My directorial debut on the NYT

Very proud of this piece. It is the beginning of my work on the subject.

Hopefully this will let Lisa and I find the funding we need to build this into the full length doc we're hoping to do.
Check out the placement and let me know your thoughts...

My new Op-Ed in the NYT: Waiting and Waiting for Justice

The times just posted my new Op-Ed. It's about...justice.

Or more accurately injustice, and how we can make the endemic delay in the criminal justice system more tolerable....

My Father in the New Yorker...

The Financial Page this week starts:

"When we all finished filing our tax returns last week, there was a little something missing: two trillion dollars. That’s how much money Americans may have made in the past year that didn’t get reported to the I.R.S., according to a recent study by the economist Edgar Feige, who’s been investigating the so-called underground, or gray, economy for thirty-five years..."

Oregon Juror Jailed for Texting During Trial

Oops...

Bronx Defenders Opens Reception Center in Melrose

Terrific piece in the times on our expansion! Go BxD!

Lippman Lauds Bronx Group's Nonprofit Approach to Bail--Judge Fabrizio Smacked Down...

After four long years, the Chief Judge of NY State smacked down Judge Ralph Fabrizio and his decision on the Bronx Freedom Fund.

This should stand forever as his moment of shame and should (hopefully) forever preclude his advancement.  It is sad that it took us so long to overturn his vindictive decision.  Worse that so many poor people languished in jail, and took so many bad pleas because of his vindictiveness....

Here's the article.  There is particular satisfaction in the overt rebuke of Fabrizio's nasty and poorly reasoned attacks on us and our ethics.  Turns out the unethical ones are those more concerned with power than justice...

Read on...

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman (See Profile) last week praised as a way "to take the profit motive out of bond making" the program of a Bronx legal assistance organization that used charitable contributions to keep its indigent clients out of jail as they awaited trial.

Lippman's endorsement came as The Bronx Defenders prepared to resume operations of its Freedom Fund Project, which were halted more than three years ago by a Bronx judge but was resuscitated by legislation passed last year.

Lippman made bail reform a centerpiece of his state of his judiciary speech (NYLJ, Feb. 6). In a message that offered several proposals for reforming the system, he criticized bail bond businesses that he said saw little profit in providing small amounts of bail.

But he said the non-profit Freedom Fund had helped about 160 defendants win their release from 2007 to 2009 by posting $1,500 or less in bail, small amounts that were beyond the capacity of many indigent defendants to raise.

"The fund reports a 93 percent appearance rate for participating defendants," Lippmann said. "In the days ahead, we should be considering approaches like this in other parts of the state and with larger bail amounts."

Human Rights Watch reported in 2010 that 87 percent of the defendants with bail of $1,000 or less were incarcerated in New York City because they could not afford bail. The defendants spent an average of almost 16 days in jail awaiting trial.

According to the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, which reviews the suitability of bail in most criminal cases, only 44 percent of defendants can meet bail at the amount it is set.

The Freedom Fund was established because lawyers of The Bronx Defenders were frustrated by that situation.

"The central mission is to try to post bail for those least able to afford it and most likely to return to court," said Robin Steinberg, executive director of the Bronx Defenders. "I was both surprised and delighted and I really appreciate the fact that the chief judge recognizes that there are certain kinds of reforms in bail and one is a freedom fund."

The fund was launched in 2007 by Steinberg and her husband David Feige, a founding member of the Bronx Defenders, as a pilot project funded mainly by the Joseph and Claire Flom Foundation and the Charles Lawrence Keith and Clara Miller Foundation...

It posted bail of up to $1,500 for defendants charged with misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies who were considered to have a low risk of fleeing while their cases were pending. The project worked as a revolving fund where bail posted by the project was returned to cover other defendants' bail as people reappeared in court to have their cases decided.

Steinberg said the high percentage of people who returned to court to face adjudication of their cases showed what she said was an "enormous amount of adherence to authority" of the court.

However, in 2009, acting Bronx Supreme Court Justice Ralph Fabrizio (See Profile)effectively halted the activities of the fund. He decided in People v. Miranda, 24 Misc. 3d 1223(A), that it had not registered in a timely fashion with the state attorney general as a charitable group nor obtained a state license to operate as a "bail bond business" as required under state Insurance Law.

He ruled that the Freedom Fund Project had essentially been operating as an uninsured bail bond business.

Governor Andrew Cuomo breathed new life into the freedom fund concept when he signed A10640/S7752 into law last year, permitting the creation of not-for-profit bail organizations under state Insurance Law §6805 that are authorized to post up to $2,000 for the bail of poor defendants charged with misdemeanors (NYLJ, July 19, 2012).

The measure added oversight responsibilities of the charitable bail groups to the state Department of Financial Services after Cuomo vetoed a similar bill in 2011, complaining that it had failed to provide proper state regulatory monitoring of the organizations.

The new law restricts a charitable bail fund's activities to one county, or up to five contiguous counties if the groups are to operate in New York City.

Steinberg said the Bronx fund is gearing up to begin providing bail money again for indigent defendants once the state completes promulgating rules under the 2012 law. She said the group will probably raise its ceiling for bail to the $2,000 permitted by the statute.

Steinberg said she hopes the resuscitation of the project, plus its mention in Lippman's State of the Judiciary address, will prompt renewed interest in the concept.

"I think the city of New York could set up a bail fund," Steinberg said. "Anybody could do it: public defenders, law schools, law school clinics. There are all sorts of possibilities."

So far, Steinberg said she knew of no other charitable organization that plans to offer bail.

Marvin Ray Raskin, the cochairman of the criminal section of the Bronx Bar Association, said, "To an indigent person, $500 bail might be the equivalent of $5 million bail to an affluent person. In either case, it's a difficult if not impossible sum to meet."

David Jakab, operator of the Manhattan-based David Jakab Bail Bonds, said it is "definitely not true" that bail bondsmen will not write bail for less than $1,000.

"I service bonds starting at $500 and will do $500, $750, $1,000, whatever," Jakab said. "I have no problem doing that because it builds my client base. I do them all the time."

Fabrizio's decision in Miranda also alluded to ethical concerns raised by prosecutors about the The Bronx Defenders' participation in the Freedom Fund.

The judge noted that the American Bar Association, in ABA Formal Opinion 04-432 from 2004, discourages defense lawyers from posting bond for clients except in "rare circumstances" and where there is no possibility that attorneys would profit by their actions.

Fabrizio also said that the New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics advised in NY Eth Op 647, 1993 WL 560287, that an attorney cannot act as a paid bail bond agent for his own clients. But, Fabrizio added, the same opinion said an attorney can be a paid bail bondsman for a non-client. The Freedom Fund only offered bail to clients.

Lippman said in an interview after his speech that he was not troubled by ethical concerns.

"I don't see any inherent conflict," Lippman told reporters. "They are using grant money. Do I think it's more or less ethical than having them go pay money to a bail bondsman to get out, money that [defendants] don't have and that if they can scrape up the money, that's how they get out? If I look at the ethics or what's right and just, this [charitable bond] scenario makes a lot more sense."

Ex-DA Denies Misconduct in Wrongful Conviction

So it's nice to see that every once and again a DA is asked to face the terrible consequences of withholding Brady material--in this case 25 years in prison for an innocent guy.  But something really struck me about what happened down in texas...

Here's the account from the Times:

"GEOGRETOWN, Texas (AP) — A former Texas district attorney is choking back tears as he recalls a prosecution that wrongfully sent a Texas man to prison for 25 years.  Ken Anderson calls the case of Michael Morton his "worst nightmare."  Morton was convicted in the slaying of his wife Christine in 1987 but exonerated in 2011 following new DNA tests.  Anderson is now a judge in Georgetown near Austin. He is accused of withholding evidence indicating Morton's innocence during the original trial. A special court of inquiry on the matter is in its fifth day Friday.

Anderson says he did nothing wrong. He says the office he "ran was professional, it was competent."  Then, his voice cracking, Anderson added, "We got it right as much as we humanly could."

So his position is:  I did nothing wrong because I tried?  This despite the evidence that he deliberately withheld evidence.  And this guy is a judge.  Presumably one of those judges, whom, like all the other's I've appeared before, nails guys at sentencing for "failing to show remorse or "accept responsibility."   You know those guys right?  The judges who, no matter how much your client cries, or apologizes, is never satisfied, and smugly dismisses it as either insincere or insufficient?

Seems like if this guy had half a ball, he'd stand up, say "I screwed up.  I deserve to be punished, and I'd like do anything I can to make it right."  Instead, and undoubtably with no sense of the irony involved, this guy is doing precisely what I imagine he's been decrying from the bench all this time.

I wonder if it'll give him some sense of humility or compassion for the frailty of the human condition.

Wouldn't it be pretty to think so?

New York's Chief Judge Agrees: Bail is Busted

Nice nod from the Village Voice

Judge Lippman's State of the Judiciary Address...

Really proud of this.

Today, the chief judge of the highest court in the state talked about the work we've been doing over the past few years......

This, from his state of the court's address.

"At the same time, we should also be testing whether we can take the profit motive out of bond making. State legislation passed last year allows not-for-profit organizations to act as bail bond agents, provided they are licensed by the State Insurance Department. This legislation was prompted by the work of The Bronx Defenders, an institutional defender office, that created a special fund to help low-income offenders post minor bail amounts. The fund reports a 93 percent appearance rate for participating defen- dants. In the days ahead, we should be considering approaches like this in other parts of the state and with larger bail amounts."


 It took me three long years to get the law changed, and this is the first inkling I've gotten that the ripple effects we've been hoping for may actually appear...

Sweet.

Occupy Offshoot Aims to Erase People’s Debts

I love this idea!!

Election Prediction...

Election will be called for Obama at 10:17 PM EST.
Eventual Electoral Vote Total: Obama 332, Romney 206

Post your guesses in the comments below:  Prizes for closest to time announced + closest to electoral vote totals.

The truth about kleptocrats...

So here's that non-partisan economic analysis of the Bush tax cuts--the one that Republicans had withdrawn from the Library of Congress because they didn't like its conclusions...

(No really.  Check out this article on it...)

Here is what the report was addressing:

 "Advocates of lower tax rates argue that reduced rates would increase economic growth, increase saving and investment, and boost productivity (increase the economic pie). Proponents of higher tax rates argue that higher tax revenues are necessary for debt reduction, that tax rates on the rich are too low (i.e., they violate the Buffett rule), and that higher tax rates on the rich would moderate increasing income inequality (change how the economic pie is distributed). This report attempts to clarify whether or not there is an association between the tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and economic growth."


And here's the conclusion:

"There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution."

Clear enough?  Lower taxes for the rich, do nothing for anyone except the rich.  It makes them richer.

Here's the full report:

Here Comes The Flood...

Director of anti-Obama film, resigns... Di-Screws up...

"“I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced,”

OOPS!!!

The deep irony of the L'affaire D'Souza is that as it turns out, when it comes to his personal morality, he is a liberal.

To most progressives, his claim (If true) that he'd been separated for two years, prior to engaging in this new relationship would seem perfectly plausible.

It is only in the repressive world evangelicalism, that this distinction has no bearing.

But just as troubling is the obvious mendacity of his claim that he had no idea "being engaged prior to being divorced' was a problem in his circles.

Certainly his decision to file for divorce the day he was contacted by a reported would seem to be evidence of what we, in legal circles call "a guilty mind..."

Another pious republican hoisted on his own...well, you know...

BIDEN 2012!!!

FUCK YEAH!!

Making Bail Better...

Here's a link to a fine (and flattering) piece in the Village Voice that ran today:
Making Bail Better - Page 1 - News - New York - Village Voice

It's about our efforts to get our Charitable Bail Bill passed and signed.

Now all we need is some money to hire an administrator to get the Bronx Freedom Fund rolling again...

A must watch: Three Strikes of Injustice

Three Strikes of Injustice

A little radio interview on The Takeaway

Trial by Plea Bargain - The Takeaway

The Price to Call Home...

Here's another great advocacy piece from  The Prison Policy Initiative  ...The Price to Call Home 

New Gridiron Hero--Chris Kluwe

Okay, one of the more hilarious and incisive letters on the subject of gay marriage.
This from Chris Kluwe--punter for the Vikings:

And yes, it just begs to be re-published in it's entirety...

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee." This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe's response to Burns.

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.

Jet Skier Breaches $100 Million Security System at JFK

I love this:

Media reports said Casillo had been stranded in the waters of Jamaica Bay after he was separated from a group of friends and his jet ski failed him. He swam several miles to the airport, located in Jamaica Bay in New York City's borough of Queens, the New York Post reported.

Casillo, who the agency said was charged with criminal trespass, would have walked past motion sensors and closed-circuit cameras that make up the airport's state-of-the art, Perimeter Intrusion Detection System. The system is valued at about $100 million, according to the Port Authority.

He entered one of the airport terminals where an airport worker alerted authorities.

OUR BAIL BILL PASSES!!

Finally, after almost three years of work, the New York State Legislature has passed our bill allowing charitable bail funds.  This is a big step toward alleviating one of the more tragic consequences of poverty in the criminal justice system--being forced to plead guilty because you can't afford bail.

Yay us.

As the WSJ reports:  "According to the lawmakers, their bill was based on a pilot project where the Bronx Freedom Fund was established and posted similar bails for three years. The result was 95 percent returned for every court date and half the cases were dismissed or otherwise resulted in no convictions."


And yes, I remain (proudly) on the board of The Bronx Freedom Fund.

Thanks to Phil Boyle, and Sen. Rivera who have been our champions on this.

Here's a link to the WSJ piece...

The more things change the more they stay the same...

I was just realizing it's been almost exactly 10 years since I wrote this piece for the NYT, and here we are again, 10 years later, with California on the cusp of a big push to substitute passive death for active death. Meanwhile, three strikes, endemic overcrowding,Draconian sentencing policies and racist enforcement practices remain rampant. Change takes time, of course, but it's a touch depressing how much...

FATAL FLAWS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (From May of 2002) Last week an Illinois state commission charged with examining the fairness of the death penalty released its findings. The commission, composed of 14 prominent citizens -- including nine present or former prosecutors -- recommended more than 80 changes designed to ensure that the death penalty is administered in a just fashion. A slight majority of the commission also declared themselves in favor of abolishing the death penalty entirely. These recommendations say a lot about the criminal justice system -- the whole system, not just capital punishment. The death penalty has always galvanized public sentiment. And just as horrific crimes have brought cries for justice through death, so the exoneration of death row inmates has become a rallying point for opponents of capital punishment. But from inside the criminal justice system, the whole debate about the death penalty can sometimes seem like a distraction. The reality is that for every person on death row, there are many more who will die before completing their sentences. They will die alone in their cells or in the prison yard. They will die from jailhouse violence or natural causes hastened by stressful conditions and substandard medical care. The main causes of these virtual death sentences are three-strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentencing. Because of them, more and more people receive prison terms of 20 or 30 years or life with no chance of parole. In California, there are inmates serving life sentences for petty theft, receiving stolen property or possession of marijuana for sale. All over this country governments are spending more and more money on aging inmates -- creating entire geriatric wards for prisoners no longer able to walk or talk, let alone maim or kill. Long sentences are not rare. The next case I am likely to take to trial carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years to life. Why? Because my client is charged with possessing more than four ounces of cocaine. Just about every public defender I know has a horror story about a client who was the victim of a long mandatory sentence. Almost no one else remembers these prisoners. They do not face the needle or the electric chair, so there is no debate about them. Because of the complexity and the potential punishment, defendants in death penalty cases are in some jurisdictions afforded better than average lawyers and greater than average resources. Many appellate courts look more closely at a case when the defendant has been sentenced to die. And yet we still make mistakes -- not a few, but many. In Illinois, there were more innocent death row inmates exonerated than guilty ones put to death. There is no reason to think the error rate is any lower in cases that receive less scrutiny. For all its thoughtful recommendations and groundbreaking work, the Illinois commission runs the risk of focusing too much attention on a small number of cases while ignoring the same problems in the broader criminal justice system. Mandatory sentencing and the continued politicization of criminal-justice issues make it ever harder for defendants, especially poor ones, to get a fair shake. And as we continue to lock people up longer, faster and with fewer safeguards, we run an ever greater risk that justice is routinely not being served.

Bail is Busted: How Jail Really Works

A piece about bail that is very much worth a read.

Did the cops plant the drugs?

Interesting video in which the cops seem to plant drugs on a guy...

C.O.P.S The Real version...

Avoid Chase Credit Cards!

Astonishing as it may seem according to a TECHNICAL SUPPORT SUPERVISOR there is NO WAY to download a year's worth of credit card activity on a Chase-issued card. They only make 90 days worth of statements available.

HOW FREAKING STUPID IS THAT?

Makes them useless at tax time and useless for any accounting purposes.

Nasty Georgia Judge Accused of Misconduct Will FINALLY Resign...

The Honorable Amanda Mc. Nasty Williams

Judge Amanda F. Williams was so nasty she once jailed a defendant for using the words baby momma, oh yeah she also detained offenders “indefinitely” without access to lawyers, Well now she's OUTTA HERE...

According to the commission’s 14-count list of charges against her, she sentenced drug-court defendants to “indefinite” detention “until further order of the court.” In one case, she ordered that a defendant be denied any communication.

“Nobody! Total restriction!” she ordered, according to the complaint. “No mail, no phone calls, no visitors.” The complaint says the defendant, who had a history of mental illness, spent 73 days in solitary confinement and tried to kill herself while in jail.

Prosecutor fighting charge of rape - SFGate

How much do you love a prosecutor who allegedly rapes a woman while waiting for a jury in a molestation case? Seriously!

This from California:

As Michael Gressett waited for a jury verdict in a molestation trial, the Contra Costa County sex crimes prosecutor had what he called a "nooner," bringing a fellow prosecutor to his Martinez home for intercourse.

What happened next, on May 8, 2008, is the subject of an explosive rape case brought by the state attorney general. It involves a gun and an ice pick, but rests on a simple question that Gressett often asks juries to decide: Was the sex consensual or forced?

Firm stuff...

This from MIPCOM 2011:
The head of the Moralto crime family is dead, 10 years have passed since the denoument of The Firm, and Mitchell McDeere and his family have spent it in the wilderness of the witness protection program. Now they want to rejoin the real world.