Friday, July 25. 2008
Why treat prosecutors for happy hour? Posted by Jon Katz
in Criminal Defense at
00:00
Comments (2) Trackbacks (0) Why treat prosecutors for happy hour?
Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)
When I joined the Maryland Public Defender's Office from a law firm serving financial institutions and transportation companies, something seemed very wrong: Conviviality was the game of the day in this particular county between a slew of prosecutors, criminal defense lawyers, and cops. It was similar to the conviviality that did not concern me so much, which was among courthouse personnel and many judges together with the lawyers making appearances there; that spilled into the conviviality among prosecutors, cops and criminal defense lawyers.
Who was missing from all this conviviality? My clients -- my clients whom too many prosecutors and cops and some judges and even some criminal defense lawyers would degrade, dehumanize, and disrespect. Most cops and prosecutors I speak with -- and probably plenty of judges -- assume my clients are guilty, and not just in the lawbook sense of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but guilty, period. I hear the frequent laughter of cops, prosecutors, and sometimes other criminal defense lawyers with defendants at the butt of their jokes. A late judge at a guilty plea settlement conference in his chambers (the conferences were only among lawyers; my client was waiting in the hallway) had a good belly laugh reading the criminal statement of charges: "Ha! He carried the crack rock under his tongue." The judge was talking as if my client was guilty as charged -- no chance the cops had it wrong -- and was having a good laugh at my client's expense; I concede that the judge then proceeded, as expected, to say there would need to be a sentence at the lower end of the sentencing guidelines if there were a guilty plea; under the circumstances, it would have been a fair sentence, all things considered.
On another day in court, after my client's case was finished, a courthouse deputy sheriff and the opposing prosecutor had a good chuckle as my bewildered client got handcuffed by the deputy for an alleged open warrant. Praised be the courtroom bailiff who later talked to me about it and decried turning such an arrest into an eagerly-awaited joke.
A fellow public defender lawyer once tried giving me an example of having good relations with prosecutors -- "Jon, we have to deal with these prosecutors every day" -- by praising a more experienced public defender lawyer for laughing with one of the most heartless-acting prosecutors about the bizarre happenings allegedly involved in a theft case that had just finished.
Suffice it to say, my bright-eyed and bushy-tailed idealism of joining the public defender's office did not have such conviviality in mind. I probably was better suited to join the District of Columbia Public Defender Service, where I doubt much if any joint lunchgoing happens between public defender lawyers and prosecutors, who are employed by the same federal Justice Department that has given us such "leaders" as Alberto Gonzales, Ed Meese, and George Mitchell.
Should I exclude prosecutors and cops from my time at lunch and after-hours activities? The prospect is tempting. How would I feel about a client seeing me breaking bread with the same prosecutor or cop who is trying to get my client locked up, particularly in instances where I feel the prosecution is based on false evidence, an effort to obtain a disproportionately severe sentence, or a law that I feel should be stricken or heavily decriminalized in the first place (e.g., I want the legalization of marijuana, prostitution, gambling, criminal libel and obscenity and the heavy decriminalization of all other drugs)?
It is essential to treat others on their own merits and not to stereotype. Certainly many of my favorite criminal defense lawyers have prosecuted, including Gerry Spence and my supreme trial law guru Steve Rench, who included prosecution work while in law school, who said he had no problem prosecuting unless it was the death penalty, and who once told me he prefers representing the underdog (see the name of this blog). Okay, then, how about if I tell prosecutors and cops who seem otherwise likeable and honorable that we can revisit whether to break bread together once they are no longer cops or prosecutors?
