Junk science and guns

Are the ejector marks from a handgun unique?

How many handguns would you have to fire in order to make that conclusion?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would like you to believe the answer to the first question is yes and that the answer to the second question is irrelevant.

Back in 1999 the BATFE (known then as the ATF) created the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN), a database of high resolution images of bullet casings. The database was used by forensic examiners to testify at trial regarding the likelihood of a particular gun being used in a crime. Thanks to the Department of Justice, local police departments now have access to the database for use in investigating gun crimes.

But has anyone bothered to verify that the assumption that every gun leaves a unique mark on a bullet casing accurate?

This is the problem we run into with every new "forensic tool" created by law enforcement. We've seen it with tire tread analysis, bullet composition, bite mark evidence, and others. A forensic "scientist" comes up with a theory - and without checking it using the scientific method - declares that this new tool will allow the police to catch the bad guys.

But what tends to happen is the police take whatever "evidence" they uncover and use it subjectively to create a narrative that their leading suspect is the bad guy - even if it leads them in the completely wrong direction.

If you've read The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist by Radley Balko and Tucker Carrington then you know where I'm headed. If you haven't read it, then stop what you're doing right now and get the book. In many investigations the police hone in on the person they think is the most likely culprit - often on little more than a hunch. They look for evidence that points to their suspect and ignore evidence that contradicts their narrative (one of the reasons that Brady material is withheld from defense attorneys). And if the narrative makes little or no sense, they bring in a forensic examiner who will gladly resort to pseudo-scientific methods to create evidence pinning the blame on the guy the police were looking at in the first place.

Just think about it, soon the local authorities will take a bullet casing and will compare the marks on it to the NIBIN database. As soon as the algorithm matches the bullet casing the police recovered with an image in the database, the police will go after the owner of that gun -- never once questioning the assumption that no other gun would leave the same mark.

In 2013 a Mississippi man's life was spared hours before his scheduled execution after the FBI said experts had overstated the science. In a note sent to the district attorney in that case, the bureau clarified that "the science regarding firearms examinations does not permit examiner testimony that a specific gun fired a specific bullet to the exclusion of all other guns in the world."

Should the case go to trial the court, which long ago ceded its gatekeeping role with regard to scientific evidence will allow the gun examiner to testify to the unique characteristics of the ejector marks without once questioning whether there is any science behind the assertion. Of course this might work out differently in civil court where judges are only too happy to exclude any new scientific evidence that might result in insurance companies having to pay off claims.

Every new forensic tool (for lack of a better phrase) wants to portray itself as some type of a "fngerprint" since we have all bought into the assumption that our fingerprints are unique. While fingerprints and DNA profiles may very well be unique to an individual, there is little or no evidence that anything else is. Tire treads and shoe soles might have unique wear patterns, but the surface in which the imprint is left and the means by which that imprint is transferred to the surface make the analysis anything but precise.

Just remember what they say about assumptions.

Something to think about

I know I've mentioned the Small Town Murder podcast on here once or twice over the last year. Did I mention that thanks to a friend of mine, attorneys who attended the live show in Houston this past October received CLE credit from the State Bar? Easiest two hours of credit ever.

The show is a riot to listen to and James does a hell of a job researching the cases they cover. I listened to an episode from a couple of weeks back the other day and heard something I've never heard before on the show.

Generally after they make fun of the small town the case is set in, and the murderer, they cover the appeals process which usually ends with the defendant being sent to prison for a long stretch. Not so with the episode entitled Yes, No, I Don't Know... in Oskaloosa, Kansas. The story contains a twist at the end which you probably won't see coming.

*** SPOILER ALERT ***


Floyd Bledsoe, who had been convicted of the murder of 14-year-old Camille Arfmann was released from prison after serving 15 years for a murder his brother, Fred Bledsoe, committed. Mr. Bledsoe was released after the Midwest Innocence Project had DNA testing performed on semen found in the victim's body. Testing revealed that Ms. Arfmann had been raped by Fred Bledsoe. Two weeks later, Fred Bledsoe was found dead - his death was ruled a suicide. Fred Bledsoe left three suicide notes including one in which he confessed to the rape and murder of Ms. Arfmann. He claimed he was told to keep his mouth shut by the prosecutor after confessing to the crime.

That revelation brings a somber end to the story that makes you really think about the way our criminal (in)justice system works and what protections we have in place to protect the wrongly accused.

What I'm listening to

Keri Blakinger is a reporter with the Houston Chronicle. She is one of the best writers at the paper and has done some very good work with death penalty issues.

Mr. Blakinger is also a convicted felon who spent time in prison on a drug case up in New York. Her story is quite amazing and inspirational. It also gives her a bit more insight when reporting on prison and jail issues.

I urge y'all to listen to Terry Gross' interview with Ms. Blakinger on Fresh Air and to check out her Twitter feed.

Louisiana looks to shed vestige of Jim Crow

In 48 states it takes a unanimous vote from a jury to convict a person accused of committing a criminal act. And, if you think about it, that makes sense given the burden of proof placed upon the state in a criminal trial. Oregon is the only other state that does not require a unanimous verdict -- unless the defendant is charged with murder.

Today in Louisiana, voters will be asked to decide if Louisiana wishes to join the vast majority of states in requiring a unanimous jury vote for a conviction; or if the Pelican State wishes to preserve one of the last overt tools of the Jim Crow era. Louisiana is the only state in which a defendant can be sentenced to life in prison on less than a unanimous verdict.

The so-called "split jury" was written into the Louisiana constitution in 1898 when a constitutional convention was called after the end of Reconstruction.

"It put into place a number of measures in order to — this is a quote from the convention itself — 'to maintain the supremacy of the white race.'"

