left, making it irrelevant whether they served another few months:

"with less than one year left to serve...."

8. The fear mongering article would claim that the proposal is being done just for the putpose of.....fear mongering:

"What it's being done for is to try, through fear-mongering, cause people to support an income tax increase," said Bob Schillerstrom, Candidate for Governor. It's the wrong thing to do."

I agree, Bob.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Sarah Palin: An Unfairly Treated Woman In Need Of A Makeover

I know, it's not about criminal law, but I just got back from vacation and am fascinated with the hypocrisy surrounding Sarah Palin.

I'll admit, like many others, when I first saw her (and the first time many saw her was when she was nominated VP), I thought "cute." Kill me, but that's what I thought.

Then she opened her mouth.

I have to believe that any 45 year old who ascends to the governorship, of any state, has to be somewhat intelligent.

While she may be "smart," she didn't present herself as qualified to be President. And no, I don't "hate" her because she's a "strong powerful woman." I just think she's not qualified to be President.

The Conservative republican machine has been quick to deter any attention from the fact that Palin is to the naked eye, "cute," but not qualified to be President.

They blame the "liberal media" for focusing on the truth. If the liberal media would just "leave her alone," she would appear qualified.

If the liberal media would stop commenting on her looks, the way she talks, or the fact that she really doesn't know anything about the world outside of criticizing the current administration or anything "democrat."

I understand the partisan game. The purpose of each party is to show the public that the other party is worthless, anti-everything the other party is for, wrong, and going to kill us all.

What I don't understand, is this column today by Cal Thomas. No liberal is he.

Thomas says that Palin was "treated unfairly and in ways that no liberal woman would have been..."

He then says that "anyone running for national office must traverse a media gauntlet -- with the notable exception of Barack Obama and his worshipful media disciples. While Conservatives can expect worse treatment than liberals, they can prevail with the right strategy."

Ok.

But Cal,the strategy you speak of is as follows:

"If Palin is to have a future in national politics (assuming she wants one) there are several steps she must take.

"First, she needs a complete makeover. The big media will never admit they were wrong in their judgments, but they might write stories about the ``new Sarah Palin.''

She should hit the books and learn as much as she can about the modern world, history and court cases. She should read newspapers so that when future interviewers hit her with questions, she can dazzle them like a Jeopardy champion."

"Palin should hire a speech coach and follow that person's advice. She has a pleasant enough speaking voice, but the tone needs to be adjusted, as do her word choices."

"Lastly, she needs a hair, makeup and wardrobe makeover. She is a beautiful woman, but appearance should not be the first thing one reacts to when people look at her."

He concludes with this: "Sarah Palin can be 'born again' in a political sense and excite beyond her base if she allows herself to be 'baked' (ha ha, good one Cal, baked.....Alaska....) at the proper temperature and for the right amount of time."

So let me understand.

We have treated Palin unfairly. We have focused too much on how she looks, how she talks, and what she doesn't read? The solution is not to find a better candidate, but to prop Palin up with a makeover, speech classes, and reading advice?

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Another Criminal Defense Conference, Another Few Minutes Of Dreaming

Over the past two weekends I've attended two different criminal defense conferences. In 15 years I've probably attended 30 or so. Each one includes talk of new case law, good and bad. They include war stories of that case, or those cases, where a judge, a jury, or a motion led to victory for the defendant. There's that new case that the police will learn to "get around," and there's the judges who tell us what they like and don't like in court.

And at the end of every conference we are led to the same belief, that we can win more cases, that we can win every case.

These conferences bring defense lawyers together within a state, a federal district, or a country. We learn we all have the same issues, the same cases, and the same clients. We leave and return to court Monday with a renewed sense of "what if?"

And then there's Tuesday.

Yes, if we tried every case, we'd control the system. If all our clients had the money to hire the best experts, or even a mediocre investigator, we could learn things that would cause a jury or judge to think twice about whether our client was guilty.

But we don't. Private lawyers don't, public defenders, don't

It is a system, and as we defense lawyers hear in court from the bench, "we have to move things along."