Last week, an email went out to local criminal defense lawyers inviting them to a happy hour this evening (when I will be indisposed no matter what, although I would make an exception for a happy hour tonight with the likes of SunWolf / La Loba, Tony Serra, or Charles Abourezk) with the county's prosecutors, and soliciting donations up to $50 each to cover the prosecutors' drinks, pointing out that the newer prosecutors do not earn much (well, at least in their suffering economically, they might be able to transfer that to understanding the suffering of my clients). My first reaction, and continued reaction (which I have only shared thus far with another local lawyer, but now this blog entry shares it with everyone), was that it sounds fishy to be buying anything for prosecutors. First, paying for prosecutors' happy hour refreshments creates dissonance in me as to my clients' role in the mix. That is right, no clients were invited to the happy hour. If I went to this shindig at a tapas restaurant two blocks from the county courthouse, I would think it a good idea to invite some of my clients, to humanize them (while assuring they do not discuss their cases), to respect them rather than having a private get-together with the opponents of them and me, and to highlight that the business as usual of marginalizing criminal defendants is unacceptable. Second. I wonder how such purchases jibe with bribery statutes, even though I do not believe such behavior should be made criminal.
On the other hand, maybe this gratis happy hour for prosecutors is a good idea, at least if all the defense lawyers drink near beer, virgin sangria and soda pop, while the opposition drinks scotch and Sams, ready to be arrested and prosecuted for drunk driving by the cops, who have a station just one quarter of a mile away. Do any fair trade laws or legal ethics rules prevent me from billing a premium for doing such defense, as a sort of fine for all the misery most prosecutors cause my clients? I doubt an arrested prosecutor would come to me instead of going to a former prosecutor. Then again, I have had ex-cops, military folks, political conservatives and other so-called law-and-order people hire me.
Certainly, it is important to know the opposition. However, I have no interest in paying for the opposition's drinks while getting to know the opposition, and I do my best to keep in mind how my clients would react to seeing me with a group of criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors at a happy hour. I would much more enjoy going hiking or canoeing with a client. Jon Katz. Thursday, July 24. 2008
Joining forces with like-minded ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Criminal Defense at
00:00
Comments (2) Trackbacks (0) Joining forces with like-minded lawyers - Never being alone.
When I joined the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers seventeen years ago, I was drawn to the group's slogan "Never Be Alone." On the one hand, the phrase sounded abstract, having joined the NACDL when I was still at a 25-lawyer Washington, D.C., law firm primarily representing financial institutions and transportation companies. On the other hand, before being hired by the Maryland Public Defender's Office made it unnecessary, I was making alternative plans to hang my own shingle and to include court-appointed criminal cases; the prospect of opening a solo law firm just two years out of law school did raise the real specter of being alone in my own office.
In any event, one of the most important things a lawyer can do is to find allies and kindred spirits, not only because there is strength in numbers, but also because the successful practice of law demands exchanging ideas, brainstorming, and moral and time support with kindred lawyers. Of course, when a lawyer asks help or advice from another lawyer, the asking lawyer is showing his or her vulnerability, whether it be that the lawyer has not figured out the question on his or her own, that s/he does not have other established people to turn to first, and/or that the lawyer has dragged his or her feet longer than prudent for seeking the help. However, dust swept under the carpet is still there, and all lawyers have dust to resolve of one type or another.
As I embark with the opening of my solo law firm Jon Katz, P.C. this coming Monday (when my new office buildout, wiring and moving will be complete -- my new Silver Spring address will be posted on this blog) I think again of the benefit of not feeling alone by putting aside ego and any trepidation to call upon kindred lawyers and non-lawyers for help and brainstorming, and to give the same in return much more than has been received. I am blessed to be in a new building with another lawyer I already collaborate with, and numerous others I look forward to interacting with.
One of the biggest challenges facing a solo and small firm practitioner is the oppression of seemingly inflexible court calendaring in some places. Unless a lawyer only works in the same courthouse at all times, tensions are bound to happen when Judge A sees that the lawyer has frequently conflicting court dates in numerous other courts. In a big law firm, the problem often is resolved by having a substitute lawyer at the very least take over in seeking a postponement if the primary lawyer is booked up to even do that. Fortunately, I have always been able to resolve court calendaring conflicts, but sometimes through great toil (e.g., when a weaselly opposing counsel set a motions hearing in a court that does not require clearing the date with opposing counsel, and that has no automatic mechanism to request a date change in writing) and at the expense of paying another lawyer to appear for me at a procedural court date that becomes unchangeable. One reason I have been able to resolve calendaring conflicts is to avoid taking new clients who are so close to their trial date that the court may very well deny a continuance (or to have a colleague at the ready, with my client's consent, to take the case or to co-counsel, in the event I cannot get a continuance - but that only works for misdemeanors that can be handled without needing to meet a slew of procedural and case-specific deadlines), and to be straightforward with the client not only about the chances that I can change the court date, but also about any disadvantage for doing so (e.g., whether it is better to keep the current court date to preserve speedy trial rights and evidentiary issues, and whether rescheduling a preliminary hearing will make it more likely that an indictment will take place first and preclude the preliminary hearing).
The most important time for lawyers to come to each others' support -- even when the lawyer in need is someone the other lawyer ordinarily might avoid even having lunch with -- is when judges and opponents intentionally or unintentionally come down hard and unfairly on the lawyer for doing nothing other than following the lawyer's ethical obligation to zealously represent the client. The stories are many about judges who show upset that a "clearly guilty" defendant gets acquitted by a jury, who get irritated at lawyers who do not simply "move along" the docket, who are intolerant of any challenges to the judge's authority (e.g.. in response to a lawyer telling a defendant at sentencing not to answer a particular question from the judge), and the list goes on.
Judges and opponents need to know that when they unfairly shoot towards a lawyer, the lawyer has a strike force of lawyers ready to defend the lawyer in such ways as entering an appearance to defend or to co-counsel with the lawyer and packing the courtroom when the judge sets a contempt or other hearing questioning the lawyer's reasonable and ethically zealous actions. Fortunately, such groups as the NACDL have lawyer strike forces that include some of the best of the best criminal defense lawyers giving their time and advocacy for free for what would otherwise amount to big dollar figures. Of course, lawyers receiving such task force benefits should give back many times over, through similar help to other lawyers, and, when the lawyer has it, extra donations to the lawyers' group and some nice favors and gifts to the representing lawyer.
As the years pass, I have a stronger network of allied and kindred lawyers and non-lawyers whom I can call and who will make the time for me even if that means their getting to sleep later that night. This sharing is particularly true among graduates of the Trial Lawyers College, even for those who never have met one another before; the connection perhaps is fostered all the more by having shared several weeks miles from the nearest paved road, showering and brushing teeth among the stink of the adjacent toilet stalls, and, most importantly, having committed to clearing court calendars for so many weeks to become better lawyers and better people. It is probably a similar connection to what frat members feel, aside from episodes of drinking mass quantities of beer and being obnoxious, although many drink beer and act like hyenas at the Trial Lawyers College, too, at least after hours. When a Trial Lawyers College grad calls me or I call them, invariably it is an instant human-to-human conversation, skipping the lawyer-to-lawyer-ese.
Lawyers: Before you end today, won't you reach out to at least one other kindred lawyer, whether it be as small a gesture as wishing him or her well on tomorrow's trial, or offering empathy over a trial loss or brainstorming or other support on a pending matter. Jon Katz. Wednesday, July 23. 2008
Mukasey and racial profiling. Posted by Jon Katz
in Constitutional Law at
00:00
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Mukasey and racial profiling.
Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)
The websites at such kindred organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Alliance for Justice decry the United States Justice Department's purportedly proposed inclusion of racial considerations in investigating terrorism. However, other than news articles briefly addressing the matter, I have not found any details from Justice Department sources, including the department's website.
An article in the July 9, 2008, USA Today reports the following:
"[Attorney General] Mukasey said he is considering changes so FBI agents have 'clear and consistent rules for conducting investigations while maintaining vital civil liberties protections.' The proposed policy, first reported last week by the Associated Press, would let FBI agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious. Factors that could make a U.S. citizen or resident the subject of an investigation include travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training and someone's race or ethnicity.
