Interrogation Tricks Under Scrutiny After Ruling

Not a moment too soon. The NY Times has a good summary of the case and what Detective McCready did to coerce the confession.

In the case of Mr. Tankleff, who was 17 at the time of his parents’ murders and who quickly recanted his confession, one detective’s ruse had an especially dramatic flair. He faked a phone conversation with a hospital worker that Mr. Tankleff could hear, saying, “No kidding, he came out?” The detective then told Mr. Tankleff that his father had regained consciousness briefly and had identified his son as his attacker. The performance was so convincing that another detective testified that he believed the call was real.

Detectives also told Mr. Tankleff that his hair had been found in his mother’s hands after she was attacked, and that a “humidity test” had been taken in a shower to establish that Mr. Tankleff had used it to wash off his parents’ blood and bodily fluids. The hair was not found, nor was a test conducted on the shower.

One of the great things about the internet is how easy it is to go back to the original articles written at the time to see how perspectives change. Here is one from 1989 in Newsday where Det. McCready brags about how he tricked the 17 year old, whose parents had just been killed, into confessing:

The Death of Jury Trials: A Fantasy of Politicians and Judges Everywhere

Yesterday the WSJ Law Blog ran a post with the headline, “Jury Trial is an Endangered Species,” with the accompanying text suggesting that jury trials were too expensive and inconvenient to be useful. We frequently post about the importance of a jury in preventing state overreach. This can only take place when a jury is fully informed of its rights and is aware of the penalties involved in the cases they are judging. The importance of a jury having a final say cannot be overstated.

In Lysander Spooner's Trial By Jury he repeatedly makes the point that liberty cannot be protected without an informed jury to reign in prosecutors and judges. Essentially, he states, if the sole function of a jury is to judge manners by the letter of the law, then the jury is useless. Because the state can create any laws and rules it wants, a jury must have the power to determine the validity of the law as well as guilt or innocence.

So why do the judges and politicians hate the jury so much? Simply because it allows citizens a check on the power of the state. Spooner writes:

The powers of juries, therefore, not only place a curb upon the powers of legislators and judges, but imply also an imputation upon their integrity and trustworthiness; and these are the reasons why legislators and judges have formerly entertained the intensest hatred of juries, and, so fast as they could do it without alarming the people for their liberties, have, by indirection, denied, undermined, and practically destroyed their power. And it is only since all the real power of juries has been destroyed, and they have become mere tools in the hands of legislators and judges, that they have become favorites with them.

Legislators and judges are necessarily exposed to all the temptations of money, fame, and power, to induce them to disregard justice between parties, and sell the rights, and violate the liberties of the people. Jurors, on the other hand, are exposed to none of these temptations.

Read the full essay here. It was written over 100 years ago and is still the best explanation of the importance of having an informed jury.

Cops can now legally inflict permanant damage on you to draw blood if you are accused of DUI.

Ignoring logic and common sense, NJ courts have ruled:

Police may inflict permanent physical damage while forcibly taking blood from a motorist accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), according to a decision by the appellate division of the New Jersey Superior Court. The court on Tuesday found that police officers from Washington and Hamilton Townships did nothing wrong when they held down Russell Johnston in such a way that his wrist suffered permanent nerve damage as a nurse from Robert Wood Johnson Hospital took his blood.

MADD went to far over a decade ago. This obsession with busting DUIers causes more harm than good.

My New Blog - Tips on Dealing With Cops

My writing on the Civil Rights Action Corporation blog got noticed and I was asked to write several posts on tips for deal with law enforcement officers on another blog. The LA Criminal Defense blog has higher traffic and has given these tips a large audience. You can read my new posts and feedback here:

The Top 6 Ways Not To Get Pulled Over

How to Handle Getting Pulled Over Without Losing Your Cool

Top Five Cop Tricks – How They Get You to Give Up Your Rights

Avoiding the Section 1001 Trap - Why You Always Need A Lawyer

My favorite is the last one. More people should know about the insidious section 1001.

The Vindictive Prosecution of Joe Francis

The New York Times has finally picked up the story of the abusive prosecution of Joe Francis by Steve Meadows. The prosecutors conduct has been so egregious that even the right-wing pundits are supporting him. From the article:

His most vocal allies are not the Hollywood A-listers who have vacationed at his Mexico estate, but conservative radio hosts and their listeners, who suspect government shenanigans.

Mr. Francis’ high-profile and involvement in what some would consider a “seedy” business has made him an easy target for politicians looking to score cheap points. What is violating the constitution to a politician when it can score some votes?

Mayor Sullivan took exception and law enforcement officials cracked down on acts of lewd behavior, which interfered with the filming. Mr. Francis sued the officials, claiming violation of his First Amendment rights, and got them to settle and back down.

Steve Meadows, the Abe Weiss-like prosecutor, went even further than Mayor Sullivan to score votes. The New York Times article left out several pertinent facts related to the case:

Francis's Nevada attorney David R. Houston has filed a criminal referral to the Florida Attorney General, Florida Governor Charlie Crist and the Florida Bar asking that Prosecutor Meadows be investigated and prosecuted for criminal activity, based on his exhibition to Nightline reporter Martin Bashir and others of child pornography.
---
Meadows, who faces reelection...
---
Recently, Meadows made statements on a VH1 television program asserting Francis's guilt before Francis has even been tried, referring to evidence that has already been ruled inadmissible in the case.

"Respect is money, money is power and power is masculinity"

This is an excellent SF Gate article on the cycle of violence. It’s one of the best shorts descriptions I’ve read about why things are the way they are. Parts of it sound like something Tom Wolfe would write about manliness.

In this world, challenges cannot be left unanswered. A boy who is jumped, robbed or insulted and doesn't respond is labeled "soft," or a "punk" or a "bitch." He becomes prey. Once he is perceived as weak, the attacks keep coming. He loses not only his honor, but his friends and his personal safety, until he fights back and wins - sometimes via homicide.
…

"It fulfills that ego, gives you a sense of identity. Big dudes respect you. It's like being a star athlete - kids in constructive environments, their peers give them accolades and support to continue their good behavior by bolstering their ego. It's identical in the streets, only the behavior that is rewarded is different. It's like, 'Hey! I saw you in a stolen car!' and you get a high five."

Respect is money, money is power and power is masculinity. Violence defines you as a man.

"These kids have one thing in this world, and when you have nothing else, no money, no access, no privileges, no resources, no means, the only thing you have, from a little boy on, is your respect," investigator Gandy said.

Supreme Court Crack Cocaine Victory

Besides the obvious racial disparity, it is clear that mandatory minimums are a bad idea. More info from the NY Times:

In a racially sensitive issue, the justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that judges cannot hand down a lighter punishment simply because they disagree with wide disparities for crack and powder cocaine sentences.

Blacks account for about 80 percent of the federal crack cocaine convictions. The guidelines call for lighter prison terms for the sale of powder cocaine, a drug more popular with whites and Hispanics.

In a related ruling, the court also supported the right of judges to depart from sentencing guidelines in a case involving distribution of the drug ecstasy.