[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, MD.

[Rick Halperin]

July 27


TEXAS:

Defense lawyers group upset over search of office


Members of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association plan to attend
an upcoming hearing to protest what they say is a highly unusual search of
a defense attorney's office in connection with a murder-for-hire case in
suburban Dallas.

Collin County prosecutors seeking the death penalty against a man accused
of being a contract killer requested a court-ordered search of the offices
of the man's lawyers, saying they believed defense attorneys were hiding
incriminating evidence.

Attorneys for defendant Mark Lyle Bell and members of the Texas Criminal
Defense Lawyers Association said the February search violated
attorney-client privilege.

"I think it's unconscionable," David Schulman, one of Bell's attorneys,
said in a story in Sunday's editions of The Dallas Morning News.

Craig Jett, a former president of the defense lawyers association, said
defendants should be able to have private communications with their
attorneys and that such a search violates that right.

"I thought it was pretty outrageous to issue a search warrant for a
lawyer's office," Jett said.

Prosecutors defended the search, saying they believed the defense was
hiding evidence, including the boots Bell wore the night of the alleged
killing. The search turned up no boots but did yield a sealed box,
documents and handwritten letters from Bell to his wife.

"No one has a right to conceal evidence in a criminal case, including
attorneys," prosecutor Greg Davis said.

A hearing is scheduled Aug. 5 to determine whether state District Judge
Mark Rusch, who signed the search warrant, can stay on the case. Bell's
lawyers want him off the case.

Rusch declined to comment. The Texas Attorney General's Office said Rusch
should be able to stay on the case and should not have to testify at the
hearing.

Southern Methodist University law professor Linda Eads said lawyers can be
subject to search warrants, but it's considered an extreme and rare
measure to execute one against an attorney. Courts must balance "the level
of probable cause against the incredible importance of the attorney-client
relationship," she said.

No trial date has been set in Bell's capital murder case. He is accused of
fatally shooting 36-year-old Craig Nail in his Frisco home in December.
Authorities said Nail's estranged wife, Vera Elizabeth Guthrie-Nail,
wanted him dead. She and another man, Thomas Edward Grace, face charges of
conspiracy to commit capital murder.

All 3 defendants remain in the Collin County Jail.

(source: Associated Press)






MARYLAND:

Government police powers devolve into political punishment


For 7 years now, people who ought to know better have turned a blind eye
to government invasions of privacy, perhaps out of a genuine fear of
terrorism or perhaps because they belong to the same political party as
the administration doing the snooping and are loathe to admit it has made
an egregious, if not criminal, mistake.

The apologists for wire tapping, hidden cameras and e-mail scanning
generally have boiled their argument down to this plausible-sounding
statement: If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.

Fair enough. But what if the government starts changing the definition of
"wrong?" What if simply having an opinion becomes a punishable offense?

By the time this all shakes out, we may find ourselves owing a debt of
gratitude to the administration of former Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich for
crystallizing in no uncertain terms what is so dangerous and what is so
flagrantly unconstitutional about recent government intrusions.

For more than a year, Maryland State Police, allegedly using homeland
security funds, infiltrated law-abiding associations opposed to the Iraq
war and the death penalty. Members of those groups were placed on
terrorist and drug-dealer watch lists.

Ehrlich claims he had no knowledge of this initiative, a pretty thin
protest from a man who fired government employees who didn't share his
ideology and kept an operative known as the "Prince of Darkness" on staff
who executed dirty political tricks.

Ehrlich, as the saying goes, has a track record; he has not earned the
benefit of the doubt. And who believes that the state police, of their own
volition, would care what happened at a meeting where death penalty
opponents were deciding whether or not to staff a table at a local
farmers' market?

But who is to blame is not the point. The real issue, the frightening
issue, is that legitimate government police work can so quickly and easily
spill over into politically motivated spying and the punishment of
law-abiding Americans for the sin of practicing their constitutional right
to free speech.

This is what some clear-minded individuals have been saying since 2001 -
one little bend in the dam of constitutional liberties can lead to an
all-out breach of abuse. Government, in short, cannot be trusted to know
when to stop.

In America, even the staunchest supporter of the death penalty would not
suggest that opponents do not have the right to believe otherwise. Nor
would anyone say that it is illegal to believe that the war in Iraq has
been a horrendous waste of life, time and money.

Yet here in Maryland, holding those opinions was enough to mark you as a
potential terrorist; good luck next time you're in the airport security
line.

As it is, we have enough trouble in this nation getting people to think
deeply, to care, about issues that matter. Now this. Who is going to join
an activist group if the possibility exists that an undercover police
officer is taking down your name so it can be patched into a government
database? Will you whisper something to the person in the next chair if
you can't be guaranteed he or she isn't a cop? When you believe your
government is doing something wrong, how eager will you be to speak up if
you fear it could make you a target?

This is a universal American issue, not a left versus right issue - given
the same control and opportunities, a Democratic administration would have
been every bit as capable of attacking opposing thought.

With the same cover story and the same funding, is it too hard to imagine
state police being ordered by a Democratic administration to infiltrate
gun-rights groups or spy on anti-tax agitators?

It's the nature of power. And if it is your group that has that power, it
is too easy to look the other way or attempt to justify abuse against
those with whom you disagree. But sooner or later, the other guys will
hold the reins and the spotlight that was once on your opponents could be
turned to you.

And they would use your tax money to pay for the operation.

It is possible, I suppose, that the Department of Homeland Security has
covertly thwarted a number of terrorist attacks on our soil and that's why
there have been no repeats of 9/11. You know how it goes. They would love
to tell us about their successes but they can't because it's classified.

But this Maryland episode tells a different story. If there were true
priorities, true emergencies, would Homeland Security have money to
fritter away on political hatchet jobs? It seems that lacking actual
enemies, enemies have to be created. Again we see the futility of trying
to solve a problem by throwing money at it. Too much power and too much
cash is a dangerous mix.

I don't give terrorists much credit for thinking, but if they were so
inclined it might be easy to conclude there is no longer a need for
outsiders to bring down the United States - the United States government
is doing the job for them.

(source: Column, Tim Rowland; Herald-Mail)