-- Andrea Armstrong, Professor, Loyola University

The driving force behind the provision was to preserve a system of unpaid labor for white landowners. At the time of the convention, Louisiana had a policy of leasing out convicts for private businesses. The split-jury provision preserved the pool of free labor and made it easier for the state to convict and imprison black men.

The state Attorney General and local prosecutors are opposed to the constitutional amendment because it would make it harder for them to obtain convictions and it would take away some of their leverage when it comes time to plea bargaining. Of course, local prosecutors claim that they just want an efficient criminal (in)justice system and they don't want to have to worry about the time and expense involved in re-trials.

Well, tough shit, Mr. Prosecutor. You are doing your best to defend a system that denies millions of people due process. You are defending a system that is a hold-over from the days of Jim Crow and that was enacted specifically to keep a thumb on black people.

The coalition behind the ballot measure has made for very strange bedfellows with the measure passing the Republican-controlled state legislature with a better than 2/3 majority. George Soros and the Koch brothers have also put their money behind the measure.

If you live in Louisiana and haven't yet voted, please vote Yes on 2.

Is this what it means to inhale?

The mailers from the Republican Party are coming hot and heavy as we approach Election Day. The latest broadside warns of chaos in the courthouse should the Democrats sweep the judicial races.

Once again I must address the warning that folks aren't showing up for their court dates. Blaming that on Democratic judges is more than a bit misleading. Let's see, a lawsuit was filed in Harris County challenging the constitutionality of the bond schedule in the misdemeanor courts. The plaintiff's won the lawsuit and the sitting Republican judges appealed.

As part of that lawsuit, the County was ordered to release any defendant in a non-violent misdemeanor case in which that defendant was not taken before a magistrate for a probable cause determination within 48 hours. That magistrate was also tasked with the job of determining the appropriate bond for the defendant based upon the nature of the offense and the defendant's ability to post bond.

If after seeing the magistrate, Pretrial Services determined that the defendant was a good candidate for pretrial release, they were released. Otherwise they sat behind bars until they posted bond.

The procedure in the felony courts has remained largely unchanged since there tend to be more issues regarding the safety of the community and the seriousness of the alleged offense.

And as to concerns about the punishments meted out, I would remind the folks who put out this bullshit that 15 of the 16 judges on the misdemeanor bench are Republicans. Furthermore, the vast majority of cases are resolved through plea bargains in which the only role of the judge is to decide whether or not to accept the deal. In the last 13 years I have had only one plea deal rejected by the judge.

The other issue on the broadside has to do with damages in civil court. Republicans are worried about Democrats sitting on the civil benches and hearing cases involving monetary damages. Their biggest fear is that Democratic judges will determine what is, and what isn't, a frivolous case.

Well, I guess one's level of concern would be strongly correlated to one's view as to what is and isn't a frivolous matter. Being that state legislatures long ago became entangled in the entrenched interests of industry and banks, it has long been the case that the only path one had to redress injury were the courts. When someone says that Democrats would award too much in damages in frivolous suits, what they are really saying is that those judges would hold corporations and powerful business interests accountable for their actions and the damages they cause.

The other thing that most folks don't know is that, quite often, parties settle cases for an amount that differs from the award in order to achieve finality, collect what they can and to avoid the time and cost of the appeals process.

Marsy's Law will undermine due process

At some point I keep hoping folks will realize that the purpose of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments is to protect individuals accused of breaking the law from the long, strong arm of the government. Without these protections, the state would be able to run roughshod over a defendant and beat him into submission.

The purpose of the criminal (in)justice system is to create a forum in which a judge or jury can weigh evidence and determine whether or not the prosecutor proved her case beyond a reasonable doubt. The purpose of the criminal (in)justice system has never been to seek justice (whatever that is) for the victims of a crime. The system isn't equipped to handle such matters.

Other than retribution and possible restitution, if you want relief, you have to go to the civil courthouse and file a tort action.

Marsy's Law is the latest proposed measure promoting so-called "victim's rights" to be put before the public. Voters in Nevada will have the opportunity to vote on it this year.

But, regardless of how nice the proposal might sound to folks who have no connection to the criminal (in)justice system, Marsy's Law is yet another solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

The criminal courtroom has never been about seeking the truth. It has never been about filling the void in a victim's life. It is our means of trying to seek a resolution to a case. The resolution is rarely perfect. The people deciding the case didn't see what happened. They must rely on two attorneys who are telling them two very different stories.

Victim advocacy groups get upset whenever a defendant is freed on what they refer to as a technicality. Of course that "technicality" is a defendant's constitutional right and if that's the reason a person is being freed, then it's the police who fucked up.

The people behind proposals such as Marsy's Law are people who are seeking to undermine the presumption of innocence. They are people who either don't understand exactly what the presumption of innocence or beyond a reasonable doubt are; or they are seeking to reduce the state's burden of proof.

The people behind the movement also don't seem to understand that they aren't a party to the case. They are but witnesses. The prosecutors may very well consult with them and keep them in the loop as to what is happening in the case, but that's the prosecutor's prerogative. As I have mentioned here many times in the past, prosecutors will listen to what a victim wants when it aligns with the prosecutor's goals and they will ignore victims when it doesn't.

Marsy's Law, and other crime victims' bills, seek to attack the very concept of due process in favor of a process that is much more user friendly for them. Of course advocates claim that Marsy's Law will give crime victims "due process"  and the right to a speedy trial. In California, crime victims cannot be compelled to talk with the defendant's attorney about the facts of the case.

In reality, Marsy's Law will accomplish none of that. Due process in a criminal case is, by its very nature, a right reserved exclusively for the accused. The state doesn't have a right to confront witnesses, the state doesn't have the right to remain silent, the state doesn't have any protections under the 4th Amendment. The defendant has the right to a jury trial and the defendant has the right to go to either the judge or jury for punishment.

