Re: L&I Re:
"Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: -Original Message- From: Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 5:11 AM Subject: L&I Re: >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Jamez :) > >Well I can't agree with you here. First off there are medical uses for >marijuana. The relief it offers to cancer patients and those with MS and >arthritis is unbelievable. And now some states are finally realizing >that there is a use for it where it can help people instead of just >taking it to get "high". A few months ago I was having a problem with my eyes which resulted in me having a migraine for 5 weeks, it ended up being to do with my eye sight but they couldn't test for glasses until the migraine had gone as I had lost most of the sight in my right eye. But anyway I had got very little sleep in that time and a friend called me and told me to get over, I made my excuses and he ended up driving over to pick me up. When we got there he rolled me the biggest joint you ever seen in your life, 10 minutes later apart from having a stupid smile on my face :-) I fell asleep and got nearly 12 straight hours which did me the world of good, it was the only thing in that time that helped as I was on very strong medication which was only of minor use anyway. Theres one medical use for you, and another thing which is worse going to work after you had chilled out with a joint or going to work with a hangover? Steve Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I U. S. Supreme Court -Bragdon v. Abbott
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-31 09:25:55 EST, you write: << Infertility is an impairment of normal physiological function, not a physical impairment. Ron >> Ron, can you expand on that a bit? What other conditions would fit the same definition? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I legalization and decriminalization?
Steve Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Hi Kathy, > >I have grave misgivings about the State killing women, even conniving, >grasping, selfish ones like Mrs. Buenoano. Her actions against her >husband and son were no impulsive teenage rampage, but the deliberate >diabolical plot of a woman who coldly murdered the members of her family >for money, Nevertheless, I believe that the use of capital punishment >against the normally "gentler" sex brutalizes society. > >If we aren't careful, we could easily regress to the days of puiblic >hangings and drawing and quartering. > >Vi I disagree any guy who has played hockey will tell you that this normally gentler sex, isn't really all that gentle. The capacity to commit evil acts is human not male or female. Evil brutalizes society not a specific gender. Steve Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Monday's Jokes
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> IRS letter: >>> Editor's Note: Sometimes a story comes to our attention that needs no >>> polishing or enhancement to make it a good Block tax story. This is one of >>> those. It is a real letter submitted to the IRS in the midst of last >>> year's weird and bizarre denial of dependents, exemptions, and credits. >>> We believe the letter speaks for itself. >>> >>> Dear Sirs: >>> I am responding to your letter denying the deduction for two of the three >>> dependents I claimed on my 1994 Federal Tax return. Thank you. I have >>> questioned whether these are my children or not for years. They are evil & >>> expensive. It's only fair that since they are minors and not my >>> responsibility that the government (who evidently is taxing me more to >>> care for these waifs) knows something about them and what to expect over >>> the next year. You may apply next year to reassign them to me and >>> reinstate the deduction. This year they are yours! >>> >>> The oldest, Kristen, is now 17. She is brilliant. Ask her! I suggest you >>> put her to work in your office where she can answer people's questions >>> about their returns. While she has no formal training, it has not seemed >>> to hamper her knowledge of any other subject you can name; taxes should be >>> a breeze. Next year she is going to college. I think it's wonderful that >>> you will now be responsible for that little expense. While you mull that >>> over keep in mind that she has a truck. It doesn't run at the moment so >>> you have the immediate decision of appropriating some Department of >>> Defense funds to fix the vehicle or getting up early to drive her to >>> school. Kristen also has a boyfriend. Oh joy. While she possesses all of >>> the wisdom of the universe, her alleged mother and I have felt it best to >>> occasionally remind her of the virtues of abstinence, and in the face of >>> overwhelming passion, safe sex. This is always uncomfortable and I am >>> quite relieved you will be handling this in the future. May I suggest that >>> you reinstate Joycelyn Elders, who had a rather good handle on the >>> problem. >>> >>> Patrick is 14. I've had my suspicions about this one. His eyes are a >>> little close together for normal people. He may be a tax examiner himself >>> one day if you do not incarcerate him first. In February I was awakened >>> at three in the morning by a police officer who was bringing Pat home. He >>> and his friends were TP'ing houses. In the future would you like him >>> delivered to the local IRS office or to Ogden, UT? Kids at 14 will do >>> almost anything on a dare. His hair is purple. Permanent dye, temporary >>> dye, what's the big deal? Learn to deal with it. You'll have plenty of >>> time as he is sitting out a few days of school after instigating a food >>> fight. I'll take care of filing your phone number with the vice >>> principal. Oh yes, he and all of his friends have raging hormones. This is >>> the house of testosterone and it will be much more peaceful when he lives >>> in your home. DO NOT leave any of them unsupervised with girls, >>> explosives, inflammables, inflatables, vehicles, or telephones. (I'm sure >>> that you will find telephones a source of unimaginable amusement, and be >>> sure to lock out the 900 and 976 numbers!) >>> >>> Heather is an alien. She slid through a time warp and appeared quite by >>> magic one year. I'm sure this one is yours. She is 10 going on 21. She >>> came from a bad trip in the sixties. She wears tie-dyed clothes, beads, >>> sandals, and hair that looks like Tiny Tim's. Fortunately you will be >>> raising my taxes to help offset the pinch of her remedial reading courses. >>> Hooked On Phonics is expensive so the schools dropped it. Good news! You >>> can buy it yourself for half the amount of the deduction that you are >>> denying! It's quite obvious that we were terrible parents (ask the other >>> two) so they have helped raise this one to a new level of terror. She >>> cannot speak English. Most people under twenty understand the curious >>> patois she fashioned out of valley girls/boyz in the >>> hood/reggae/yuppie/political doublespeak. I don't. The school sends her >>> to a speech pathologist who has her roll her R's. It added a refreshing >>> Mexican/Irish touch to her voice. She wears hats backwards, pants baggy >>> and wants one of her ears pierced four more times. There is a fascination >>> with tattoos that worries me but I am sure that you can handle it. Bring >>> a truck when you come to get her, as she sort of "nests" in her room and >>> I think that it would be easier to >>> move the entire thing than find out what it is really made of. >>> >>> You denied two of the three exemptions so it is only fair you get to pick >>> which two you will take. I prefer that you take the youngest, I still go >>> bankrupt with Kristen's college but then I am free! If you take the two >>> ol
Re: L&I Sometimes indifference means death for another
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-30 22:46:02 EST, you write: << Of course, you and I are different. >> I wish I could be sure of that, Terry. About myself I mean. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I legalization and decriminalization?