The economy is making things worse. More desperate lawyers practicing criminal law, taking fees to "pay the bills" that aren't enough to do a competent job. Take the client to court and tell him you got a great deal. He doesn't know. He'll spend 30 seconds thinking about whether to become a convicted felon, which is 30 seconds less than he spent thinking about who to hire.

We leave these conferences with a renewed sense about Monday, only to be faced with the inevitable Tuesday.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Being Pro-Life, And Pro-Death

Abortion.

I know, I shouldn't write about abortion.

Abortion is not something we debate, its something we accuse others of supporting, or trying to prevent women from obtaining legally. Abortion is something that intelligent people refuse to debate, and wack-jobs kill people over.

Killing doctors who perform abortions is nothing new. But the advent of 24/7 conversation via the internet causes the news, the reaction, and the incendiary hypocrocrits to be heard all in one.

There are two types of "pro-life" schools of thought: Those that think there is only one pro-life school of thought, and those that make exceptions. The former have no use for the latter, but the former have some explaining to do post-assassination of Dr. Tiller this weekend in church.

If you are pro-life, you do not believe in killing an unborn child. I'm not going to get into the debate here about whether a fetus is a human being, I'll assume for purpose of establishing hypocrisy, that it is.

Hypocrisy, being pro-life, and pro assassination of a doctor who is performing legal abortions.

Thou Shall Not Kill?

Or "Thou Shall Not Kill Those That I Believe Should Not Be Killed?"

I know, true pro-lifers believe he was a "mass murderer." But he wasn't, because for whatever you believe about what Dr. Tiller did for a living, and are at least a wee bit knowledgeable when it comes to law, it was not illegal.

Case in point, did any pro-lifers call the police anytime they heard Dr. Tiller performed an abortion?

But they believe that someone who does something legal, yet against religious and moral beliefs, is properly assassinated in church on a Sunday.

Those who believe it was OK to blow Dr. Tiller away last Sunday are good at throwing darts, but generally won't engage in a debate. I've read some comments from those "no one should be crying over Dr. Tiller's death," people, responded with a question, and received no answer.

Maybe the solution for these supporters of murder can try to get an asterisk after Thou Shall Not Kill*

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Miami Airport Cop: Did You Know My 9 Year Old Was There?

Good thing about having a blog is that writing a letter that will be answered with some condescending bullshit about "public safety" is no longer necessary. I can just write it here.

Saturday night my wife goes to Miami International Airport to pick up her parents from a 3 week trip.

She entered the "arrival" section at 9:30 p.m. Like most Saturday nights at that hour, there was no one else there. No one.

My wife stops in front of Delta amid a sign: "No Parking Active Unloading Only." Pre 9-11 that meant you could park in the no parking zone, leave your car, go inside and meet your party. Post 9-11, take 2 steps away from the car, and it is obviously a bomb.

But in all seriousness, that sign mean you can be "actively loading" luggage and people while the car is parked, just don't take more than 10 seconds to do it. Eventually it will be required that the car keep driving while the people are trying to get in and load their luggage. Hey, there's a war on terrorism, get with it.

My wife stops, her parents walk out with some luggage. They load the luggage, and walk back in to the airport to retrieve more luggage. Three week trip, lots of luggage.

Officer Friendly appears. His greeting: "I'm sure you can read."

My wife's a lawyer, she reads pretty well, and advises the officer that the luggage in the car was brought out by her parents and they went back in to get more.

"It says no parking, active loading only." "And don't tell me they went back in to get more luggage, I've worked here a long time and I know it all comes out at the same time."

Officer, I was born in Miami, and I can tell you, it is a requirement that all your luggage not come out at the same time. Many of us have memorized the last 6 bags coming around while we wait for that last bag. You know, you hear the truck pull up, and pray to God that your bag is coming.

He's not done, after my wife begs, begs him to just let her remain there, with no other cars around, he relents: "I'm going to be nice and give you 2 minutes."

After he leaves, my 9 year old daughter says "Mommy please, lets just go."

Go?