My colleague Scott Greenfield has long stated that whenever someone proposes a law named after someone (particularly a child), the consequences to the accused and the constitution are never good.

Washington Supreme Court strikes down the death penalty

Allen Eugene Gregory was not a very good person. In 1996 he robbed, raped and murdered a woman. Two years later he was investigated for another rape. During that investigation police discovered evidence that tied Mr. Gregory to the robbery, rape and murder.

Mr. Gregory was convicted of aggravated first degree murder in the 1996 case. The jury sentenced him to death.

He was also convicted of the 1998 rape. The Washington Supreme Court later reversed the rape conviction.

On appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, the death sentence was overturned and the case remanded because the state relied upon the (reversed) rape conviction in the penalty phase of the trial.

In a new punishment hearing, a second jury then sentenced Mr. Gregory to death.

In the meantime, prosecutors learned that their complaining witness in the rape case lied at the first trial. Prosecutors, realizing they couldn't rely on their witness to tell the truth, then dismissed the rape cases.

***

In 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, the US Supreme Court declared the death penalty to be unconstitutional in its application. The Court held that states had imposed the death penalty in "arbitrary and capricious manner."

Three years later a ballot initiative in Washington passed making the death penalty mandatory for specified offenses. The following year, in Woodson v. North Carolina, the US Supreme Court held that mandatory death sentences were also unconstitutional.

Washington then passed a statute that called for a sentencing hearing where evidence of aggravating factors, as well as mitigating factors, would be presented to a jury. If the jury found an aggravating circumstance and deemed the mitigating factor insufficient to warrant mercy, a death sentence could be imposed.

The Washington Supreme Court struck down that statute because it allowed the state to impose the death penalty on a defendant who demanded his constitutional right to a trial, but it did not impose it on defendants who pleaded guilty.

The death penalty statute was then rewritten to require automatic review (a proportionality review) of death sentences by the state Supreme Court to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to uphold the death sentence, whether the death sentence was disproportionate to the penalty assessed in similar cases, whether passion or prejudice contributed to the death sentence and whether the defendant had an intellectual disability.

***

Mr. Gregory appealed his death sentence, arguing that it was disproportionate to other sentences meted out for similar crimes and that is was applied in an arbitrary manner in his case because he was black.

In 2014, Katherine Beckett co-authored a report that found there was a wide disparity among counties when it came to imposing the death penalty and that a portion of that disparity had to do with the black population in the county. She also pointed out that a black defendant was four-and-a-half times more likely to receive a death sentence than a white defendant.

Like many states, Washington's state constitution has a provision outlawing cruel and unusual punishment. And, like in many states, the protections granted under that clause are stronger than the protections afforded under the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution.

And it was that clause that the Washington Supreme Court relied upon in striking down the Washington death penalty statute for the fourth time.

***

In 2000 about 50.3% of the population in Texas was white. Latinos made up about 34.2% and Blacks made up 12%.

Since 1976, 34.5% of the inmates murdered at the hands of the state were Black while 55.6% where white and 8.2% were Latino. Over the years, 75.6% of the victims in death penalty cases were white while only 15.3% were Black  and 6.9% were Latino.

For a long time Harris County was known as the death penalty capital of the United States - sending more people to death row each year than many countries. In the 2000 census, whites made up 56.5% of the county's population while Blacks made up 18.9% and Latinos 32.9%.

It is clear from the numbers alone that the death penalty is applied disproportionately based on race. I don't have the knowledge of statistics to run regression analysis to determine how much weight is placed on race in death penalty decisions, but when Black inmates are executed at a rate three times higher than their proportion of the general population, something is wrong.

Capital punishment is little more than modern day lynching with the imprimatur of the court. The fact that those on the right favor it with such fervor tells you that whites are overwhelmingly in favor of killing inmates (the fact that preachers and so-called religious conservatives support it tells you that they are nothing more than fucking hypocrites). The death penalty is a tool of oppression and social control.

The death penalty is applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner and nothing can change that. It is high time we moved beyond barbarism.

Whips, chains and Racehorse Haynes

Hey, I've pitched this podcast before - and if you're not listening to it yet, you need to. The current episode of Criminal is about our own Richard "Racehorse" Haynes. The episode contains local attorney, and former President of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, Chris Tritico, recounting some of the more epic stories of Racehorse.

Phoebe Judge is the host and is a wonderful interviewer. She never gets in the way of the story.

Give it a listen.

For more information on the John Hill case, you can read Thomas Thompson's book, Blood and Money.

If you're curious about the T. Cullen Davis case, you can read Gary Cartwright's Blood Will Tell.

Hardly Solomonic

In 2002, Jeffrey Havard was charged with the killing of a 6-month-old baby. The state alleged it was a clear case of shaken baby syndrome. Mr. Havard insisted he had accidentally dropped the infant.

At trial, Dr. Stephen Hayne testified that Chloe Madison Britt had clearly been shaken to death. He compared the injuries to those one would receive in a car crash or from a fall from a significant height.

If that name sounds familiar it's because he was the subject of Radley Balko's excellent book The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist (click here for my review). Dr. Hayne made his bones in Mississippi by claiming to have performed an obscene number of autopsies and giving police and prosecutors what they needed in order to obtain convictions.

This case was no exception.

Mr. Havard was found guilty and was sentenced to death. However, on Friday, Mr. Havard's motion for new trial was partially granted by Adams County Circuit Judge Forrest Johnson (a former prosecutor also mentioned in Mr. Balko's book). Judge Johnson stated that the evidence presented at the hearing wasn't sufficient for him to question the validity of the jury's verdict but, it caused him to question whether the death sentence was appropriate. As a result, Mr. Havard was removed from death row and a new punishment trial was ordered.