Steve Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Hi Kathy, > >My point was not that the women involved in these gruesomw murders >deserved anything better than they got, but that such acts further >brutalize society to the point we are on the verge of killing even our >children in lethal chambers. > >And there are far, far more men committing horrible crimes than there are >women committing them. Crime among males is so common that I'm not sure >we can afford not to execute some of the worst offenders for our own >protection. > >Women can also fight with men shoulder to shoulder in combat, but again I >call upon my own gender bias to say I hate to see them on the front lines >in a war. For one thing men are much better fighters. Most women >realloy are the gentler sex. > >These are just one woman's opinion. > >Vi I still disagree, men and women do think differently and have different approaches to problem solving but if you look, you will see that women have the ability to be just as distinguished in battle or as violent as men. Its just that women have been told for hundreds of years now that there place is in the home and many feel that is right. If you think about it women make great technicians, great pilots, and formidable snipers (one of the best shots in the British army is a woman, she can shoot someone in the temple from 3 miles away) . Not because they are any more intelligent, or aggressive but because they approach things differently. Steve Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I U. S. Supreme Court -Bragdon v. Abbott
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ron, can you expand on that a bit? What other conditions would fit the same >definition? >Doc You can take practically any medical condition, e.g. cholecystitis, a physiological impairment, not a physical disability and therefore not covered by ADA. I think the intent at least is to cover handicapping disabilities, blindness, deafness, epilepsy, paralysis, amputations etc. Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Good Parents
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Man held in wife's death wins custody of children A man in jail for allegedly hiring a hit man to kill his estranged wife was awarded custody of the couple's two children Monday after a judge ruled the woman's family failed to show why someone charged with a crime would make a bad parent. Essex County Acting Family Court Judge David Jung said the children loved their father and wanted to live with him if he was innocent. Since Jeffrey Glanda is in the Essex County Jail on first-degree murder charges stemming from the Aug. 19, 1997, death of his wife, Jeannine Glanda, he wants his children to live with his sister, Cheryl Vaillancourt of Tupper Lake. After the death of the children's mother, Jung initially gave temporary custody of 12-year-old Tyler and 8-year-old Jordan Glanda to their maternal grandmother and aunt, Mary and Jerri Ratliff Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I legalization and decriminalization?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: > > >Doc, > >That's fair, for sure, and true equality. I just feel there is nothing >to be gained by a society that executes its women. How far are we from >executing our children? We do it now, Vi. The countries that execute children are Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, and the United States. Other countries are more civilized. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I legalization and decriminalization?
Sooz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > We do it now, Vi. The countries that execute children are Iraq, Iran, Saudi > Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, and the United States. Other countries are more > civilized. > Best, Terry Hello Terry, The United States executes children Please explain what you mean. I had no idea that any children have been executed in this country. You are talking about the death penalty, right? The appeals process takes years and years so I don't understand how a child could possibly be executed. Sooz Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I U. S. Supreme Court -Bragdon v. Abbott
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Infertility is a physical impairment, should treatments also be covered >under the ADA? > Infertility is an impairment of normal physiological function, not a physical impairment. Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Johnson: 30 March summary
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: A California jury heard defendant Suzanne Johnson's accounts of how six-month-old Jasmine Miller died while in her care for the first time -- through an audiotape and videotape of her conflicting statements given to police. In her first interview given to police after Jasmine died at the hospital, Johnson first claimed that the baby had choked on baby food and stopped breathing. But then she changed her story during the second interview and told investigators that Jasmine had fallen out of the high chair and hit her head. Johnson also mentioned that the baby had been crying and had difficulty taking her formula. Tomorrow, jurors will hear another interview that police conducted with Johnson after Jasmine's death, where they confront her with the autopsy findings, and she changed her story. Johnson reportedly changes her story again telling police that she put Jasmine in her highchair but as she bent down to pick up an object off the floor, she accidentally hokked her arm in the chair. Jasmine, said Johnson, went flying out of the chair onto the floor. The prosecution hopes to use Johnson's various statements to show that she lied in an atempt to cover up her crime. Before jurors heard Johnson's statements, assistant medical examiner Terri Haddox, who performed the autopsy on Jasmine Miller, was brought to the stand. Haddox said that Jasmine suffered two head fractures that, in her opinion, were caused by a single action. The doctor said that based on the extent of the injuries, Jasmine's fractures were not caused by an accidental fall, but rather a willful strike to the head. Haddox also testified that she doubted that Jasmine fell out of a high chair because she suffered injuries mostly to the back of her skull. If Jasmine had fallen out of a high chair as Johnson claimed, Haddox said, the injuries would have occurred mostly to the front of her head. Haddox also disagreed with prior state witness Jan Leestma's opinion that Jasmine suffered from a pre-existing head fracture. The doctor believed that Jasmine's injuries were inflicted the day she died, sometime between 11:30 a.m. and 3:09 p.m. When confronted with her conflicts with Dr. Leestma by the defense during cross-examination, Haddox stood by her testimony, saying that doctors can have different opinions about injuries. She also pointed out that, unlike Dr. Leestma, she examined the baby's injuries when they were fresh. (Dr. Leestma based his opinions on photos of Jasmine's injuries.) Later during the trial, defendant Suzanne Johnson is expected to take the stand and explain the inconsistencies in her statement to police. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Woman and crime was Re: L&I legalization and decriminalization?
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Vi first and foremost, watch your subject lines, I changed the first one and now I see you put it back under the legalization subject. Please post your replies under the proper subjects. Well it's a circle we're running in here Vi, their punishment is brutal but so is their crime, so stopping the punishment is not going to stop the crime. If anything it will show others they can do it and not worry about punishment. Our laws are quite blunt, there is no hidden agenda in them, quite simply they say if you do the crime you may pay with your life. It's a risk they all take, and it's not something they are naive about. I have yet to see anyone say they didn't know they could get the DP for murder. Just due to the fact more of one gender commits a crime does not mean only they should receive the ultimate punishments, btw if you check crime statistics you'll see women are catching up in leaps and bounds with men concerning criminal activity. Question for you, more women than men kill their offspring, so should we not give the men a lighter punishment than the women, since this is more of a female crime? We can not base punishment on gender, it's wrong and discriminatory. Concerning woman in combat, it's something I thought of over the years, I do think a women should have at the very least a choice of fighting, I would prefer it that gender was not involved in this decision, women can and do fight just as well as men, if not worse than men when it comes down to the nitty gritty. Yet again as you have shown people get caught up in stereotypes. I don't believe that females are made out of sugar and spice and everything nice or that men are made out of snakes, and snails and puppy dog tails. We all make choices and we all must live with the consequences of our choices, if we decide to murder someone we must be prepared to pay with our own life. Viola Provenzano wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: > > Hi Kathy, > > My point was not that the women involved in these gruesomw murders > deserved anything better than they got, but that such acts further > brutalize society to the point we are on the verge of killing even our > children in lethal chambers. > > And there are far, far more men committing horrible crimes than there are > women committing them. Crime among males is so common that I'm not sure > we can afford not to execute some of the worst offenders for our own > protection. > > Women can also fight with men shoulder to shoulder in combat, but again I > call upon my own gender bias to say I hate to see them on the front lines > in a war. For one thing men are much better fighters. Most women > realloy are the gentler sex. > > These are just one woman's opinion. > > Vi -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Update -- Ruthann Aron trial
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Yes. She works with mentally disturbed children, and repeatedly remarked during deliberations that she was drawing on her own experience. Other jurors report frustration at her unwillingness to consider the evidence outside the light of her own experience, but could not sway her. BTW, she did not explain exactly what it was she did for a living when she went through voir dire -- listed herself as something fairly innocuous and irrelevant. Pros says if they had known they'd never have accepted her as a juror. Doc << Has the holdout told anyone why they couldn't vote for conviction? DocCec wrote: > > DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > After three weeks of trial and five days of deliberation, this finally ended > today in a mistrial. Jury was 11-1 for guilty, but couldn't convince the > holdout. Pros says they will retry, but time will tell. > I'm sorry to see the end of the only thing that has managed to keep the > Lewinsky nonsense off the evening news for five blissful days! > Doc > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I COTD: Mullin, Herbert
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Born at Salinas, California, in April 1947, Mullin was the son of Catholic parents, reared by his devout mother in an atmosphere that his own father regarded as oppressively religious. Still, Herbert seemed normal through his teens, participating in high school athletics and winning the class vote of confidence as "most likely to succeed." The June 1965 death of Mullin's best friend, in a car crash, appeared to change everything, producing a sudden and startling shift in Herb's personality. His bedroom was transformed into a shrine, with furniture arranged around the dead boy's photograph, and Mullin warned his girlfriend that he might be turning gay. By February 1969, Mullin seemed obsessed with Eastern religions, his family noting that he had become "more and more unrealistic" in daily behavior. A month later, they persuaded him to enter a mental institution, but he refused to cooperate with psychiatrists and was released after six weeks. October found him in the depths of full-blown paranoid schizophrenia, exacerbated by continuing use of marijuana and LSD. Mullin heard "voices," commanding him to shave his head or burn his penis with a cigarette, and he obeyed their every order. Briefly returned to the hospital, he began writing letters to dozens of total strangers, signing them, "a human sacrifice, Herb Mullin." An ill-advised visit to Hawaii, in June 1970, resulted in Mullin's cmmitment to a mental institution there. Back in Santa Cruz, his odd behavior led to conflicts with police, and his problems were not erased by fifteen months of hiding out in cheap San Francisco hotels. By the time he came home again, in September 1972, the disembodied voices were commanding him to kill. On October 13, 1972, while driving aimlessly through the Santa Cruz mountains, Mullin spotted elderly transient Lawrence White. Pulling his car to the side of the road, Mullin asked White to help him with some "engine trouble," then beat the old man to death with a baseball bat and left his body where it lay. Eleven days later, he picked up co-ed Mary Guilfoyle, stabbed her in the heart, then disemboweled her, scattering her organs on the shoulder of a lonely road, where skeletal remains were found in February 1973. On November 2, Mullin spoke too freely in the confessional at St. Mary's Church, fatally stabbing Father Henry Tomei in a bid to protect himself from exposure. Mullin's crimes coincidentally overlapped with those of serial slayer Edmund Kemper, earning Santa Cruz an unwelcome reputation as "Murderville, USA." By November 1972, Herbert was hearing brand- new voices, emanating from prospective victims, begging him to kill them. He bought a pistol in December and resumed the hunt. On January 25, 1973, Mullin went looking for Jim Gianera, the man who had "turned him on" to marijuana years earlier. Herb now regarded that act as part of a plot to destroy his mind, and he meant to avenge himself. Calling at Gianera's old address, he received new directions from 29-year-old Kathy Francis. Moving on, he found Gianera at home, shot the man to death, then knifed and shot Gianera's wife for good measure. From there, Mullin doubled back to kill Kathy Francis and her two small sons, shooting all three as they lay in bed. On February 6, Mullin was hiking in a nearby state park, when he met four teenage campers. Approaching the boys with casual conversation, he whipped out his gun and killed all four in a burst of rapid fire, before they could react or flee. A week later, driving through Santa Cruz, Mullin pulled to the curb and fatally shot Fred Perez, while the old man was working in his garden. This time, neighbors saw his license plate, and Mullin was arrested by patrolmen moments later. In custody, Mullin confessed to his crimes, maintaining that the homicides were necessary to prevent catastrophic earthquakes from destroying California. Charged and convicted in ten of the murders (omitting White, Guilfoyle, and Tomei), Mullin was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will be eligible for parole in the year 2020 A.D. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Campbell: Traffic profiling case
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Here is the next case that CTV is showing, if your interested and would like me to post summaries please let me know. = In a case that may reveal the racial bias police officers use when pulling over motorists, an African-American police officer faces two charges of battery for allegedly hitting two white sheriff's officers after they stopped him for various traffic violations. Major Aaron Campbell claims that he was not violating any traffic laws and that the white officers only stopped him because he is black. Campbell, a 25-year police veteran, also claims that the police initiated the attack on him after they had tried to illegally arrest him. A camera mounted on the sheriff officers' patrol car captured the entire incident on videotape that will be played during trial. Fight on the Florida Turnpike According to reports, on April 9, 1997, Campbell, 55, was driving on the Florida Turnpike when Orange County officer Richard Mankewich pulled him over for allegedly failing to use a turn signal before changing lanes. Campbell, who was on his way to work on a house that he was building, got out of his car, and identified himself as an off-duty police officer and gave Officer Mankewich his driver's license. Campbell insisted that he had not committed any traffic violations, but Mankewich kept writing the ticket, also claimed that Campbell's license tag was obscured. And Mankewich was not affected by the fact that Campbell was a fellow officer. As Mankewich proceeded to write the tickets, Campbell apparently lost his temper. The police videotape shows Campbell cursing at Mankewich, saying, "You're a f___ing liar, man. I gave a signal. I gave a left signal...You ain't giving me no f___ing ticket." Campbell's driver's license was clamped to his clipboard, and the defendant grabbed his license off Mankewich's clipboard. Throughout this encounter, Campbell still had his gun in his pouch; he backed away from Mankewich, leaned on the nearby guardrail and demanded to see a supervisor. "I am the supervisor...you need to give me your license or you're going to jail," Mankewich said as he called by backup officers. One of the deputies who arrived on the scene tried to arrest Campbell for resisting arrest, but he began to walk away. This officer then jumped on Campbell's back while Mankewich apparently sprayed the defendant in the face with pepper spray. Campbell continued to resist and ran away, with three officers running after him. He surrendered to officers after running for about a quarter-mile. Profiling...or a Case of "Break the Law, Go to Jail?" Campbell says that he was a victim of racist "profiling" techniques used by Florida police officers. Profiling refers a practice where officers use race as the principal factor in making traffic stops and trying to apprehend drug traffickers. A 1977 report by the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Volusia County's Selective Enforcement Team used race as its chief factor in making traffic stops and that officers often made up false reasons to stop cars driven by black or Hispanic motorists in order to search for drugs (Volusia County is near Orange County, where this trial will be taking place.) The Orlando Sentinel revealed profiling practices of the Volusia officers in a Pulitzer prize-winning investigative series. The newspaper's investigation showed that while blacks and Hispanics made up only five percent of the drivers on the road, they were involved in 70 percent of the traffic stops. Orange County Sheriff Commander and spokesman Steve Jones reportedly denied that his officers used profiling techniques in an interview with ABC's Nightline and said the Campbell case was a simple case of "Break the law, go to jail." Jones said that Campbell's behavior warranted his arrest and that must have believed the untrue rumors about circulated about Orange County highway officers. However, while citing information from the Drug Enforcement Agency, Jones acknowledged that a profile for drug smugglers in Florida does exist; he claimed that black males smuggle most of the cocaine into Florida while Hispanic males transport heroin. Another phrase used to describe profiling procedures used on black motorists is "driving while black." This phrase was made famous by a civil suit filed by Robert Wilkins, a Harvard law graduate and public defender in Washington, D.C., against the Maryland Police Department. In 1992, Wilkins and his family were returning home to Washington, D.C., from a funeral in Chicago, when they were stopped by police and subjected to a search by drug-sniffing dogs. Wilkins sued the police, claiming that they had violated his civil rights, and as he was preparing for his trial, the lawyer claimed that he had obtained a police memo specifically warning officers to be on alert for "young African-American males on I-68 in the e
Re: L&I U. S. Supreme Court -Bragdon v. Abbott
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-31 09:56:00 EST, you write: << You can take practically any medical condition, e.g. cholecystitis, a physiological impairment, not a physical disability and therefore not covered by ADA. I think the intent at least is to cover handicapping disabilities, blindness, deafness, epilepsy, paralysis, amputations etc. Ron >> Ah, thanks. I was wondering about things like ostomies, the need for oxygen, etc. Is the line between disability and physiological impairment clear? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Off topic, but I wanted to share it
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My daughter sent this <> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Gun Ownership As a Deterrent?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:29:46 -0800 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Kennesaw, Georgia: having passed a city ordinance requiring every >>household to own a gun, the town saw a 70% drop in violent crime >within >>twelve months, and has not had a single rape or murder since 1984. >In >>the words of the study, citizen gun ownership makes "crime. . .a >risky >>business indeed!" > >How do the liberal gun-control advocates argue with the statistics? > >Ron See your note about creative statistics vis a vis Clinton's approval rating. :) Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #748
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:29:57 EST DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >In a message dated 98-03-30 17:47:06 EST, you write: > ><< Somebody ought to get the word to the police about the hordes of >mature > men on Jerry Springer's show who are impregnating fourteen year old >girls > without being arrested, much less convicted. In one case an old man > married his own daughter. > >> >Hate to sound Densa, but I don't watch the show -- is this in the >script or in >real life? >Doc HI Doc, Most of those shows are scripted and the roles played out by people to incite the audience and suck in the big TV viewers. It's like pro wrestling. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Gun Ownership As a Deterrent?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:02:42 +0100 "Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >"Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> >>Kennesaw, Georgia: having passed a city ordinance requiring every >>>household to own a gun, the town saw a 70% drop in violent crime >within >>>twelve months, and has not had a single rape or murder since 1984. >In >>>the words of the study, citizen gun ownership makes "crime. . .a >risky >>>business indeed!" >> >>How do the liberal gun-control advocates argue with the statistics? >> >>Ron > > >Thats really interesting coming from a country with little gun >ownership >(just sport and drug dealers), do you think that violent criminals >just do >there business elsewhere? > >Steve Hi Steve, Mere statistics don't really tell us anything. We need a lot more information about that particular town as well as how those statistics were gathered. Most interesting would be how many rapes or murders they had BEFORE 1984. Also, how many firearms accidents they have had after this legislation was enacted. And what was the total crime rate before the law? One can also cite statistics that show that if there is a gun in the household then the members of that household have a much higher probability of being killed or wounded by a gunshot than those in households that do not have a gun. If you really want to look at the effects of gun ownership all you have to do is compare the overall crime rate (especially the murder rate) between countries like the US and countries like Canada, Japan and the UK. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Sometimes indifference means death for another
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Kathy, If you or anyone else is interested in a fascinating book that is historical as well as a strong narrative about how men react to horrible situations I strongly recommend Stephen Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers". The biggest fear of anyone going into combat is that they will be a coward and unable to function or do their job. Bill On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:43:46 -0500 Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Terry, > >Well I see a major difference in your situation and the others we have >been talking about, you were obviously in shock, just you saying it >comes in bit's and pieces to you tells me that. Yet I do not see the >people who were watching this as being in shock, rather they were in >the >"I don't want to get involved" mode, heck they didn't even tell the >police where the body was when the police were searching for him. > >People don't do acts to become hero's they aren't even thinking of >that, >they are mainly trying to help another in distress. These people >decided >it was more entertaining to watch the show. It doesn't take a hero to >help another, it just takes common decency and respect for human life. >The press and media labels hero's, most of us look at a situation >knowing we would have helped if we could. Would it have taken a hero >to >save this man? No, it would have only taken a 911 call. > >It's easy to try to come up with an excuse on why no one did anything, >but the truth is they watched a man beat to death and there is no >excuse >for that. > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Hi Doc and Kathy, >> >> We all have the identical reaction. And yet why are all those >people so >> different from all 250 million of the rest of us? >> >> This is not exactly a story of great pride. When I was on a bus >bombed by >> the Viet Cong I watched one man - a Sgt. Sullivan - helping those >who were >> the most severely off the bus. I remembered then and now everything >in >> flashes. I was as helpless to lend a hand as I was not to panic at >the >> instant of the explosion. >> >> The sergeant was an alcoholic who was later booted out of the >service in >> disgrace through my own intelligence office because he tried on his >own to >> show the operation of the black market with military supplies. He >did that >> and it cost both him and the man he caught their careers in lieu of >courts >> martial. >> >> I don't know if heros are just made that way or not. Surely I would >have >> called the cops just as I would at least help the wounded next time. > Hell >> everybody would. There was no next time for me just as there will >not be >> for the cab driver and the spectators in the buildings anymore than >for >> Kitty Genovese. >> >> It's easy to point fingers at times of incredible shows of cowardice >and >> indifference. We would never be like that. Not one of hundreds of >millions >> of us. >> Best, Terry >-- >Kathy E >"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and >tomorrow >isn't looking too good for you either" >http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List >http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories >http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Re:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jamez, Nice to see a new face. I see two fallacies in your argument. One, that everything the government does makes sense. And two, if your argument is valid then alcohol and tobacco would also be illegal. Bill On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:36:51 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamez) writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamez) writes: > > >The whole concept of legalising Marijuana here in the states >is >absurd! The people who are "pro-cannabis" contend that Marijuana >causes no >physical harm to the human body, and that the drug may also serve as a >"painkiller". This argument was obviously thought up while they were >high! >If there is no proof of the defects Marijuana causes, then why else >would >the governement outlaw the drug in the first place? The government >must >have some reason to make marijuana illegal, or else their actions >would be >unjust to American citizens. One of the primary functions of our >government is to provide society with protection, and outlawing >marijuana >completes this purpose. Suppose a person abuses Marijuanahe/she >smokes >about ten joints a day. This abuse will inevitably have an effect on >the >human body, causing the person to get "high". During this ultimate >"high", >the person is much more apt to cause danger among others (as well as >to him >or herself), but thanks to our government, people are prevented from >doing >so. > > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Which Polls Do You Believe?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:26:38 -0800 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>"Creative statistics" is certainly nothing new, but is unquestionably >an >> >>area in which Bill Clinton and his friends excel. Take for instance >the >> >>President's sky-high job approval numbers. While the media marvels >>that, >> despite everything, people are generally happy with a President who >>isn't rocking the boat of prosperity, they completely fail to report >>the >>real story: U.S. News and World Report's latest poll reveals that >>fully >>50 percent of Americans disapprove of the President as a person, >with a >> >>mere 36 percent supporting him. Even worse still, Mr. Clinton's >>support >>among Democratic women has dropped a whopping 17 percent. >> >>In an impeachment scenario the results of this are obvious: >Americans >>might think their accountant or lawyer or nanny competent, but if >they >>caught her taking bribes from family enemies or sexually assaulting >>their >> children, her job would evaporate. No wonder the President hasn't >>given >> an interview since January 21st. A lack of proof is all that keeps >the >> >>pink slip away. >> >>Twisted polling numbers of this sort will ultimately have little >effect, >> >>because the legal process will grind on relentlessly, without any >regard >> >>to them. > >Ron HI Ron, Are creative statistics also used in the one you posted about the gun law in Georgia? Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #748
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Vi, LOLThe Jerry Springer show I doubt if that qualifies as valid evidence for any reasonable debate. I'm amazed that anyone even watches that crap. I've read that most of that stuff is made up anyway, much like the professional wrestling in this country. I don't doubt the discrimination that still exists against women in the corporate world. But I do doubt that any favoritism is given to men with respect to prosecution of statuatory rape crimes. Like I said, the reason the media makes such a big deal out of it is because it is so rare for a woman to be charged with statuatory rape. Same reason we see more coverage when a woman is executed. Bill On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:39:10 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: > >Hi Bill, Somebody ought to get the word to the police about the >hordes of mature >men on Jerry Springer's show who are impregnating fourteen year old >girls >without being arrested, much less convicted. In one case an old man >married his own daughter. > >I still maintain that it's a man's world and men can get away with a >lot >more than can women, including the reversal of sexual roles. > >Vi >_ You wrote: >. . .<prison.>>>. . . >_ >You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get >completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno >at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: >subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Anti-Spam Law Passed by Washington State
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Ron, Are these unsolicited e-mail you're referring to? Or those stupid ads that pop up and you have to click "No Thanks" to continue the sign on process? I get those ads all the time, but no spam e-mail at all. I get a few spam e-mail on juno, but not many. Bill On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:19:12 -0800 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hopefully more states will follow this route. I tlooks like I could >get >rich quickly just reporting the Spam that arrives in my AOL account >daily. >Ron > > >Locke signs `spam' bill; it's first such law in nation >by Peter Lewis > >Seattle Times staff reporter > >Gov. Gary Locke yesterday signed into law a bill aimed at curbing >unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail, popularly known as spam. >As a result, Washington becomes the first state in the nation to have >passed >legislation that will curb, if not eliminate, what many e-mail users >consider to be an annoyance or worse, according to California lawyer >David >Kramer. >A recognized expert on Internet e-mail and legislative efforts to >control >it, Kramer has testified before a state House committee in favor of a >tougher version of Washington's anti-spam bill. He also has >collaborated on >bills proposed in Congress and in four other states. >The new law, which will take effect in 90 days, makes it a violation >for >spammers to send e-mail messages that hide their point of origin, mask >the >transmission path, or contain misleading information in the message's >subject line. >Spam, named after the often-derided Hormel meat product, usually >contain >such false information in their "headers," or address fields, and >promote >get-rich-quick schemes, miracle health cures or explicit pornographic >material. >The new law bans both sending e-mail with such deceptive header >information >from computers located in Washington, and sending such e-mail to an >electronic mail address that the sender knows, or has reason to know, >is >held by a Washington resident. >It puts the burden on the sender to find out whether the intended >recipient >lives in Washington. >Individuals who receive such e-mail could collect up to $500 per >violation; >Internet service providers, the companies that provide computer users >access >to the Internet, could receive up to $1,000. >Assistant State Attorney General Paula Selis yesterday said the state >will >aggressively enforce the new law, but she declined to elaborate, >saying her >office generally doesn't like to disclose its enforcement strategies. >She >called the new law "better than nothing." >With the support of the Washington Association of Internet Service >Providers >(WAISP), Selis had drafted a more vigorous law that would have flatly >banned >sending spam - unless there was an existing relationship between the >sender >and the recipient, or the recipient had requested or consented to >receive >it. >But powerful interests, including the Direct Marketing Association and >Microsoft, testified against that version of the bill. >Microsoft lobbyist Deborah Brunton said her company is "very concerned >about >unsolicited junk e-mail, but we also are a company that used >legitimate >e-mail practices to reach out to our customers." She said Microsoft >was >concerned that the bill's original language was ambiguous, and might >have >prohibited the company from developing new markets. >Meanwhile, in his column posted on the Microsoft Web site yesterday, >Chairman Bill Gates skewered spam, writing in part: >"Wasting somebody else's time strikes me as the height of rudeness. We >have >only so many hours, and none to waste. That's what makes electronic >junk >mail and e-mail hoaxes so maddening." >The new law also calls for creation of a three-member task force, >consisting >of two members of the House Energy and Utilities Committee and a >person >appointed by Locke, to identify technical, legal and cost issues >related to >spam, and to evaluate whether existing laws are sufficient to cope >with it. >It sets a Nov. 15 d _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] eadline for completion of the report. >Meantime, WAISP executive director Gary Gardner said local Internet >providers would review the new law when they gather April 17 at Bell >Harbor >Conference Center on the Seattle waterfront. > >Women have their faults. Men have only two. >Everything they say. Everything they do. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free
Re: L&I Gun Ownership As a Deterrent?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Kathy, Crime went down in a lot of other areas that did not legalize guns. I wonder how they explain that one. :) Let's face it. We have the highest number of guns per capita than most any other country in the world. And our crime rate (particularly the murder rate) is one of the highest in the world. Especially when you consider crimes committed by citizens against fellow citizens. IMO, anyone who argues that these two things are not related is simply kidding themselves. I'm not saying that total gun control or a ban on gun ownership should be enacted. But I DO think some common sense controls need to be in place. Many of them have been enacted already, but typically due to the effects of a strong gun lobby, the legislation is so watered down by the time it is passed that it has little or no effect. Until we wake up to the real problem we will continue to have incidents like the one in Jonesboro, IMO. Bill On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:51:48 -0500 Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Most likely they'll say it's a coincidence or a fluke. Crime went down >in Houston also when they legalized guns. Yet again people don't like >acknowledging that. > >Ronald Helm wrote: >> >> "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Kennesaw, Georgia: having passed a city ordinance requiring every >> >household to own a gun, the town saw a 70% drop in violent crime >within >> >twelve months, and has not had a single rape or murder since 1984. >In >> >the words of the study, citizen gun ownership makes "crime. . .a >risky >> >business indeed!" >> >> How do the liberal gun-control advocates argue with the statistics? >> >> Ron >> >> Women have their faults. Men have only two. >> Everything they say. Everything they do. >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > >-- >Kathy E >"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and >tomorrow >isn't looking too good for you either" >http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List >http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories >http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Some Random Comments On The Latest Allegations Against Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:04:33 -0800 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >. I agree with Lott. This one is certainly >>not like Anita Hill. > >Bill: You really don't agree with Sen Lott, a Republican conservative, >do >you? I think his statement that this is not an Anita Hill, means that >there >are much more substantial allegations against Clinton, than the >offense that >Anita Hill took at Clarence Thomas' sexual innuendo jokes. > >Ron HI Ron, LOL...gee, is that like the criticism the right wingers are launching at NOW and other feminists concerning their support of Anita Hill and their lack of support for Paula Jones. Gee, did Senator Lott back ol Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill forhmmmpolitical reasons? And now he's backing Jones et al forhmm...political reasons. As usual, Lott and others apply a very convenient double standard here. And to diminish Hill's accusations to taking offense at sexual innuendo jokes is to completely mis-state the issues in her case. I agree with Lott. The Clinton situation is nothing like the Anita Hill situation. Unless you want to include the political motives of those on both sides. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Yes, Sooz, We Do Kill Kids
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sooz, >Sooz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>The countries that execute children are Iraq, Iran, Saudi >> Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, and the United States. Other countries are more >> civilized. >> Best, Terry >The United States executes children >Please explain what you mean. I had no idea that any children have been >executed in this country. You are talking about the death penalty, >right? The appeals process takes years and years so I don't understand >how a child could possibly be executed. >Sooz > > Children Sentenced to Death > > --- > > June 16, 1944: George Stinney Jr. (14) is executed in > > South Carolina's electric chair. He was only 5'-1" tall > > and weighed 95 pounds. A local paper reported that > > the guards had difficulties strapping him onto the chair and > > attaching the electrodes. > > --- Since 1990 only five countries including the United States have sentenced those convicted of crimes when they were minors to death. With appeals you are correct that 16- and 17-year-olds are likely to mature before we execute them. No minimum age: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington Minimum age 14: Arkansas Minimum age 15: Louisiana, Virginia Minimum age 16: Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Wyoming Minimum age 17: Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas Total: 25 states allow executions for juvenile offenses (Source: Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau) [I have no explanation for the reason the 11- and 13-year-olds in Jonesboro cannot be tried as adults according to news reports. There may have been changes in the law since the above data was compiled.] Damien Echols was 17 years old when he supposedly participated in the murder of three small boys. He was convicted in West Memphis, Arkansas, in a wave of hysteria over satanic cults with laughable evidence. In his case some prison guards were actually fired for permitting his daily sodomization by another prisoner on death row over a period of weeks. His prospects for eventual exoneration are quite guarded under current rules for appeals. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Yes, Sooz, We Do Kill Kids
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Terry IMHO this is a post done by a desperate person, as everyone knows the DP and the laws surrounding it have all changed. It's pretty pathetic when you have to go back over 50 years to support your argument. If you want to seriously discuss this issue at least use the laws and guidelines we're under now. It would be like me talking about cruel and unusual punishment that we submit prisoners to and using the example of the men sentenced to work on slave ships. I would be laughed at for that type of reasoning. There isn't a comparison, just as your assertion that the U.S. kills kids under the DP in the US and current sentencing guidelines show that not to be true. Show me one person in the US who was under the age of 18 that was executed after 1972. To save you some time I'll let you know right now, you won't be able to, since it hasn't happened. Yet you can try to find someone. Use current information for a current debate. Comparing the 1940's and the 1990's is ridiculous to me. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - > > > June 16, 1944: George Stinney Jr. (14) is executed in > > > South Carolina's electric chair. He was only 5'-1" tall > > > and weighed 95 pounds. A local paper reported that > > > the guards had difficulties strapping him onto the chair and > > > attaching the electrodes. > > > --- > > Since 1990 only five countries including the United States have sentenced > those convicted of crimes when they were minors to death. With appeals you > are correct that 16- and 17-year-olds are likely to mature before we execute > them. > > No minimum age: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Pennsylvania, South > Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington > > Minimum age 14: Arkansas > > Minimum age 15: Louisiana, Virginia > > Minimum age 16: Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, > Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Wyoming > > Minimum age 17: Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas > > Total: 25 states allow executions for juvenile offenses > (Source: Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau) > > [I have no explanation for the reason the 11- and 13-year-olds in Jonesboro > cannot be tried as adults according to news reports. There may have been > changes in the law since the above data was compiled.] > > Damien Echols was 17 years old when he supposedly participated in the murder > of three small boys. He was convicted in West Memphis, Arkansas, in a wave > of hysteria over satanic cults with laughable evidence. In his case some > prison guards were actually fired for permitting his daily sodomization by > another prisoner on death row over a period of weeks. His prospects for > eventual exoneration are quite guarded under current rules for appeals. > > Best, Terry > > "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Yes, Sooz, We Do Kill Kids
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Terry IMHO this is a post done by a desperate person, as everyone knows >the DP and the laws surrounding it have all changed. The laws I gave you were the most recent I found. I will be glad for any updates. >It's pretty pathetic when you have to go back over 50 years to support your >argument. If you want to seriously discuss this issue at least use the >laws and guidelines we're under now. It would be like me talking about >cruel and unusual punishment that we submit prisoners to and using the >example of the men sentenced to work on slave ships. I would be laughed >at for that type of reasoning. There isn't a comparison, just as your >assertion that the U.S. kills kids under the DP in the US and current >sentencing guidelines show that not to be true. Show me one person in >the US who was under the age of 18 that was executed after 1972. To save >you some time I'll let you know right now, you won't be able to, since >it hasn't happened. Yet you can try to find someone. If a 16-year-old commits a murder and is sentenced to die in a subsequent trial, you may find comfort in his sitting in prison for a decade or two while he waits for his death sentence to be carried out. My interpretation is that we kill kids, one of only 6 countries that do. There are currently a number of men sitting on death row for murders committed when they were juveniles. >Use current information for a current debate. Comparing the 1940's and >the 1990's is ridiculous to me. I remember the 1940's quite well. Slave ships are before my time. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >- >> > > June 16, 1944: George Stinney Jr. (14) is executed in >> > > South Carolina's electric chair. He was only 5'-1" tall >> > > and weighed 95 pounds. A local paper reported that >> > > the guards had difficulties strapping him onto the chair and >> > > attaching the electrodes. >> > > --- >> >> Since 1990 only five countries including the United States have sentenced >> those convicted of crimes when they were minors to death. With appeals you >> are correct that 16- and 17-year-olds are likely to mature before we execute >> them. >> >> No minimum age: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Pennsylvania, South >> Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington >> >> Minimum age 14: Arkansas >> >> Minimum age 15: Louisiana, Virginia >> >> Minimum age 16: Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, >> Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Wyoming >> >> Minimum age 17: Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas >> >> Total: 25 states allow executions for juvenile offenses >> (Source: Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau) >> >> [I have no explanation for the reason the 11- and 13-year-olds in Jonesboro >> cannot be tried as adults according to news reports. There may have been >> changes in the law since the above data was compiled.] >> >> Damien Echols was 17 years old when he supposedly participated in the murder >> of three small boys. He was convicted in West Memphis, Arkansas, in a wave >> of hysteria over satanic cults with laughable evidence. In his case some >> prison guards were actually fired for permitting his daily sodomization by >> another prisoner on death row over a period of weeks. His prospects for >> eventual exoneration are quite guarded under current rules for appeals. >> >> Best, Terry >> >> "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > >-- >Kathy E >"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow >isn't looking too good for you either" >http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List >http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories >http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I "Black Widow" Executed
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: At 12:12 PM 3/30/1998 -0500, you wrote: >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >So where's the outrage? Where was the press? Why no interviews on TV? >This lady had the same criteria as Tucker did, oh except for one thing >she wasn't as young or as pretty. Is that what a women needs to get >those against the death penalty to notice her? I'm sure some will >disagree with me strongly, but in this case the actions of the silent >speak a lot louder than the words of those after the fact. > Good question. And I don't disagree at all. They both got what they deserved. Len Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Terry: I lost the actual decision when I sent the original. :( So I added it on here. Sue > > Hi Terry: > > I thought that this one would interest you. Sue > > UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER > > No. 96-1133 -- Argued November 3, 1997 > -- Decided March 31, 1998 > 44 M.J. 442, reversed. > < http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1133.cpanel.html > > = > > A polygraph examination of respondent airman indicated, in the > opinion of the Air Force examiner administering the test, that > there was "no deception" in respondent's denial that he had used > drugs since enlisting. Urinalysis, however, revealed the presence > of methamphetamine, and respondent was tried by general court- > martial for using that drug and for other offenses. In denying > his motion to introduce the polygraph evidence to support his > testimony that he did not knowingly use drugs, the military judge > relied on Military Rule of Evidence 707, which makes polygraph > evidence inadmissible in court-martial proceedings. Respondent > was convicted on all counts, and the Air Force Court of Criminal > Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces > reversed, holding that a per se exclusion of polygraph evidence > offered by an accused to support his credibility violates his > Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. > > Held: The judgment is reversed. > > 44 M.J. 442, reversed. JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-D, concluding that Military Rule of Evidence 707 does not unconstitutionally abridge the right of accused members of the military to present a defense. Pp. 4-9, 11-14. (a) A defendant's right to present relevant evidence is subject to reasonable restrictions to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. See, e.g., Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 55. State and federal rulemakers therefore have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence. Such rules do not abridge an accused's right to present a defense so long as they are not "arbitrary" or "disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve." E.g., id., at 56 . This Court has found the exclusion of evidence to be unconstitutionally arbitrary or disproportionate only where it has infringed upon a weighty interest of the accused. See, e.g., id., at 58. Rule 707 serves the legitimate interest of ensuring that only reliable evidence is introduced. There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable: The scientific community and the state and federal courts are extremely polarized on the matter. Pp. 4-9. (b) Rule 707 does not implicate a sufficiently weighty interest of the accused to raise a constitutional concern under this Court's precedents. The three cases principally relied upon by the Court of Appeals, Rock, supra, at 57, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23, and Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302-303, do not support a right to introduce polygraph evidence, even in very narrow circumstances. The exclusions of evidence there declared unconstitutional significantly undermined fundamental elements of the accused's defense. Such is not the case here, where the court members heard all the relevant details of the charged offense from respondent's perspective, and Rule 707 did not preclude him from introducing any factual evidence, but merely barred him from introducing expert opinion testimony to bolster his own credibility. Moreover, in contrast to the rule at issue in Rock, supra, at 52, Rule 707 did not prohibit respondent from testifying on his own behalf; he freely exercised his choice to convey his version of the facts at trial. Pp. 11-14. THOMAS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-D, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II- C, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and SCALIA and SOUTER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which O'CONNOR, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. > Two rules in life: > > 1. Don't tell people everything you know. > 2. > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Supreme Court-Polygraphs
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Terry: I thought that this one would interest you. Sue UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER No. 96-1133 -- Argued November 3, 1997 -- Decided March 31, 1998 44 M.J. 442, reversed. < http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1133.cpanel.html > = A polygraph examination of respondent airman indicated, in the opinion of the Air Force examiner administering the test, that there was "no deception" in respondent's denial that he had used drugs since enlisting. Urinalysis, however, revealed the presence of methamphetamine, and respondent was tried by general court- martial for using that drug and for other offenses. In denying his motion to introduce the polygraph evidence to support his testimony that he did not knowingly use drugs, the military judge relied on Military Rule of Evidence 707, which makes polygraph evidence inadmissible in court-martial proceedings. Respondent was convicted on all counts, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed, holding that a per se exclusion of polygraph evidence offered by an accused to support his credibility violates his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. Held: The judgment is reversed. 44 M.J. 442, reversed. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #748
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-31 11:25:29 EST, you write: << HI Doc, Most of those shows are scripted and the roles played out by people to incite the audience and suck in the big TV viewers. It's like pro wrestling. Bill >> That's a relief. I know things are weird out there, but not that weird! Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I U. S. Supreme Court -Bragdon v. Abbott
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Ah, thanks. I was wondering about things like ostomies, the need for oxygen, >etc. Is the line between disability and physiological impairment clear? >Doc Clearly the distinctions are not clear and that is why the AIDS patients are seeking restitution under the ADA, I guess the Supreme Court will have to clarify the question: "What is a disability?" Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Anti-Spam Law Passed by Washington State
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Hi Ron, > >Are these unsolicited e-mail you're referring to? Or those stupid ads >that pop up and you have to click "No Thanks" to continue the sign on >process? I get those ads all the time, but no spam e-mail at all. I get >a few spam e-mail on juno, but not many. > I believe that the law only applies to unsolicited e-mail, certainly not ads which pays for Juno, I guess. Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #748
"Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ><< HI Doc, > > Most of those shows are scripted and the roles played out by people to > incite the audience and suck in the big TV viewers. It's like pro > wrestling. > > Bill >> > >That's a relief. I know things are weird out there, but not that weird! >Doc A few weeks back we had a Springer weekend on satellite TV and I must say it is the funniest thing I have seen, I just couldn't believe the things on there, check this out for one This guy comes on and says he wants to ask this woman to marry him on national TV (cool I think, nice thing to do pretty romantic), so off goes this bloke and Gerry says here's his future bride and she has a secret (?), anyway on walks this huge thing (tall I mean) and in the gruffest voice you can imagine she/it/whatever starts to say that she is really a transsexual and she/he still has to have the operation. (keep reading it gets better) So the bloke comes in and promptly gives his future bride a big smack on the lips and they sit down holding hands, (buy now I'm dont know whether to laugh cry or just switch over) so she/it turns to him and comes out with the big secret. I swear to got you can see the cogs go round in this guys head and he just puts his head in his hands and says "shes a dude" over & over. Now most of you are probably saying that its a real shame and thats terrible but I swear to god this thing was 6ft with a adams apple the size of my head, not exactly the most womanly thing I have ever seen and the designer stubble should have given him the hint. Steve Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Anti-Spam Law Passed by Washington State
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:59:26 -0800 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>Hi Ron, >> >>Are these unsolicited e-mail you're referring to? Or those stupid >ads >>that pop up and you have to click "No Thanks" to continue the sign on >>process? I get those ads all the time, but no spam e-mail at all. I >get >>a few spam e-mail on juno, but not many. >> > > >I believe that the law only applies to unsolicited e-mail, certainly >not ads >which pays for Juno, I guess. Ron In that case I must be lucky because I don't get any spam on my AOL e-mail account. Of course, as soon as I say that.. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Supreme Court-Polygraphs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, Thanks for posting this. :) It seems that there is more to the polygraph debate than meets the eye. Bill On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:07:59 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Terry: > >I thought that this one would interest you. Sue > >UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER > >No. 96-1133 -- Argued November 3, 1997 >-- Decided March 31, 1998 >44 M.J. 442, reversed. >< http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1133.cpanel.html > >= > >A polygraph examination of respondent airman indicated, in the >opinion of the Air Force examiner administering the test, that >there was "no deception" in respondent's denial that he had used >drugs since enlisting. Urinalysis, however, revealed the presence >of methamphetamine, and respondent was tried by general court- >martial for using that drug and for other offenses. In denying >his motion to introduce the polygraph evidence to support his >testimony that he did not knowingly use drugs, the military judge >relied on Military Rule of Evidence 707, which makes polygraph >evidence inadmissible in court-martial proceedings. Respondent >was convicted on all counts, and the Air Force Court of Criminal >Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces >reversed, holding that a per se exclusion of polygraph evidence >offered by an accused to support his credibility violates his >Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. > >Held: The judgment is reversed. > >44 M.J. 442, reversed. >-- >Two rules in life: > >1. Don't tell people everything you know. >2. > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #748
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:20:00 EST DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >In a message dated 98-03-31 11:25:29 EST, you write: > ><< HI Doc, > > Most of those shows are scripted and the roles played out by people >to > incite the audience and suck in the big TV viewers. It's like pro > wrestling. > > Bill >> > >That's a relief. I know things are weird out there, but not that >weird! >Doc HI Doc, LOLbut it IS scary when the evolution of some things tends to take them farther out on the weird spectrum. It's all about ratings, which is all about dollars. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Welcome Jamez
Robert Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: hi jamez welcome to the group.i know you will enjoy it here. bob,wa Kathy E wrote: > Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Jamez and welcome to the Law list :) I hope your enjoying it here :) > If you need any help or assistance please don't hesitate to ask :) > -- > Kathy E > "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow > isn't looking too good for you either" > http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List > http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories > http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- I dont suffer from stress.I'M a carrier.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
No Subject
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamez) writes: To Lisa... Since the baby actually survived this tragedy, the hired gunman deprived its right to live (one of the natural rights that all Americans possess as soon as they are born)by severely harming it, and he therefore should be punished for murdering two people instead of one. However, as you pointed out, this is not the main concern in the issue. The main concern is what charges could be prosecuted against the gunman. Regarding the fact that he was hired by someone, we know that he obviously had intentions of murdering the mother and we could also assume that he planned the whole incident. So he had intentions, and he could have also premeditated. I feel that first degree murder would be the appropriate charge in this particular case. Now whether or not he deserves the death penalty is another question however... Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Now this is Amazing!
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: A LAWYER WHO took heroin and cocaine every day while trying a murder case in 1984 did not necessarily provide ineffective assistance of counsel, a Brooklyn federal judge has ruled. While asserting that the use of drugs by attorney Michael Noble, who later was convicted on drug charges and disbarred, was "reprehensible," Eastern District Judge Eugene H. Nickerson said it did not automatically establish ineffective representation. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, noted Judge Nickerson in Badia v. Artuz, 95-CV-3212, one claiming ineffective assistance must show that the lawyer's performance fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness" in order to prevail. "Petitioner's claim cannot simply rest on Mr. Noble's admissions that he was on drugs during the entire trial. Petitioner must show that Mr. Noble's handling of the trial was affected by his drug usage." The petitioner, Edwin Badia, was convicted of murder in February 1984 and sentenced to a prison term of 20 years to life. He was represented throughout the trial in Brooklyn Supreme Court by Mr. Noble. In April 1984, Mr. Noble was convicted in Manhattan federal court for conspiracy to distribute narcotics and obstruction of justice. He was later disbarred. After Mr. Noble's trial, Mr. Badia learned that the attorney had been addicted to drugs for seven years. In addition, Mr. Noble later declared that he used both heroin and cocaine every day during Mr. Badia's trial. Mr. Badia moved in state court to have his conviction vacated. That application was rejected and the denial was affirmed on appeal. He then filed a writ of habeas corpus in Brooklyn federal court, alleging that Mr. Noble's drug use during the trial prejudiced him in several respects. First, Mr. Badia argued that Mr. Noble should have presented the defense of extreme emotional disturbance rather than justification. He further contended that Mr. Noble's closing statement placed the burden on the defendant to prove innocence, that the lawyer had failed to hire a private investigator, and that he did not interview defense witnesses until the day of trial. Finally, Mr. Noble failed to inform his client of a plea offer of manslaughter with a proposed sentence of 12 -1/2-to-20 years. Judge Nickerson rejected all but one of Mr. Badia's claims. Mr. Noble's choice of the justification defense, "while unsuccessful, was not unreasonable," Judge Nickerson said. "It is not the role of this court to second-guess the trial strategy developed by Mr. Noble for his client." 'Sloppy' Lawyering Mr. Noble's "misstatement of the law" in the closing statement was corrected by the trial judge's instruction to the jury, "which properly placed the burden of proof on the government," the judge added. As for the lawyer's failure to hire an investigator or to interview witnesses before trial, Judge Nickerson characterized that conduct as "sloppy," but "not unreasonable." But Judge Nickerson did find an unresolved issue regarding the plea offer, noting that testimony given by Mr. Badia and Mr. Noble on that question at a 1987 state hearing was contradictory. Concluding, therefore, that he could not decide whether Mr. Badia actually knew of the offer based on the motion papers, Judge Nickerson ordered a hearing to supplement the record. Mr. Badia, who is incarcerated in the Fishkill Correctional Facility, represented himself. Assistant Kings County District Attorney Ann Bordley represented the government. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