Yes officer, you scared the crap out of my daughter who was sitting in the car listening to you act like a complete asshole for no reason.

And no, I don't know your name, and I'm not going to waste my time writing a letter to your chief, who will tell me that I "have to understand the times in which we live." I understand that you are a power hungry piece of crap who has no regard for the badge you wear and the impression you leave on people. Did you have to be such a jerk? Could you have not just asked my wife how long she was going to be and if it was going to be more than a couple minutes if she wouldn't mind driving around? Maybe then said hello to my daughter.

You know, it's funny, even as a criminal defense lawyer who deals with an occasional jerky cop, I always encourage my kids to respect the police. Thanks to you, my 10 year old now has her own impression. The last cop she saw gave her mommy a hard time while she was picking up her grandparents from a long trip. Congratulations jerk off.

So I just wanted to say officer May 30, 2009 at 9:30 p.m. by Delta arrivals, grow up. Get off your power trip. We live here and are used to rude cops, but there's plenty of tourists here in Miami (you've been working at the airport "a long time" so you probably know that) who don't need to come here and have the first person they meet, be you.

And you owe my daughter an apology.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

The Sotomayor Debate: Why Conservatives Are Scared Of Judges

Conservatives don't trust judges.

This is why we have sentencing guidelines, minimum mandatories, reporting requirements on sentences, and the phrase that everyone likes to say, and no one understands: "legislating from the bench."

About 4 years ago, when this blog was in its infancy, I wrote about "legislating from the bench."

I said this: "Government hates our judges in America. They don't trust them, and they blame them for the state of, well, everything.

The problem is, governments define a bad judge as "one who does not rule they way they are supposed to rule."

The reason for this hatred is mainly because government doesn't understand nor respect the role on an independent judiciary, which has been significantly diminished in the last 20 years due to Congress believing they need to take hold of our court system.

Judges are supposed to be the independent arbiters of justice. Justice is a simple concept, it is fairness.

Fairness is what we determine it to be. If we think someone is guilty, then damn that judge who presides over the trial that finds him not-guilty (not to mention the obviously brain-dead jurors who were following instructions and actually applying the burden of proof).

If we think someone should receive a life sentence, then damn that judge that gives a 30-year sentence. And a judge better not find that a search of someones home was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, especially if there are drugs in the house. That's a no-no.

Most important, judges should never find themselves 'legislating from the bench.'

That is what extreme conservatives say when they are asked what type of judge they want on the Supreme Court. They all answer in the negative, like a church choir - 'we don't want a judge who 'legislates from the bench.'' Ever notice that there is no follow-up question? This is because no one knows what that phrase means. No one.

I do, "legislating from the bench" means to interpret the Constitution in a way that violates someone's political or religious persuasion.

See, the Constitution has been interpreted for years. But if a judge interprets it in a way that creates a right for someone, that is 'legislating from the bench.'

So if the judges on the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution as NOT prohibiting abortion, gay marriage, or the integration of our schools, then they are 'legislating from the bench.'

So it is not that Congress and state legislatures hate our judges because they legislate from the bench, it is because they interpret the Constitution to afford rights to those that 'they' believe should not have them."

In the coming days and weeks, this "legislating from the bench' crap will be a daily retort from those against Sotomayor. Want to end the conversation? Ask this question: 'What specifically do you mean by that?" The answer will be something like: "you know, legislating, from, the bench, making policy. legislating." Follow up with , "Ok, give me specifics."

You legislators ever wonder if the lack of respect for the legislative process brings this about? Respect for passed laws is based on the process in which they are passed.

I'll have respect for the process when I can ask a random sampling of legislators about a law that recently passed, and half of them can tell me what it says.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Memories of Birmingham, Criminals Watching Public TV, And An Arrested Clown

Been busy the last few weeks. Some of us "bloggers" actually have day jobs and aren't as attentive to our "entitled" audience as we'd like to be. So today I bring you three stories that pretty much sum up the state of our criminal justice system today, and the paranoia, hype that surrounds it.