Last year Dr. Hayne had a change of heart. He testified at a hearing on Mr. Havard's motion for new trial and changed his opinion. He now says that the injuries to Chloe that he observed could have been generated from a short fall if the baby fell on its head.

In 2009 the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the use of the term shaken baby syndrome be stopped and replaced with the term abusive head trauma. This was in response to a series of studies that discredited the diagnosis.

Renowned pathologist Michael Baden reviewed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the baby's injuries were the result of a fall on her head and not from being shaken to death.

This case raises some important questions, however. While it is good that Mr. Havard's death sentence was vacated because of the testimony at the hearing on the motion for new trial, it is confounding that the original conviction wasn't vacated as well.

The state's chief witness has recanted his original testimony. He changed his theory from the baby being shaken to death to the baby dying of injuries suffered in a fall. Shaking a baby to death is clearly an intentional or knowing act -- that is murder. However, dropping a baby isn't evidence of a deliberate act. If Judge Johnson believes a death sentence is inappropriate, how does he square that with leaving the conviction in place?

It's almost as if the judge is somehow considering the change in Dr. Haynes' testimony as more of a mitigating factor. And that's just plain wrong. When the state's chief medical witness changes his opinion of the cause of death, that casts doubt upon the jury's verdict regarding Mr. Havard's guilt. Take away that medical opinion and you are left without a single witness who can testify that Mr. Havard shook the baby to death.

The only reason I can surmise for Judge Johnson's actions is that he's afraid that other convictions based on the theory of shaken baby syndrome could be placed in jeopardy if Dr. Hayne testified on behalf of the state. Maybe he's right.

But it doesn't fucking matter. Judge Johnson's job was to make a decision in this specific case based upon the evidence presented at a hearing on a motion for new trial. It was not his concern whether any other convictions could be challenged on the same grounds.

Judge Johnson's half-assed ruling just goes to show that he's more interested in politics than he is in justice.

Just spitballing here

Had a very interesting conversation with a relatively new prosecutor yesterday. We were discussing a case on the trial docket and he was suggesting my client consider a pretrial intervention. I told him I had some questions about the legitimacy of the stop that ended in my client's arrest. He told me he thought the stop was okay and that, should my client be convicted, that she would get a longer sentence than the 12 months she'd be in the pretrial diversion program.

Then he told me that they (and I don't know if he was referring just to the prosecutors or if he was including the judge in this) wanted longer sentences on convictions than what were being offered on plea deals. He said that otherwise there would be no incentive for defendants to plead. Now the conversation was getting interesting. I threw out a casual warning that he might not want to say anymore on the subject.

What he told me, without realizing it, is that the Harris County District Attorney's Office has a policy to discourage defendants from exercising their right to a jury trial. We all know that prosecutors do this -- the "trial tax" is regularly invoked during the punishment phase of the trial. But I've never had anyone tell me that people sat down and had formal discussions about it.

Now let's look at this revelation in a bit more detail. In just about every misdemeanor case, the prosecutor handling the case writes an offer down on the case file. And the offers are fairly standard and rarely come as a surprise. The only variations occur when there is some aggravating factor or prior conviction. On a second DWI the initial offer is generally the same as the maximum punishment the defendant can receive -- therefore giving the defendant no reason to consider the plea.

But here's the problem. A prosecutor has an ethical duty to see that "justice is done." But is justice being served when a defendant is punished for exercising his or her right to a jury trial? Are we saying that no consideration should be given to the circumstance in which there are facts that are genuinely in dispute in a criminal prosecution?

Courts exist to resolve disputes. We resolve disputes by conducting a trial. There are plenty of cases in which there can be a question of whether or not the prosecutor can prove up his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt. But should the defendant automatically receive additional punishment because he or she stood up and demanded that the prosecutor meet the state's burden of proof?

I know that prosecutors want to resolve the vast majority of cases through plea agreements. I know that judges love it when 90% of the cases in their courts are resolved without the need of a trial. I also know that people plead guilty when they insist they are innocent because they don't want to chance a more severe punishment if they exercise their right to a jury trial.

There are cases that get tried because the defense believes the state's offer is outrageous. There are cases that get tried because even if the defendant is convicted, he can't get any worse than what was offered prior to trial. There are cases that get tried because the defendant insists he or she isn't guilty and won't accept any offer. Finally, there are cases that get tried because there is a question of whether the state can meet its burden of proof.

These are all legitimate reasons to take a case to a jury. No defendant should be punished more severely because their case fell into one of these categories. A formal policy of punishing a defendant who chose to go to trial more severely than a defendant who entered a guilty plea does not ensure that justice is done. It ensures that a person's right to have a jury of their peers determine whether or not the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt is eroded to the point of being meaningless.

Fighting for injustice

Once again the Republican misdemeanor judges in Harris County have their panties in a wad. And, once again, it has to do with a federal judge telling them that the little bail bond scheme they followed for years is unconstitutional and must be changed.

The judges are upset because US District Judge Lee Rosenthal's revised order will force the county to release certain non-violent offenders within a certain time period. The judges claim this will endanger the public's safety.

Bullshit. What it will do is remove the coercive power the state had on criminal defendants to force them to plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit.

The way Harris County operated for years was to follow a bail bond schedule that didn't take the defendant's financial circumstances into effect when setting bail. The only things that mattered were the type of offense and whether the defendant had any prior convictions. Bond was set automatically by a piece of paper and thousands of folks were held in custody until they resolved their cases -- usually by pleading guilty in a mass plea for time served or some other token sentence.

Prosecutors got their convictions. Judges got cases off their dockets. And since those accused of criminal acts don't have an effective lobby - no one gave a fuck.

Anyone who has spent any time in this racket knows that it is a hell of a lot easier to fight one's case if one is not behind bars. When you're behind bars you're not working, not earning money, not seeing your family and all you can do is think about how many more days this hell is going to last.