"When questioned about whether or not someone's ethnicity is enough to put them under investigation, Mukasey gave an emphatic 'no.' However, when asked whether a U.S. citizen from Pakistan, whom [sic] makes frequent trips to Pakistan, would be subject to investigation, Mukasey said he was not prepared to discuss hypothetical questions. He added that 'this is part of an ongoing process.' Mukasey's tone often remained careful and sometimes ambivalent during his exchanges.
"When pressed by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., on whether people might be investigated based on their ethnicity, travel habits and whether they own a gun, Mukasey declined to answer directly. He said, 'the nature of evidence gathered and the way that it's gathered will be subject to review.'"
The following excerpt comes from a July 2, 2008, Associated Press article on the matter:
"The Justice Department is considering letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups. Law enforcement officials say the proposed policy would help them do exactly what Congress demanded after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: root out terrorists before they strike. Although President Bush has disavowed targeting suspects based on their race or ethnicity, the new rules would allow the FBI to consider those factors among a number of traits that could trigger a national security investigation.
"Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious. Among the factors that could make someone subject of an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person's race or ethnicity."
Fox News's July 2 article claims to add additional information to the foregoing Associated Press article.
Do any of you know where I can find primary sources on such "changes" being considered by Attorney General Mukasey? I have not found such information through searching the Federal Register. Nor have I found such information through a general Google search, nor through a search of the Justice Department's website, nor through reviewing some of the webpages discussing the issue. Jon Katz. Tuesday, July 22. 2008
Of FCCENSORSHIP, Bono, and Janet ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Constitutional Law at
00:00
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Of FCCENSORSHIP, Bono, and Janet Jackson's bared right breast.
Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)
Welcome to the land of bland: A land where television is dumbed down to a child's level, where broadcasters furiously self-censor, and where most Americans keep returning for more and more and more. It is the land of broadcast television, where so-called oral and visual "indecency" is forbidden from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
When courts first permitted indecency bans on broadcast (versus cable and Internet) television and radio, the theory behind it apparently included reliance on the limited number of available space for broadcasters, who are required by law to include service to the so-called "public interest." That basis by now is archaic, when cable stations and satellite radio abound.
Americans ultimately have themselves to thank for this state of affairs, not only because the anti-censors have not spoken out enough and effectively enough (do too many of them fear television content that they do not like if they speak up against broadcast censorship?), but also because tens of millions of viewers daily return for more of such broadcast pablum.
Enter Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake at the 2004 Super Bowl, challenging the land of bland during the halftime show, with Timberlake singing "gonna have you naked by the end of this song,” while, unscripted, ripping off part of Jackson's costume to reveal her right breast for nine-sixteenths of a second until CBS cut the image. Were this Europe, the reaction would have been no different than to the thousands of barebreasted women sunning themselves on beaches in France and Italy, exercising their right not to cover up any more than men are required.
This not being Europe, though, countless Americans fear bared breasts. Fortunately, women have won the right to breastfeed in public in most places, and in some locales publicly bared breasts are permitted, whether by legislative intention or oversight. For whatever reason, bared breasts are more eroticized overall in American society than the many places where it is commonplace for women to be barebreasted all the time in public, causing little more notice than if they were covered up.
No sooner does Janet Jackson get removed from the halftime stage than the complaints of her bared breast come flooding into the Federal Communications Commission. Ultimately, finding Ms. Jackson's and Mr. Timberlake's bared breastcapade "indecent" -- how on earth can a bared breast be indecent? -- the FCC hit CBS with a $550,000 fine, which I decried in an interview with the USA Today McNewspaper. Mind you, a $550,000 fine in and of itself is a drop in the bucket for CBS, which likely paid its lawyers more than that amount to litigate against the fine through the appellate level, but repeated indecency fines can add up and can lead to more self censorship.
