It's been 30 years since significant changes in drinking and driving laws have changed the way American's approach their alcohol and driving habits. The standard rule put into affect by most states is that driving with a blood alcohol content of more than .08 percent could result in a conviction. Since this limit became standard in the 1980s and 90s, countries throughout Europe experimented with even lower limits to see the effect they had on drinking and driving accidents. What they found may not be good news for drivers who think they can push themselves up to the legal limit.
The NTSB, or National Transportation Safety Board, released a series of recommendations that included a lowering of the legal BAC level to .05 for all states. This would match the .05 level used in more than 100 other countries who report seeing drastic declines in drinking and driving accidents. While the United States also saw major declines in incidents involving alcohol after the .08 level was put into place, highway safety proponents say that is not enough.
It's hard to tell at this point if the new BAC recommendations will have a chance at passing in most states. The original levels were met with strong resistance from state legislatures and much of the public, so new lower standards may take along time to implement or may not even pass in the near future. It's also not clear what affect this will have on enforcement. The lower limit may motivate local police department to conduct more stops and set up more sobriety checkpoints around San Diego County. As people get used to the new limits, it may result in the need for more DUI lawyers.
May 19, 2013
May 9, 2013
Inequality in the Federal Courts
Federal budget sequestration is proving to affect even the basic pillars of justice in our criminal courts. The Federal Defenders of San Diego, a government funded non-profit that provides criminal defense for the accused who can’t afford an attorney, is being forced to make it’s 59 employees take furlough days until additional funding is provided. Public defenders offices all across the nation are also suffering through similar cutbacks in order to stay within their new budgets. At the same time, Attorney General Eric Holder stated in April that U.S. Attorneys wouldn’t have to take any furlough days as a result of the sequestration. What does this mean for defendants in the federal court system that can’t afford an attorney?
Civil rights organizations have complained that sequestration furloughs for public defenders that don’t affect prosecutors creates an unequal balance. The Supreme Court decided that defendants have the right to counsel in Gideon v. Wainright (here’s a great article about the case in The Atlantic), but if funds for this right are reduced, how can indigent defendants hope to get adequate representation. While the justice department is able to shift funds around to keep prosecutors and federal investigators working at full capacity, defenders have had to cut back on interviewing witnesses, investigating crime scenes and doing proper legal research.
As Dennis Courtland Hayes of the American Judicature Society succinctly points out, even self-represented defendants are being affected by the sequester:
Harms done by the sequester go beyond public defenders offices. Reduced budgets for clerks and other court personnel greatly affect the speed and efficiency at which the system is able to process cases. This goes right to the heart of American’s right to a speedy and fair trial. In non-criminal cases, Americans will have a harder time getting through civil suits or filing for bankruptcy. Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to have their voices heard at sentencing hearings. Overall, the justice system is going to have a much harder time upholding its constitutional requirements.
Civil rights organizations have complained that sequestration furloughs for public defenders that don’t affect prosecutors creates an unequal balance. The Supreme Court decided that defendants have the right to counsel in Gideon v. Wainright (here’s a great article about the case in The Atlantic), but if funds for this right are reduced, how can indigent defendants hope to get adequate representation. While the justice department is able to shift funds around to keep prosecutors and federal investigators working at full capacity, defenders have had to cut back on interviewing witnesses, investigating crime scenes and doing proper legal research.
As Dennis Courtland Hayes of the American Judicature Society succinctly points out, even self-represented defendants are being affected by the sequester:
Nationally, up to 2,000 more court staff could be laid off or furloughed under sequestration. This would come on top of the more than 1,800 positions eliminated by the courts over the past 18 months, representing a potential 18% reduction in court staff since July 2011... Of particular concern to the American Judicature Society, which has worked for decades to improve access to the courts for self-represented litigants, those people seeking justice without a lawyer would have fewer services to help them navigate the judicial system.
Harms done by the sequester go beyond public defenders offices. Reduced budgets for clerks and other court personnel greatly affect the speed and efficiency at which the system is able to process cases. This goes right to the heart of American’s right to a speedy and fair trial. In non-criminal cases, Americans will have a harder time getting through civil suits or filing for bankruptcy. Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to have their voices heard at sentencing hearings. Overall, the justice system is going to have a much harder time upholding its constitutional requirements.