First, Birmingham. Five cops beat the crap out of a jerk who almost ran over one of their own. The guy deserved to have the crap beaten out of him, but not by cops. We as a public are divided on this, as we are divided on what a video actually shows.

With the advent of video, we now get to see what sometimes goes on post arrest. We also get to see how two completely sane people can watch a video and see two different scenes. We have come to hear of the "adrenaline" defense of punching cops - "you know, these guys just have all this adrenaline after one of these chases and you know, they just are so emotional about the whole thing that we understand how they can get so upset and lose control."

Even the media pimps this defense.

Blah blah blah.

If you ever wanted to know why cops don't want interrogations taped, this case is the reason.

Imagine if there was no video. "These cops beat the crap out of me for no reason."

Sure they did.

Cops are professionals, just like anyone else. The day we excuse, and many of us do, the rogue behavior of a professional, we diminish their position in society. Just like a boy should never hit a girl, a cop should never hit a suspect. He should shoot and kill him if he is in danger of the same happening to him, but post-arrest, or once on the ground and not moving - no hitting, no shooting, never.

So now we watch these videos. We all see the same thing, some of us claming that the video doesn't give us "the whole picture."

That's a load of crap as well.

I'm shocked these Birmingham cops were fired so quickly. Happy, but shocked. I was waiting for the weeks and weeks of attorneys appearing on TV pontificating on either side about whether these cops really hit the guy.

Congratulations Birmingham.

And yes, I know, the streets are "less safe" now that they've been fired.

Speaking of safe, you ever wonder what "criminals" do when their not commiting crime? Apparently, according to the Chief of the Ft. Lauderdale Florida police department, they watch public television. This is the reason he wouldn't disclose to the city commission his request for millions in additional funds.

"Police Chief Frank Adderley asked this week for $2.8 million more. He said he needed some of the money to fight rising crime. Commissioner Romney Rogers insisted the commissioners get an accounting of how the money would be used.

Adderley said he didn't want to publicly air his crime-fighting strategies because criminals might be watching the commission on TV."

You sure they're not watching Charlie Rose on PBS?

And the clown arrest.

Seems Patricia Ingalls was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident in her clown suit.

This is a big story, worthy of a serious discussion: "Are our kids safe when we hire birthday party clowns?"

Watch this clip. The depth of the story, the length, the details, the anchor with the balloon as a prop.

My understanding is that this clown has a decent defense. I hear the other 16 clowns who remained in the car are witnesses. I also understand that the field sobriety exercises will be excluded due to the shoes worn while walking the line. Also, the finger-to-nose test "fail" will be rebutted, as the "honking" noise heard by the cop during this test is explainable.



The biggest issue, of course, will be the inability of the jury to determine from the mugshot whether the defendant in court is the same person who was arrested.



Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Michael Vick - Game Over

When Michael Vick went to prison I made a bet with a friend that he would never again play in the NFL. I hope I lose.

In America, there are few second chances anymore.

An arrest is a conviction. A prison sentence is a tattoo. The internet bears all, forever, and when harm to animals is involved, forget it.

Employers are less interested in performance and quality in their employees. They are fearful of liability. You can't hire someone who was once arrested, for anything - they may go out and kill someone. The kid pulled over in his Honda Civic with a marijuana joint, will eventually move on to cocaine, buying it from people who promote terrorism as the money goes to Hamas, Al-Queda, and the Taliban. It's all connected perfectly, just ask any legislator.

Miami Herald Sports Writer Greg Cote says Michael Vick deserves a second chance.

Sure he does. He won't get it though.

Michael Vick didn't kill anyone, didn't even send someone to the hospital. He didn't steal from anyone, didn't rob a house or business, didn't buy or sell drugs, he didn't do anything that even the broadest definition (and they get pretty broad these days) of public safety would describe.

Michael Vick was involved in harming, killing animals. The killing of a human being doesn't raise emotions as much as the harming of animals. Disagree? Just walk into a courtroom where an animal cruelty case is being heard, next to the courtroom where a murder case is on the docket. Cote makes the case in mentioning Leonard Little. He killed a woman while driving drunk. He's still playing.