When you're out on bond you can work and earn money. You sleep in your own bed. You see your friends and family. You can speak with you attorney face to face without a thick sheet of plexiglass between you. You're also not under the pressure to resolve the case quickly because you are able to resume your normal life.

And the misdemeanor judges in Harris County hate this. They hate the fact that defendants out on bond are able to fight their cases. They hate the fact that the state doesn't have the same coercive hold on them as they do on the defendants in the jumpsuits.

Well, let's be straight about one thing. It's unfair to lump all of the misdemeanor judges into the same pile. Darrell Jordan, a Democrat, and Michael Fields, a Republican, aren't part of the ongoing lawsuit. I don't think it's a coincidence that they are the only two black judges on the misdemeanor bench in Harris County.

Most of the defendants in the misdemeanor courts are black and Latino. These are the folks that conservative white voters in the suburbs have been taught to hate. As anyone who understands Harris County politics knows, Republican candidates rely on those suburban voters to get elected because they don't have a chance within the Houston city limits.

The judges who continue to spend our tax money to defend an unconstitutional bail bond system are spreading fear and hatred among their suburban supporters in a desperate measure to build up some sort of support for Republican candidates in what could very easily be a bloodbath for the wingnuts.

The Republican judges (minus Judge Fields) are furiously blowing on their dog whistles. And they are doing it, not to maintain public safety, but to maintain a criminal (in)justice system that targets the poor and those with dark skin.

And for those keeping tabs, the current bill for fighting the lawsuit is $6.6 million. How's that for financial responsibility?

Houston's white elephant

One of the casualties of Hurricane Harvey was the Harris County Criminal Justice Center - a 20-story white elephant that has had a laundry list of problems since it opened less than 20 years ago.

Now comes word that it is going to cost some $86 million to repair and upgrade the building before it can be re-opened to the public. But, as a colleague pointed out this morning on Twitter, no bids have gone out for the repair work and the idea that the jobs can be bid out and completed in less than 2 years seems a little bit absurd.

The design of the building and the placement of offices and courtrooms never made much sense to anyone who has spent any amount of time inside the courthouse. The building has long been plagued with long lines at security and at the elevators as well as maintenance issues with those same elevators. Stairwells - necessary in case the building needed to be evacuated - were located behind closed doors and out of reach for anyone other than court staff or attorneys.

And while I understand that it is cheaper to build upward in Houston rather than outward, the basic design of a skyscraper and the functionality of a courthouse aren't congruent.

But these concerns are ignored because there is no viable constituency for a new courthouse. The taxpayers don't want to spend any additional money building a new courthouse for the benefit of criminal defendants. Unless they find themselves inside the building, they have no clue how useless it is.

So now for at least the next year-and-a-half (and likely a lot longer), misdemeanor courts will continue to be doubled up in the decrepit old Family Law Center while defendants who can't post bond will sit and wait for even longer in the county jail for their day in court. And that day will only get bumped back further and further when you consider that there is one trial court for every four misdemeanor courts. You do the math. Attorneys and defendants will continue to have to depend on two elevators to service 7 floors and 17 courts.

The felony courts will continue their uneasy alliance with the family courts in the Civil Courthouse where the elevators are proving to be as inadequate as those in the old criminal courthouse.

Attorneys and defendants will continue having to deal with split dockets in multiple courthouses and the inherent delays.

And good luck figuring out where the hell the district clerks or prosecutors are since they are spread over multiple office buildings throughout the city.

This is the living embodiment of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over again thinking it will somehow come out different this one time.

See also:

"Proposal for problem-plagued criminal justice center: Start Over," Chris Tritico, Houston Chronicle (10/16/17)

I think that just about covers it

I can't recall if I've ever recommended Phoebe Judge's excellent podcast Criminal. If you haven't listened, you should give it a try. Every episode deals with someone who did something wrong, was the victim of something wrong or finds themselves somewhere in the middle.

The latest episode is one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. It's about Mark Roberts, a painter from Liverpool, who has attended some of the world's biggest sporting events, took his clothes off and ran around the field.

The problem with proving the unknown

In an article for The Intercept last week, Jordan Smith hit upon the ultimate problem with prosecutorial misconduct -- proving it is damn near impossible with imperfect information.

Prosecutors have an ethical duty to see that justice is done, not to win convictions at trial. Prosecutors also have a legal duty to hand over any exculpatory evidence to the defense. The problem with Brady material is that the state has it and the defense doesn't. And given the imperfect information defense attorneys deal with in preparing for trial, if you don't know about it (or have an inkling about it), it may as well not exist.

When it was his turn to speak, [Shannon] Edmonds applauded [Stacey] Soule’s findings. “Having information like this is great,” he told the committee, in part because when it comes to prosecutorial misconduct (and ineffective assistance), there is often “more heat than light.” A lot of people “bang the tables about these problems and claim they are epidemic. And those claims don’t always hold up to scrutiny.” If you search online for “prosecutorial misconduct,” he said, you’ll find a lot of complaints and “supposed data that is rarely independently scrutinized” the way Soule had done.

As Ms. Smith points out in her article, the problem with using an analysis of Court of Criminal Appeals opinions as the basis for your thesis is that most instances of prosectutorial misconduct don't make it up the chain for a variety of reasons.

The first, and most important, is that some 95% of criminal cases end in plea deals in which the defendant waives his right to appeal in exchange for the promised sentence. In most counties in Texas, at the time of the plea, the defense attorney and the client are both required to sign a document indicating that they received all the discovery they were entitled to and and that the state is under no further obligation to provide discovery material on that case in the future.

While defense attorneys have access to the state's file in criminal prosecutions in Harris County, we have no way of knowing what's not in the file. In some cases potentially exculpatory evidence is "covered" under the work product privilege. In others, it's simply not disclosed because the prosecutor doesn't deem it to be exculpatory.