February 28, 2013
Actually Funny Lawyer Jokes
As a lawyer in San Diego for many years now, I've heard my fair share of lawyer jokes, both good and bad. The most common joke, and the one I'm sure you've heard before, is "What do you call 100 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?" It's about the worst lawyer joke in the world. It's lazy, cold and uninspired. Sadly, it represents that vast majority of lawyer jokes in the world. They aren't even really jokes, they're unfiltered lawyer-hate. There are, however, tons of great lawyer jokes that provide insight into my profession. Here are my top lawyer jokes in no particular order:
This final one comes from an actual trial. The transcript was originally published in the book Disorder in the American Courts.
"A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer."
~ Robert Frost (Not really a joke, but good nonetheless)
A doctor and a lawyer in two cars collided on a country road. The lawyer, seeing that the doctor was a little shaken up, helped him from the car and offered him a drink from his hip flask.The doctor accepted and handed the flask back to the lawyer, who closed it and put it away.
"Aren't you going to have a drink yourself?" asked the doctor.
"Sure; after the police leave," replied the lawyer.
This final one comes from an actual trial. The transcript was originally published in the book Disorder in the American Courts.
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check
for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you
began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive,
nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and
practicing law.
February 25, 2013
Changes in Three-Strikes Law Brings Hearings to San Diego Courts
In a previous post, I discussed the history of three-strikes laws in California and the criticism of its effects on sentencing, but I didn't go into significant detail about how the law has slowly changed over the past 20 years. In 2000, Proposition 36 gave an avenue for drug offenders to seek treatment rather than face harsh sentencing under the three-strikes laws. More recently, 2012's Proposition 36 directly amended the three-strikes law to allow life sentences only when the third conviction is for a violent or serious crime. Here is a list of the exact changes that went into effect when Prop 36 passed just a few months ago.
As a result of these changes, many hearings are starting to take place in courts throughout California for inmates looking to rid themselves of life sentences that came from non-violent and non-serious third-strike offenses. The first hearing in San Diego will be held in front of Judge David Danielson of the San Diego Superior Court. The Union Tribune released a story on Saturday detailing some of the upcoming cases. Here is a summary of some of them.
"William Carter, 57, is set for a hearing on Thursday. He has been in prison since 1994 after being convicted of evading a police officer and causing a collision. Carter had a history of drunken driving convictions and assault, according to his court file.
In March, Danielsen will consider the case of Annette Carter, 56, who has been in prison for 17 years. She was convicted of selling a $5 bag of marijuana to an undercover police officer in 1995. She had three robbery convictions, all from a single case in 1981, according to court records.
Along with Carter, Danielsen will hear the case of Joel Murillo, sentenced in 1994 for possessing 2 grams of methamphetamine. He had prior convictions from 1983 for robbery and 1984 for voluntary manslaughter."
- Life sentence on third-strike only if offense is serious or violent. This should mean that we won't see any more life sentences imposed on defendants for stealing a pack of gum or possessing a small amount of drugs.
- Re-sentencing authorized for convicts of non-serious and non-violent offenses who are judged not to be a danger to community. This will mean that many convicts currently serving a life sentence will be able to get their sentences reduced if they meet the right criteria.
- Life sentencing remains for certain non-violent sex or offenses and crimes involving firearms possession. This was included to alleviate critics concerns that too many dangerous undesirables would be let out onto the street.
- Convicts who had previous convictions for rape, murder or child molestation will not be eligible for re-sentencing no matter what their third offense was.
As a result of these changes, many hearings are starting to take place in courts throughout California for inmates looking to rid themselves of life sentences that came from non-violent and non-serious third-strike offenses. The first hearing in San Diego will be held in front of Judge David Danielson of the San Diego Superior Court. The Union Tribune released a story on Saturday detailing some of the upcoming cases. Here is a summary of some of them.
"William Carter, 57, is set for a hearing on Thursday. He has been in prison since 1994 after being convicted of evading a police officer and causing a collision. Carter had a history of drunken driving convictions and assault, according to his court file.
In March, Danielsen will consider the case of Annette Carter, 56, who has been in prison for 17 years. She was convicted of selling a $5 bag of marijuana to an undercover police officer in 1995. She had three robbery convictions, all from a single case in 1981, according to court records.
Along with Carter, Danielsen will hear the case of Joel Murillo, sentenced in 1994 for possessing 2 grams of methamphetamine. He had prior convictions from 1983 for robbery and 1984 for voluntary manslaughter."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)