CBS's investment in legal counsel paid off yesterday with the Third Circuit's reversal of the entire half million dollar fine. CBS v. FCC, __ F.3d _ (3rd Cir. July 21, 2008). Kudos to fellow First Amendment Lawyers Association member Robert Corn-Revere for successfully arguing the case. Shame on the FCC for having levied any fine, and shame even more for having imposed such a huge fine as to chill smaller broadcasters with much shallower financial pockets.
The Third Circuit -- in a 2-1 opinion, with the concurring-dissenting judge as spiritedly in agreement with the result and with most of the reasoning therefor -- reversed the FCC's fine on CBS on two grounds. First, the court found that the FCC's fine amounted to an arbitrary and capricious retroactive application of a new policy banning fleeting indecent images (the change was spurred by Golden Globe award-accepting Bono's exclamation that “this is really, really f--king brilliant”, where if I were the awardee, I might have opted for the pithier "F--king 'A'") where previously the FCC had at least allowed indecent fleeting words. Second, the Third Circuit found that CBS -- which the FCC conceded had no foreknowledge of the then-impending bared breast -- was not liable (with willfulness being the liability standard) for the breast-baring actions of independent contractors Jackson and Timberlake no matter how one slices it, whether, for instance, on a theory of employer liability or vicarious liability, or on a theory of a responsibility to have time-delay technology for presenting visual images, which technology CBS only had implemented for sound transmissions.
As the Third Circuit recounts, in the FCC's upholding the half million dollar fine on CBS, "the FCC relied on a contextual analysis to find the broadcast of Jackson’s exposed breast was: (1) graphic and explicit, (2) shocking and pandering, and (3) fleeting... It further concluded that the brevity of the image was outweighed by the other two factors... The standard applied by the Commission is derived from its 2001 policy statement setting forth a two-part test for indecency: (1) 'the material must describe or depict sexual or excretory organs or activities,' and (2) it must be 'patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.'” CBS v. FCC, __ F.3d _.
CBS v. FCC, explains that, unlike obscenity, indecency still gets First Amendment protection on the airwaves, which led the FCC to "confine[] enforcement of indecency restrictions to the hours 'between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.' See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999," which are the hours when youngsters are more likely to be watching and listening to broadcasts. CBS v. FCC, __ F.3d _.
Will the FCC seek review of this case in the Supreme Court? The agency probably has at least four good friends if cert. is granted: certainly Justices Thomas and Scalia, and likely Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. From considering his concurrence in Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 535 U.S. 425 (2002) -- which left open the door to challenging the multitude of tired and disingenuous negative secondary effects "studies" that are repeatedly recycled by municipalities to try to zone out adult video stores and strip clubs --
In the meantime, congratulations CBS, Janet Jackson, and Justin Timberlake, and thanks to the Third Circuit for keeping life breathed into the First Amendment. Jon Katz.
ADDENDUM: See my First Amendment defense brother Marc Randazza's views on this CBS v. FCC case. Monday, July 21. 2008
DNA for exonerating and for convicting. Posted by Jon Katz
in Criminal Defense at
00:00
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) DNA for exonerating and for convicting.
Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)
A late, ordinarily likeable, often entertaining, and sometimes frustrating (for his overly informal manner that too often overlooked the law and procedural rules) judge was said to have pontificated about speed radar something along the lines that "Radar is spelled the same backwards and forwards, and helped keep me and my fellow sailors safe in wartime." In other words, Radar evidence was impenetrable to attack for him, even though radar and laser evidence is ripe for attack on such grounds as whether the radar and laser were correctly calibrated, whether such calibration evidence exists to come in under evidentiary rules, and whether the equipment was correctly handled by a certified operator.
Similarly, fingerprint technology is far from infallible.
Finally, DNA testing is far from infallible, as well, as highlighted in this July 19 Los Angeles Times article -- thanks to Scott Greenfield for posting the article -- concerning a state crime lab analyst's findings since 2001 that debunk the concept that no two people are likely to have similar DNA at nine of thirteen chromosomal markers. The article is lengthy, and I have just started reading it in further depth.
Of course, such DNA issues also might open a can of worms for trying to exonerate convicts through DNA evidence. Of course, such concerns do not merit doing anything but critically examining DNA evidence's reliability. Jon Katz. Sunday, July 20. 2008
Gerswhin's inspiration to scale new ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Persuasion at
00:00
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Gerswhin's inspiration to scale new heights.
Hundreds of times I improvised haunting and sometimes sad versions of Gershwin's "Summertime" on the trumpet that for over twenty years has not touched my lips, and now sits in my garage. The song continues moving me as much today as ever.
"Summertime" comes from Gershwin's earth-moving Porgy and Bess, which premiered in 1935 after Gershwin spent several weeks on an island off Charleston, South Carolina, to hear and join in the rhythms of life, music and speaking that he would incorporate into this opera with signature Gershwin music, rather than the typical classical music that ordinarily accompanied operas at the time and usually still does.
First performed during the height of rabid and unabashed racism in the
A 2006 BBC article says Porgy and Bess "was revived after the war in the United States and attracted performers like Maya Angelou and Todd Duncan. A filmed version starring Sidney Poitier (after Harry Belafonte turned it down because it demeaned black people) was produced by Samuel Goldwyn in 1959. After that the work encountered the civil rights and black power era." The rest of the brief article is worth a read. In any event, when local public radio covered the opera's current run at the
What prompted me to write today's blog was Gershwin's surprise that he had been able to reach such heights in creating the music to Porgy and Bess. What a wonderful way to exit the planet; he died two years after the opera's premiere.
Similarly, criminal defense lawyers are challenged every day to surmount the often seemingly insurmountable obstacles of reality and would-be reality. How many times do my fellow criminal defense lawyers and I say "Oh sh-t" in the face of apparently insurmountable odds to win a case and, if there is a conviction, to get the most favorable sentence rather than an utterly draconian one? The amazing SunWolf proclaims that "Reality is no obstacle," which at first blush might seem fanciful, but when examined more closely makes perfect sense when considering that many competing would-be realities are usually involved in a criminal case, and jurors and judges have various ways of deciding what is reality and how to handle that reality, sometimes including convicting the utterly innocent and acquitting the clearly guilty. It reminds me of a story from my trial law guru Steve Rench, about a woman he successfully defended in a theft trial. His client was arrested for allegedly pickpocketing a man she danced with in a bar; perhaps the jury got the idea that the would-be victim was there with unwholesome intentions. At one point while the jury was present but the proceedings were on hold, Steve went to a sheriff's deputy and pointed towards his client (held on bond during trial but in civilian clothes) during the conversation. Although his client was caught redhanded, the jury acquitted. Steve later saw one of the jurors at a bus stop, and asked the him if he had any comments about the trial. The juror merely said "Your client is okay," meaning to Steve that the jury disregarded the judges' jury instructions out of a belief that she had served enough time in the pokey while waiting for trial. In Steve's view, jurors are results-oriented, seeking to fix problems, which can put a real damper on the commands of jury instructions.
Again and again, I encounter staff members, clients, and witnesses (even an expert witness recently) who are fearful of doing something because it takes them out of their comfort or experience zone. Sometimes the fear is as basic as fearing to testify for the first time, or, with staffmembers, to tackle an assignment they have never done before. When I believe the person is capable of rising to the occasion, I encourage the person, sometimes by sharing some of my own trepidations along the path, including the fear of doing anything to let a client down and thus causing a conviction or a worse sentence than otherwise; it might be less fearful for me to draft wills and contracts, but certainly less meaningful and fulfilling. I remind them that it is okay to be fearful, but that the fear should not prevent them from proceeding forward. The idea is not to ignore the fear, but to know the fear and to send it on its way, similarly to the t'ai chi posture of embrace tiger/return [the tiger] to mountain.
Ordinarily, a musician or composer might not be seen as having a fearful occupation. Then again, George Gershwin broke radically new ground and entered new frontiers without knowing how audiences and critics would receive Porgy and Bess -- or even how he might rise to the occasion in creating the opera -- when he easily could have rested on the laurels of such preceding masterpieces as "Rhapsody in Blue" and "An American in Paris".
