Chicago Criminal Defense ~ Thomas C. Brandstrader 312.332.5297

Hafemeister on Restorative and Procedural Justice for Criminal Defendants with Mental Disorders

Thomas L. Hafemeister (University of Virginia School of Law, pictured), Sharon G. Garner, and Veronica E. Bath have posted Letting Justice Ring: Applying the Principles of Restorative and Procedural Justice to Better Respond to Criminal Offenders with a Mental Disorder (Buffalo Law Review, Vol. 60, No. 1) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
For almost as long as there has been a criminal justice system, society has struggled with how to respond to offenders with a mental disorder whose criminal behavior – largely through no fault of their own – has been shaped and driven by their mental disorder. Virtually everyone who works with this population, including criminal justice officials, believes that society’s current response is woefully inadequate. As prisons and jails have become the de facto mental health system, a costly and inappropriate approach, this concern has grown. Governmental entities, driven by fiscal crises, humanitarian concerns, and a recent Supreme Court ruling condemning the status quo, are in desperate need of alternative means to respond to this population. At the same time, there has been a general lack of thematic principles to guide the development of possible alternatives. The principles of restorative and procedural justice, however, can furnish valuable lenses for constructing such alternatives. Drawing on these principles and associated research, this Article proposes an approach providing a better response for all of the parties affected by these crimes, including the victims of these crimes as well as the offenders themselves.

“Judges cautioned against reliance on overstated ballistics testimony”

From Grits for Breakfast:
Recently, thanks to contributions from readers, Grits purchased a copy of the brand spanking new third edition of the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence” produced by the Federal Judicial Center and the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science – the first update of the manual in more than a decade . . . .
As with other comparative forensic techniques from fingerprints to bitemarks to microscopic hair examination, essentially, all ballistics experts are really saying is “After looking at them closely, I think these two things look alike.” It strikes this writer that it’s quite a big leap from “reasonable scientific certainty” to “more likely than not.” Basically it’s the leap from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to having “substantial doubt.” I wonder how many past convictions hinged on testimony where experts used phrases like “reasonable scientific certainty” or “to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world”? And I wonder how many times those experts were simply wrong?
October 20, 2011 | Permalink

Covey on the Defense of Temporary Insanity

Russell D. Covey (Georgia State University College of Law) has posted Temporary Insanity: The Strange Life and Times of the Perfect Defense (Boston University Law Review, Vol. 91, 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The temporary insanity defense has a prominent place in the mythology of criminal law. Because it seems to permit factually guilty defendants to escape both punishment and institutionalization, some imagine it as the “perfect defense.” In fact, the defense has been invoked in a dizzying variety of contexts and, at times, has proven highly successful. Successful or not, the temporary insanity defense has always been accompanied by a storm of controversy, in part because it is often most successful in cases where the defendant’s basic claim is that honor, revenge, or tragic circumstance – not mental illness in its more prosaic forms – compelled the criminal act. Given that the insanity defense is considered paradigmatic of excuse defenses, it is puzzling that temporary insanity also functions as a sort of justification defense.
This Article seeks to solve that puzzle by canvassing the colorful history and the conceptual function of the defense. Ultimately, it argues that temporary insanity should be viewed as an equitable doctrine that provides relief where the traditional legal rules exclude or are inadequate to the defendant’s particular circumstances. Because the temporary insanity defense permits juries to resolve difficult cases in a manner consistent with the deep purposes of the criminal law, it is misleading to conceptualize that defense as merely a nullification doctrine.
November 3, 2011 | Permalink

What Earth Will Look Like 100 Million Years from Now
Posted: 30 Sep 2011 05:01 AM PDT
This is what you’d call efficient. In two minutes, we watch our planet take form. 600 million years of geological history whizzes by in a snap. Then we see what the next 100 million years may have in store for us. If you don’t have the patience to watch 700 million years unfold in 180 seconds (seriously?), then we’ll give you this spoiler: Coastal real estate is not a long-term buy…

Find this video added to our collection of Great Science Videos.

What Earth Will Look Like 100 Million Years from Now is a post from: Open Culture. Visit us at openculture.com, or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Colbert on Prosecution Without Representation

Douglas Colbert (University of Maryland School of Law) has posted Prosecution Without Representation (Buffalo Law Review Vol. 59, p. 333, April 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Nearly 50 years after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright established indigent defendants’ constitutional right to counsel, poor people throughout the country still remain without a lawyer when first appearing before a judicial officer who determines pretrial liberty or bail. Absent counsel, low-income defendants unable to afford bail remain in jail for periods ranging from 3-70 days until assigned counsel appears in-court. Examining Walter Rothgery’s wrongful prosecution, the article includes a national survey that informs readers about the limited right to counsel at the initial appearance and the extent of delay in each of the 50 states. The article also analyzes the Justices’ response to the wrongfully accused and unrepresented Walter Rothgery, and provides insight into how the Court will likely decide the constitutional claim to counsel when it next faces the issue. It suggests that the amicus community’s participation will likely assume an important role in the Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling.

to me
FORT WORTH, Texas – When you’re trying to decide the guilt or innocence of someone on trial, it’s probably not a good idea to ‘friend’ that person on Facebook.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports 22-year-old Jonathan Hudson was removed from a jury last month after trying to add the defendant as a Facebook friend.
The civil trial was over a 2008 car wreck and proceeded with 11 jurors.
Hudson had received jury instructions specifically forbidding jurors from discussing the case on social networks. He pleaded guilty last week to four counts of contempt and will serve two days of community service.
(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

It becomes obvious that the members of the Supreme Court have never tried a criminal case and the one that is closest was a prosecutor…they completely miss the point of the eyewitness argument and their recent oral argument on the subject shows a real lack of sophistication on the matter….one need look only no farther than the number of eye witness identifications that were made in convictions that were subsequently overturned by DNA evidence…Humans are not video players …we should not treat them as such….
TCB