In general, once the light has been shown on a systemic issue - either by the press or at trial - that information is conveyed to defense attorneys who are advised to contact their clients and proceed as they choose.

The problem is, the state knew about the issue while the case was pending but chose to say nothing and to disclose nothing so they didn't lose their edge.

Ultimately the only way to bring these matters to light may be taking every case to trial and shining a light on the ways in which prosecutors, police and crime labs gather and process evidence. But that "solution" is certainly a non-starter because many defendants don't want to chance a longer or more severe sentence at trial. Some defendants decide to plead because the financial burden of fighting a case is too much for them. Some give up the ghost because the state has allowed courts to pile so many pre-trial bond conditions on them that they'd rather get credit for it by pleading to probation.

If there is no one in the forest, does the falling tree make a sound? Likewise, has the law been violated if the state chooses not to disclose exculpatory evidence when no one else knows its exists? On the one hand, the answer is clearly yes. But, on the other hand, if you can't prove it existed what are you going to do about it?

Harris County Chief Public Defender under fire

Alex Brunin is the Chief Public Defender for Harris County. His clientele consists of those who haven't the money to hire an attorney to defend themselves in criminal court.

He is now being accused by Steve Radack, a Harris County Commissioner, of leaking confidential records to attorneys fighting the county on the way bonds are set for defendants. Prior to Federal District Judge Lee Rosenthal's finding that both the misdemeanor and felony bond schedules were unconstitutional as they did not take into account a defendant's ability to pay, a magistrate would ask the prosecutor what the defendant was charged with, whether there were any enhancements and whether the defendant had a prior record. Based on the answers to the those questions, the magistrate traced his or her finger on a chart and set the defendant's bond.

The result was that almost three-quarters of the people held in the Harris County Jail on any given day hadn't been convicted and were awaiting resolution of their cases. That is a mind-blowing number. And totally fucked up.

As head of the Public Defender's Office, Alex Bunin finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place. The office is funded by a grant. And, as I know I've written before, once that grant money starts to run out the case loads for everyone in the office will rise as will the pressure to plead out defendants. Mr. Bunin knows he will get no favors from Commissioner's Court. He's a thorn in the side of those who want to return to the days of the plea mill.

His position depends upon the whims of politicians from outside the Houston city limits - in other words, politicians who represent wealthy white suburbanites who want nothing to do with guaranteeing the constitutional rights of those accused of crime. Mr. Bunin has little or no political capital as indigent defendants don't have a voice in Harris County politics.

Make no mistake about it, this isn't about whether or not Mr. Bunin passed on information, confidential or otherwise, to attorneys fighting about the Harris County bond schedule, this is about a man who is doing his best to give voice to those who don't have one. That, in a nutshell, is Alex Bunin's sin. He dared to provide a vigorous defense for those who had nothing.

Thus far Harris County has spent in the neighborhood of $6 million fighting to preserve a bail system that a conservative federal judge and the most conservative appellate court have found to be unconstitutional. And yet the county continues to fight to preserve a system that led to coerced mass pleas.

Two judges, Mike Fields and Darrell Jordan, have urged the county to drop the fight and to work on finding a solution. Thus far their words have fallen on deaf ears.

But now Mr. Radack has a scapegoat. Instead of defending the money spent on defending the indefensible, he can hold Alex Bunin up to the conservative mates and blame him for the lawsuit and the changes to the bail system. But there's even more to it.

If Mr. Radack and his cabal can get rid of Alex Bunin they can replace him with someone who isn't as committed to defending the indigent. He can install someone who is more interested in the appearance of "fairness" than in actual reform. He can install someone who will be more than happy to carry his water bucket, increase case loads and pressure his staff to plead more cases out.

After a testy meeting yesterday, Mr. Bunin wasn't fired, but the matter was referred to the county public defender board for further recommendation. As was to be expected, the county commissioners who represented mostly white suburbanites were most critical of Mr. Bunin's actions.

And that's what this is ultimately all about -- a return to the days when court-appointed attorneys were more than happy to team up with the judge and prosecutor to work cases out without much effort or cost.

Update: Mob rule

The mob in Santa Clara County spoke loud and clear on Tuesday when they voted to recall Judge Aaron Persky because they thought the sentence he handed out to Stanford swimmer Brock Turner was too light.

There was little discussion about the hundreds of other sentences Judge Persky handed down. There was no discussion about over-incarceration. There was precious little talk about the dangers of limiting judicial discretion in sentencing.

In short, the mob voted to throw out a judge because they disagreed with one sentence he handed down to a college student accused of sexual assault.

Now what happens when a case comes before the new judge, Assistant District Attorney Cindy Hendrickson, where the choice is a sentence tailored to fit the circumstances or prison time? And what happens when one of the mob's sons or daughters is brought before the court and has to face the music? How happy will mom and dad be when the judge gives in to the mob and sends their baby to prison instead of placing them on probation?

The mob got caught up in one person's vendetta. They may have wanted to send a message that sexual assault is a serious offense but what they've done is tell every judge on the bench to be damn careful before giving anyone a second chance.

One thing is clear, however, judicial discretion is a thing of the past in Santa Clara County.

Who wants an independent judiciary anyway?

Today is judgment day for Judge Aaron Persky who gained renown when he sentenced Stanford swimmer Brock Turner to six months in jail and probation for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman.

The recall effort is led by Stanford law professor Michele Dauber, who is a sociologist, not a lawyer (though she does have a law degree). Ms. Dauber is also a friend of the victim's family.

She was up in arms because she thought the sentence meted out to Mr. Turner wasn't severe enough. She thought it was a slap in the face of the victim in this matter and to other victims of sexual assault.

Maybe the sentence was too lenient. I'm sure that had the case landed on the desk of another judge the sentence may have been different. But Judge Persky made the decision that he thought was correct given the offense, the victim and the defendant.

U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a liberal Democrat from San Jose, and the bar associations of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties oppose the recall.

In favor are the National Organization for Women and other women’s groups, U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and several members of Congress and the state Legislature.

Had Mr. Turner not been a star swimmer at Stanford, maybe he would have been sent to prison and not placed on probation. We'll never know. But it certainly isn't uncommon for a judge to take into consideration the history of the defendant and his future prospects when handing down a sentence.

Maybe he got that sentence because he came from a wealthy family. Maybe that's what he got because his family was able to retain a good lawyer. Maybe he received probation because of the work his lawyer did for him on the case.

But whatever the reason for the sentence, that's what Judge Persky thought was appropriate. And let's face it, different sentences for different folks convicted of the same crime isn't unusual. And it's not necessarily undesirable. Do we really want state versions of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? I don't think so.

The guidelines were implemented because of disparate sentencing across federal districts. This was, of course, back in the day when judges were allowed to use their discretion in crafting a sentence. A bunch of people complained and now it's like those fucking matrices we learned (and just as quickly forgot) back in Algebra II.

Ms. Dauber's crusade is one reason we don't allow the victims of a crime to determine the punishment. We leave that job to prosecutors and judges who, presumably, will use their discretion to make an offer or order a sentence.

Dauber has singled out a handful of cases Persky handled that she said reflected bias in favor of people of privilege.

The anti-recall campaign disputed her version of the cases, noting that one of the defendants was a plumber and that another judge, not Persky, sentenced one of the other defendants.

“To the extent you can find a pattern, for young offenders with no prior record, he did often give them a sentence which gave them a chance … and tried to keep them in school or in a job,” said Santa Clara University law professor Ellen Kreitzberg, one of the anti-recall leaders. “He did it regardless of race or ethnicity.”

We have an incarceration problem in this country. We have far too many people behind bars who have no reason to be there. Whenever a particularly foul or gruesome crime is committed (especially against a child) we name a law after the victim that either stiffens the penalty for the crime, creates a new crime or forbids probation or parole. And, as politicians are more than willing to lick their finger and stick it up to see which way the wind is blowing, laws are passed without anyone thinking about the consequences. Years down the road someone else will have to deal with the mess.

Now, if Ms. Dauber's crusade were to eliminate some of the most disparate sentences and to ensure that poor defendants have as much of a chance to get probation as wealthy defendants, I'd say we should listen to what she has to say. But if her whole goal is to lock up offenders - regardless of the circumstances - and fill the jails then I don't care what she has to say.

The danger in California is that we are going to turn control of the criminal (in)justice system over to the mob. That's what happened up until the 1960's. It was called lynching.

Ms. Dauber's criticism disregards the fact that Mr. Turner will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life - long after he has completed his sentence. He will forever have issues with where he can live. He will be under supervision for years - and one screw up could land him in prison. At least with probation he will be receiving counseling and he will be monitored.

Should the recall effort prevail today, judges will no longer have the discretion to do what they think is best on the bench. They will be second guessed by everyone. People like Ms. Dauber will highlight one decision made from the bench and ignore the other hundreds or thousands of decisions that judge has made. And instead of crafting a sentence that is more likely to address the needs of those in front of the bench, judges will be more likely to go for one-size-fits-all solutions.

Bargaining with the devil

Corey Williams is a free man.

He spent 20 years in the Angola prison in Louisiana for a murder he didn't commit. Back in 1998, Mr. Williams was a developmentally challenged 16-year-old when Jarvis Griffin, a pizza delivery man, was shot and killed while delivering a pizza to a home in Shreveport.

Witnesses reported seeing some older men taking money and pizzas from Mr. Griffin. Those same witnesses said that Mr. Williams left the house empty-handed. Fingerprints on the murder weapon belonged to someone else and blood was found on the clothing of another suspect. There was no physical evidence linking Mr. Williams to the crime.

He was found by police hiding under a sheet at his grandmother's house. He denied killing Mr. Griffin but later, after hours of interrogation, changed his story. His confession lacked corroborating details.

Mr. Williams was convicted of the murder and sentenced to die. That death sentence was overturned by a district judge in 2004 because of Mr. Williams' mental disabilities.

Meanwhile, prosecutors had recordings of witness statements in which police indicated they believed that Mr. Williams was being framed for the murder. Dale Cox, the former Caddo Parish district attorney, argued in 2015 that he didn't have to turn over the recordings because defense attorneys hadn't proven that the recordings were exculpatory.

In the end, 44 former prosecutors and Justice Department officials signed a brief in support of Mr. Williams' claims before the US Supreme Court.

The appeal will never be heard because last week Mr. Williams agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter and obstruction of justice. The murder conviction was vacated and he was sentenced to time served.

On the one hand, we should be happy because an innocent man is now free; on the other hand, he shouldn't have had to agree to a plea deal to gain his freedom. Prosecutors played fast and loose with the rules and didn't hand over evidence that should have been disclosed prior to trial. Of course Mr. Williams couldn't prove anything on the recordings was exculpatory because he hadn't been allowed to listen to the recordings.

This is the problem with Brady material. The evidence is in the possession of the folks who are trying to convict the accused. The defense rarely knows what the state has in its possession if prosecutors decline to disclose it. As an aside, in Harris County (and the surrounding counties), prosecutors have open file policies of varying degrees - though it doesn't stop some evidence from being withheld.

Mr. Williams was forced to plead guilty because of the fear that his appeal would be denied. He was forced to plead in order to gain his freedom so that prosecutors could still point to a conviction in his case and so that the state wouldn't have to compensate him for the time he was locked up.

That was wrong. Once the whole story emerged in this case, the District Attorney should have asked a judge to vacate the conviction and order Mr. Williams freed. But even when the facts and law are on the side of the defendant, the state has the power.

Book review: The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist

I just finished an excellent book from Radley Balko and Tucker Carrington Sunday night as the storm raged around us. And by excellent I, of course, mean a book that got me so angry I wanted to hurl my phone across the room. The book is The Cadaver King and the The Country Dentist.

While the book focuses on Steven Hayne and Mark West, the book serves as a warning to all those out there who think judges in criminal courts are doing a good job of keeping junk science out of the courtroom. If you represent plaintiffs with claims against insurance companies and large corporations, then the judges act as stern gatekeepers of scientific evidence - doing all they can to exclude any scientific evidence that might cause someone to have to write a big check. But, when the actual lives of people are at stake, judges are only too willing to allow in any junk science sponsored by the State. Any problems with the testing or methodology, of course, goes to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility.

Mr. Hayne was a forensic pathologist - at least that's what he called himself. Coroners throughout Mississippi were only too happy to farm out autopsies to him since he would do everything in his power to bend his findings to confirm what the police believed. By his own admission he would perform up to five autopsies a day - day after day after day. He gave expert opinions in fields in which he had no formal training or certification. And even after he was discredited, Mississippi prosecutors and the Attorney General still defended his opinions against attack on appeal.

Mr. West was a local dentist who passed himself off, with the help of compliant judges across the state, as an expert in multiple fields including bite mark analysis, tool mark comparison as well as others. Even after being caught on film jamming casts of mouths onto the skin of deceased victims, judges continued to allow him to testify.

Thanks to the testimony of these two, as well as the win-at-all-costs mentality of small town prosecutors, Mr. Hayne and Mr. West were responsible for sending two innocent men to death row -- Levon Brooks and Kennedy Brewer. And then, even after the evidence that convicted the men was discredited, prosecutors fought like hell to keep the two men behind bars.

One point the authors emphasize in the closing chapter of the book is something that we as trial lawyers need to sit down and digest. According to the US Supreme Court's Daubert ruling, scientific evidence can be admitted to court if the court finds the science is generally accepted. But what makes a field of scientific inquiry "generally accepted?" In the legal field we are looking for answers right now, but science isn't concerned with a timeline. Science is concerned with getting it right - regardless of how long the process takes. Just because some piece of scientific evidence is deemed to be generally accepted now, a few years down the road we may learn that the entire inquiry was flawed. What happens to those men and women sitting in prison based upon that evidence? And at what point does a field of inquiry cease to be generally accepted? Is it when the first critical analysis is published? The second? And how are we - and more importantly, our clients, to know?

The other big issue they touch on is the very nature of forensic science. Unlike so-called "pure science," forensic science is developed specifically for use in the legal system. There's no rigor of peer review. Frequently articles are published in magazines aimed at law enforcement or others in that field of inquiry in journals that don't require articles to be peer-reviewed. Is it no wonder, then, that fields of inquiry such as bullet composition, bite mark analysis, blood spatter analysis, tool mark identification and others have been shown to be nothing more than junk science?

Happy Mother's Day

Leroy Harris will be spending Mother's Day with his mom today for the first time in 29 years.

Last November, Mr. Harris was released from a Connecticut prison after being exonerated of a sexual assault. Unfortunately he was forced to make a Hobson's choice between entering an Alford plea to the accompanying kidnapping and robbery cases or sitting in prison and waiting.

The sexual assault conviction went the way of the dinosaurs when DNA testing revealed exculpatory evidence that ruled him out as the attacker. An investigation by the Innocence Project also turned up evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.

Mr. Harris was given the choice to stand in front of a judge and plead guilty even though everyone - the defense, the prosecution and the judge - knew the plea was a legal fiction. Unfortunately the state still held some of the cards after the DNA test results came back. They had the option to retry the case which meant Mr.. Harris would have to sit behind bars awaiting a new trial - a new trial in which the state would not have some of its critical evidence admitted.

“Given the egregious misconduct that denied Mr. Harris a fair trial combined with the fact that the identification evidence presented against Mr. Harris would be inadmissible at trial today on due process grounds, it is deeply disappointing that he has been put in the untenable position of taking a plea to gain his freedom." -- Vanessa Potkin, Innocence Project

So, Mr. Harris took the deal and entered an Alford plea. Now he would be free and the state would keep its conviction.

But why did prosecutors insist on his pleading guilty before agreeing to his release from prison? He had served almost 30 years. Evidence turned up during post-conviction appeals clearly demonstrated that he was the victim of a wrongful conviction in the sexual assault case. It would stand to reason that if was innocent of the sexual assault that he would also be innocent of the kidnapping and robbery charges.

But prosecutors have a hard time letting cases go - even when they know it's the right thing to do. The often must be dragged kicking and screaming into court when faced with exculpatory evidence that they either failed to turn over or did their best to keep from being admitted into evidence.

Maybe it has something to do with a victim of wrongful conviction having the right to sue the state for compensation for the years and experiences that were taken away from him. But that money is paid out by the state under a statutory scheme, not the county in which he was convicted.

Maybe it has to do with the god complex some prosecutors possess. You know the ones - every conviction is the result of the jury doing the right thing and every acquittal is the result of the jury getting it wrong. These are the same prosecutors who fight every attempt to conduct DNA tests on untested biological material. The same prosecutors who raise their arms to the sky and ask the court when is enough enough?

For all of those who say cases like that of Mr. Harris show how the system works (albeit in a very imperfect manner), I would point out that there are other innocent men and women behind bars who can't turn to DNA testing or examples of prosecutorial misconduct to reverse their wrongful convictions. For every Leroy Harris there is another poor soul who is stuck in his own private hell because a jury just got it wrong.

Here's hoping that Leroy Harris and his mom have the greatest Mother's Day ever.