So Cote says in regards to Vick that:

"The bigger issue is whether the rest of us can muster anything close to ''genuine forgiveness'' -- or at least begrudgingly admit that the man has paid his debt and deserves a clean slate and a fair chance to resume his life and livelihood."

Greg, Michael Vick will have paid his debt to society when he dies. Just knock on a few doors in any neighborhood if you disagree. There is little "genuine forgiveness" after a criminal conviction, save for the "wacky liberals" who understand that someone who does their time should be able to re-enter society and move on.

Cote says: "He has not been pampered or gotten off easy, and that's not to mention the ruination of his name and finances."

Greg, people think he should have received the death penalty.

He says "it's time to move on, and to not allow the zealots over at PETA to continue to set the agenda in what seems a concerted effort to unfairly ruin him beyond his time served." He claims "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals might be insane, by the way. Recently they suggested that the music group Pet Shop Boys change its name to Rescue Shelter Boys. Seriously."

Then Cote mentions the exact reason Vick will not play in the NFL again: "PETA leads the protest league in sanctimony and publicity chasing, turning off more people than they persuade, so let them paint their signs and sing their chants for the TV cameras the day Vick is released from prison."

Greg, right now PETA is thumb tacking the cities of the 30 NFL teams on a huge map on the wall of their office. Note to owner of NFL team that takes Vick: protests, every game, beginning and end, protests at your office, daily, your home, daily, everywhere you are. The NFL meetings, NFL stores, anything NFL. It will never stop.

Cote says (hopes I think) "some NFL team is going to be brave enough to sign a reinstated Vick, even knowing the PETA protests will be daily occurrences -- or at least until some socially incorrect celebrity is spotted on a red carpet wearing fur and the publicity-seeking PETA army gathers its blood-red paint and shifts to a new cause."

As a lifetime dog owner, I disagree.

Then Cote goes off on a tangent, speaking for the minority of the American public that has any perspective on the criminal justice system:

"This is about second chances, though. About the idea of a man not still being charged after he has paid his debt. You can hate what Vick did and still believe it ought not turn into a life or career sentence for him.

I hope most of us are better and bigger than what that attitude portrays."

Oh Greg, you're such a sentimental guy.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Jury Duty - Leave Me The F---- Alone

At least the guy was completely honest: (hard to read, expand once opened)

Jury Duty Response

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Fighting Terrorism, One College Kid's Fake ID At A Time

Soon after September 11, 2001, state and local law enforcement, feeling left out of the feds work to "keep us safe," wanted in on the game. Arrests went down due to local cops spending their time trying to find Osama Bin Laden in coffee shops, retail stores, at former DUI roadblocks, anywhere. The tone of law enforcement changed forever - everyone, every-single-person, could be a terrorist. It remains that way today.

Cue the change in how we deal with fake IDs. Used to be the anxious college student walked up to a bouncer at a bar, showed the fake ID (while somewhat looking away), and if the bouncer realized it was fake, life was over. Not over due to an arrest, but due to the bouncer taking it away, a far worse penalty. The night ended early, and there would be no more nights at bars until a new fake ID was obtained. Nightmare.

Now, states have made possession of a fake ID a felony. If it's not fake, its still a misdemeanor, but not "notice to appear" misdemeanor - a jail misdemeanor.

Remember - that fake ID could be used to board a commercial airliner and....well, you know the mindset. What would we do if we let that pasty face 19 year old chemistry major scoot without an arrest, fingerprints, entry into the state database? Today's bar hopper is tomorrows terrorist.

So I have two of these right now here in Florida. A state like every other state - we're broke, and looking for ways to save money in the criminal justice system.

At yesterday's arraignment, I asked the prosecutor on the record if the plea offer was "don't do it again." The judge chuckled. The prosecutor did too. Then she said "no." They want a record. They got, a demand for jury trial. Another case, clogging up the system.

The other case, they're checking to see if he has priors in other states. They "have information" he may have priors. I'm not joking.

All this, in the name of keeping us safe.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter