Written by An Iva, South Carolina police officer was charged with unlawful communication after being accused of leaving a voice message for his wife threatening her with bodily harm.
A Lander University police officer was charged with DUI and hit and run after being accused of hitting a car, causing it to hit a third car, and then driving off without stopping.
A state trooper was fired after being charged with DUI in Columbia, after running his car off the road near five points and hitting a retaining wall on U.S.C. campus.
A Greenville County sheriff’s deputy was fired and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor after being accused of giving alcohol to teenagers at a party at his home.
A Laurens police officer was charged with attempting to shoplift a tree stand from a store in Spartanburg, SC.
Last week, former Union County Sheriff Howard Wells was sentenced to 90 days in jail followed by three years of supervised release (he pled guilty in federal court to lying to investigators), former Union County Supervisor Donnie Betenbaugh was sentenced to 18 months in prison followed by three years probation for extortion, and Willie Randall, Junior, the former county tax assessor was sentenced on conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamines to 4 years and 9 months in prison followed by four years of probation.
A Myrtle Beach police officer has been charged with DUI after crashing his car into a church in Conway. The officer has been suspended but not fired.
SLED is investigating allegations that a Darlington County Deputy used excessive force against a 15-year-old boy. The boys mother called 911 and asked for a deputy to come and talk with her son, about what happens when you have a bad attitude – the mother says that instead the officer came to her home and attacked and tased her son.
H/T Injustice Newsfeed
Monthly archives for September, 2010
S.C. police misconduct update
Defense lawyers misconduct
A New Jersey defense lawyer (and former cop and prosecutor) has been indicted for bribery and obstruction of justice:
Clifford J. Minor, a former Essex County prosecutor who failed in a bid this year to become mayor of Newark, was indicted today on charges of bribery and obstructing justice, authorities said. . .
Minor, a criminal defense lawyer who spent two years as chief law-enforcement officer for one of New Jersey’s most populated counties, is accused of paying a man to lie about owning a revolver so authorities would drop charges against a convicted felon charged with gun possession.
A lawyer in Minnesota who was caught using cocaine at the courthouse while in trial has been sentenced to two days in jail, a $2500.00 fine, 240 hours of probation, and 10 years of probation.
And a lawyer in North Dakota has been disbarred for asking a client to buy cocaine for him. The attorney has been suspended since the incident in 2009, and had previous disciplinary complaints for writing bad checks and overbilling clients.
H/T Law of Criminal Defense
The costs of incarceration
According to a NY Times article, judges in Missouri are now provided with information on the costs of incarcerating defendants – a web-based computer algorithm tells judges recommended sentences and what each sentence will cost the state:
The concept is simple: fill in an offender’s conviction code, criminal history and other background, and the program spits out a range of recommended sentences, new statistical information about the likelihood that Missouri criminals with similar profiles (and the sentences they received) might commit more crimes, and the various options’ price tags.
Judge Wolff said that some judges might never look at the price tags (though they are available to anyone, and some defense lawyers have begun mentioning them) and that judges ultimately did whatever they wished (within statutory limits) on sentences. Missouri’s sentencing commission makes recommendations only. And as Judge Wolff sees it, sentencing costs would never be a consideration in the most violent cases, just in circumstances where prison is not the only obvious answer.
On the one hand, critics say that judges should not consider costs when deciding a person’s punishment. On the other, particularly in today’s economic climate, requiring judges to consider the costs of a prison sentence could result in more judges considering alternative sentences for non-violent offenders.
For someone convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, for instance, a judge might now learn that a three-year prison sentence would run more than $37,000 while probation would cost $6,770. A second-degree robber, a judge could be told, would carry a price tag of less than $9,000 for five years of intensive probation, but more than $50,000 for a comparable prison sentence and parole afterward. The bill for a murderer’s 30-year prison term: $504,690.
Information overload
Written by It’s time to take stock of where my time goes – mostly to work, but like many I am in desperate need of time management skills. I love information – I read blogs, I absorb as much as I can on the ever changing landscape of the law in South Carolina and nationwide. I love philosophy, particularly as it relates to the practice of law. Just now, I took a few minutes to consider how I spend my time when I am not working on a particular case, and realized that I am on no less than six listserves, for various groups and topics, I currently have 67 blogs loaded on google reader, and I have a growing stack of books that I want to read but do not have time for.
This is not an “I will teach you how to manage your time” post. I’m in the thick of it and, as I often do, I am sorting out my thoughts as I put them on the screen. Sometimes that works, sometimes it does not, some such posts get published and some do not. I’m open to suggestions from anyone who has conquered this issue of time management.
One thing I am realizing is that I am suffering from information overload – I am addicted to gathering information, and it is not readily apparent how some of it will ever be helpful. I don’t want to miss anything, but I think that a good first step is for me to stop absorbing every email on every listserve, and maybe even leave a few of them. Also, I think it may help if I pick 20 blogs that I read the most often, and leave the rest alone for a while. (If you are curious, my “daily reads” are on the blogroll here and at South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog).
It may be a matter of prioritizing as well – the next step might be making a list of what I spend my time on each day, prioritizing those things, and either streamlining or deleting the bottom half of the list. When it comes down to it, if I ask myself would I rather be reading a book about the practice of law or reading a series of blog posts about the practice of law, there is no question that I would prefer to kick back with a book (with a few exceptions for the best of our blogger friends out there – I love the trial-practice related blogs).
In an article I found on the Global Research Development Center’s website (interesting in light of the organization’s mission which is to collect and disseminate information), William Van Winkle writes that the intake of information can be addictive, and says that “fighting data asphyxiation can be difficult but possible.”
Data is like food. A good meal is served in reasonably-sized portions from several food groups. It leaves you satisfied but not stuffed. Likewise with information, we’re best served when we can partake of reasonable, useful portions, exercising discretion in what data we digest and how often we seek it out.
Maintaining two blogs is time consuming as well – I applaud those bloggers who say that they can crank out a meaningful blog post in a matter of minutes, because I do not find it so easy. But, blogging will be found near the top of my priority list and I am not giving it up just yet.
Some potential fixes that I hope to put into practice include:
- checking Facebook and Twitter only once a day
- checking email only once a day, at the end of the day
- limiting the number of listserves that I am on
- limiting the number of blogs that I follow daily
- returning non-emergency phone calls at the end of the day
- taking a few moments for meditation at the beginning of the day (focus=productivity)
- making lists (I already do this) and sticking to them (not so much)
- delegate more tasks when it is possible
- set time limits for tasks when possible
- limit distractions – and at least sometimes, close the door to my office
The biggest hurdle for me at the moment is limiting the information overload. There are so many things that I want/need more time for that, in the big picture, are more important than listserve emails or today’s 100 blog posts – spending time with my son, for example. Or finishing the painting that is sitting on an easel in my living room. Taking a walk or working out each day. Putting that extra [x] number of hours into any given case that I am working on.
Time management is a misnomer – I can’t manage time (time does not exist, but there’s a conversation for another time and place). I can manage what I do with my time each day.
Cops as social workers
I was reading a Washington Post article about how the sex trade has changed in recent decades (H/T Balko), and came across this thought provoking passage:
When it comes to the sex trade, police officers have in recent decades functioned as quasi-social workers. Peter Moskos’s recent book, “Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Baltimore’s Eastern District,” describes how police often play counselor to sex workers, drug dealers and a host of other illegal moneymakers. In my own work, I’ve found that cops are among the most empathetic and helpful people sex workers meet on the job. They typically hand out phone numbers for shelters, soup kitchens and emergency rooms, and they tend to demonstrate a great deal of sympathy for women who have been abused. Instead of arresting an abused sex worker, police officers will usually let her off with a warning and turn their attention to finding her abusive client.
Now, police are not trained as social workers. But really – I have a degree in social work and it’s not all that. It consists of a lot of theory, some of which is useful and some of which is not, and most of which is academic. To be a social worker it does not take a degree, it takes compassion. If you care about people, you are in position to help people, and you take advantage of that position to help people, you are a social worker.
Many professions consist of wearing different hats at different times and depending on the situation at hand – lawyers, teachers, social workers, and others are at different times acting as advocate, teacher, broker, etc. Police fall into this category as well, or should.
It seems that, at least some of the time, police are in a unique situation to help people – like defense lawyers, they are constantly in contact with those who desperately need help, some of whom do not understand yet that they need help but many of whom do and are crying out for it. There are doubtless many opportunities that present themselves where a police officer can help a person, connect them with services or a “real” social worker, say a kind word or give encouragement at the right time – the sky is the limit and surely unanticipated possibilities present themselves on a regular basis.
It seems that this could be a large part of the job of the police officer. It is not something that I see in my practice, but that does not mean it does not happen – I write here quite often about police abuse and misconduct, and taken in isolation this paints quite a cynical picture of the role of the police in our society. We know, or hope, that these are the officers who are on the fringe, and the idea is to keep the public informed of what is actually happening and stop police abuse before it becomes common practice in any particular department.
I would like to hear any officers’ opinions about what they do, can do, have done, or feel that they should be doing other than making arrests. If you are out there and reading, I’d like to hear from you in the comments or by email, anonymously or not. Thanks.
That being said, I did a google search for “cops as social workers,” hoping to find some feel good stories or other thoughts on the matter, and instead the first page was filled with links to a news story on how cops in NYC beat up some social workers, dragging them by their hair from an apartment where they were supposed to be taking a child into emergency protective custody with protection from the police.
State v. Mattison – mere presence/knowledge/association
In State v. Mattison, decided by the S.C. Supreme Court August 9, 2010, the defendant was convicted in Greenville, S.C., of murder, assault and battery with intent to kill (ABWIK), and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. Although the trial judge instructed the jury that “mere presence” is insufficient to convict, he refused to charge the jury that “prior knowledge of the commission of a crime is insufficient to establish guilt” and that “mere association with a person who commits a crime is insufficient to establish guilt.”
The Court notes that both of the requested charges were proper statements of the law, that a request to charge a correct statement of the law on an issue raised by the indictment and the evidence presented at trial should not be refused, but that if the trial judge refuses to give a specific charge, there is no error if the charge actually given sufficiently covers the substance of the request.
So, although “the trial judge’s instruction: (1) was confusing and contradictory with respect to an explanation of “mere presence;” (2) omitted an express instruction regarding “mere association;” and (3) omitted an express instruction regarding ‘mere knowledge,’” the judge’s instructions sufficiently covered the requested charge in that “mere association” is covered by the “mere presence” charge, and “mere knowledge” is covered by the charge on criminal intent.
What I take from this case is that, although the Court affirmed the conviction, they also are saying that the trial court is required to give a jury instruction on “mere association” and “mere knowledge” when requested and the evidence supports it.
State v. Wilson – shall we submit the entire trial transcript in every appeal?
In State v. Wilson, filed August 11, 2010, the S.C. Court of Appeals held that, in a (Georgetown) trial for criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature (CDVHAN), it was harmless error to allow testimony of prior bad acts that had already been ruled inadmissible. The victim, who had been warned that the testimony was not admissible, blurted out that the defendant had grabbed her by her neck and bruised her in a prior incident. The Court holds that no prejudice was shown because:
although it would appear the trial transcript is in excess of four hundred pages, the record on appeal consists of only twenty-five pages, including (1) the in limine agreement to exclude prior bad act evidence, (2) the portion of the victim’s testimony preceding Wilson’s objection, (3) Wilson’s objection and the arguments regarding mistrial, and (4) the indictments. The record indicates nothing of whether additional witnesses testified or if other evidence, such as photographs, was admitted. Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that the admission of the testimony was error, we find no indication of prejudice in the record. See id. at 448, 639 S.E.2d at 164 (indicating prejudice must be based on review of the entire record).
If the state’s response is that there was no prejudice, how is it not the state’s responsibility to include the remainder of the transcript, or the portions they allege show that there was no prejudice, when the appellant has provided the testimony objected to and the grounds for the objection? The Record on Appeal submitted by the appellant did not show prejudice. Apparently the State did not feel that the remaining transcript was important enough for their designation on appeal. The only thing that I take from this opinion is that we now have to send to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court a Record on Appeal (a boatload of bound copies of the Record on Appeal, per the rules) that includes the entire transcript, even when it is 400 + pages.
Don’t have sex with the client’s wife, either
It’s generally accepted that lawyers are not to have sex with their clients – take not that this goes for the client’s wives as well. In an opinion filed today, the S.C. Supreme Court admonishes an anonymous member of the bar for sleeping with his client’s wife.
Michigan also disciplined an attorney today for sleeping with his client’s wife (in a divorce action, and when the client found out the attorney refused to refund his fee (he earned it, he says)).
H/T Legal Profession Blog.
Thanks, didn’t know I was a fashion blogger
Anyone else getting these? 30 seconds here and there are starting to add up. This is on a level with the optimization specialists who are lamenting that my blog shows up on page 10 in a google search for divorce lawyers in the Seattle area.
Hi,
I’ve also just launched a giveaway on my site and I was hoping perhaps you might consider very briefly mentioning it? I would very gladly send $80 via paypal for a brief mention. I’d also create an exclusive discount for your readers as well.. I was hoping to get support of fashion bloggers like yourself to help generate awareness of our brand. If this wasn’t something you were interested in perhaps I could send you a pair of boots to review? Hope to hear from you soon!
Hope I haven’t wasted your time..
Best Wishes,
Michael Hodge
State v. Brannon affirmed – resisting arrest charge first requires an arrest
In State v. Brannon, decided August 9, 2010, the S.C. Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals 2008 decision. Although the Supreme Court opinion says that they disagree with the Court of Appeals’ rationale, the result is the same – there must be a valid arrest before a person can be charged with resisting arrest.
Whether or not the officer had probable cause to arrest Brannon is irrelevant – probable cause is an objective standard and resisting arrest turns on whether there was a subjective intent to arrest (the Court means on the part of the officer – it seems to me that whether someone is resisting arrest would turn instead on the defendant’s subjective intent). Because 1) there was no evidence that the officers intended to arrest Brannon (in fact they testified that they intended to question him, not arrest him); and 2) there was no evidence that Brannon submitted to an arrest, the trial judge should have granted a directed verdict.