Of course, storytelling is central to persuading jurors and judges. Gershwin was a masterful storyteller, even when only doing it to music, before adding any lyrics. At least with "Rhapsody in Blue", "An American in Paris" and Porgy and Bess, Gershwin's music takes the listener on a storied journey that takes unexpected turns and captures the five senses and deep feelings along the way.
I stopped playing the trumpet that brought forth my versions of "Summertime" in the fall of 1985, when I moved to a shoebox one-room/no-kitchen ten-foot by ten-foot single resident occupancy apartment in
Not playing a musical instrument has left a creative and musical void in me. It is time to pick the horn back up, regardless of the state of my lip muscles. As a quote on the door of my ethnomusicology professor Jeff Todd Titon said, loosely remembered: "Music does not expect excellence. It welcomes being surprised by it, but does not require it." Consequently, in writing this blog entry, Gershwin has not only continued to inspire me to treat reality as no obstacle in my law practice, but also to open my trumpet case, to see if the valves are not beyond repair to oil them to working function, to vaseline the slides to move them into tuned performance, and to play and play and play, lost in the sheer enjoyment of the music. Jon Katz.
ADDENDUM:
Here are some additional excellent Gershwin links, in addition to those above, which include YouTube performances of "Summertime", "Rhapsody in Blue", and "An American in Paris":
- Dubose Heyward's Porgy, which led to Gershwin's opera.
- PBS on Porgy and Bess. Be bowled over by Maya Angelou's discussion of the opera and her role as Ruby in a mid-1950's European tour.
- Film excerpt from Porgy and Bess.
- 2006 NPR coverage of the first time Porgy and Bess's premiere version was re-presented.
- Sarah Vaughan singing "Summertime", and Janis Joplin substantially altering it.
- Claudia Pierpont on "Why We Still Listen to Gershwin."
Friday, July 18. 2008
Circuits are split on sex offense as ... Posted by Jon Katz
in Constitutional Law at
00:00
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Circuits are split on sex offense as crime of violence.
Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)
Following is a brief overview of a federal circuit split that likely will find its way to the Supreme Court to resolve this split that likely affects a large number of criminal defendants. Although I have tried to keep the language as non-graphic as possible, you have been so advised.
Numerous circuits are split on "whether a sex offense perpetrated in the absence of consent — and which does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force — constitutes a 'crime of violence' under the Guidelines," because the federal sentencing guidelines do not sufficiently define "forcible sex offense," which is a crime of violence that increases a defendant's sentencing guidelines. U.S. v. Chacon, __ F.3d _ (4th Cir. July 14, 2008). This is a critical question, as Mr. Chacon -- whose instant case involved a conviction for unlawfully re-entering the United States -- full well knows, from having received an increase in his Sentencing Guidelines base offense level by sixteen levels due to his previous Maryland second degree rape conviction. Notably, Chacon does not say whether the second-degree rape for which he was convicted in Maryland was based on an allegation of non-consensual sex with an adult or so-called consensual sex with an underage person, which the law treats as non-consensual based on the age of the victim.
What is a "sex offense" as to the above issue? Rape was Mr. Chacon's prior conviction, and the Fourth Circuit had no problem classifying rape as a sex offense, just as courts likely will have no problem classifying non-consensual oral sex and anal sex as sex offenses. However, my initial review of Chacon does not seem to define sex offense, thus leaving open the question of the extent to which the following commonly prosecuted crimes will receive sex offense classification by the federal courts for sentencing guidelines purposes: non-consensual feeling of the clothed or unclothed body parts of another for purposes of arousal; and non-consensual penetration by finger or other object of one's genitals or anus.
How does it feel to defend sex crime cases, at least where it seems clear that the person committed the alleged crime? I answer that here in discussing my defense of a man accused of raping his grandmother. Jon Katz. Thursday, July 17. 2008 |