PHIL SPECTOR APPEALS MURDER JUDGMENT TO US SUPREME COURT
Per an anonymous commenter on this site, Philip Spector, convicted in Los Angeles of murdering failed movie actress Lana Clarkson, has been granted extra time to file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court.
According to SCOTUS docketing information, the extension request was filed by Spector appellate counsel Dennis P. Riordan, and was granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until December 15, 2011.
This signals that the United States Supreme Court may soon review what some, including this blog, have viewed as a tainted judgment of conviction infected with structural error by the trial court.
Stay tuned……
LA JUDGE WHO SHOCKED DEFENDANT WITH 50,000 VOLTS IN TROUBLE AGAIN
The judges of Los Angeles County have been keeping the Commission on Judicial Performance or CJP—California’s judicial watchdog and disciplinary agency busy.
In March the CJP publicly admonished Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Harvey Gliss for remarking in open court in the presence of the relatives of a black defendant:
“I guess the only thing that will make the defendants plead was for the judge to come out in a white sheet and a pointy white hat”. Instead, the defendants requested the judge’s disqualification. Read the discipline here.
Then in August the CJP publicly admonished the Hon. Joan Comparet-Cassani, Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Her offense? Improperly revoking a criminal defendant’s pro per status because her honor refused to believe that the defendant was capable of personally drafting the two procedural motions he had just filed without assistance from someone.
If you think that a self-represented criminal defendant has every right to receive help when drafting motions to be filed in court you would be right. But not only was her honor ignorant of the defendant’s right to self-representation—including the very limited circumstances under which his pro se status could be revoked—Judge Congeniality was extraordinarily rude go the man in court:
THE COURT: Okay. Who did you get this form from?
THE DEFENDANT: I did it myself, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don’t believe that.
THE DEFENDANT: Well, I had somebody -- I wrote it and I
had somebody type it for me.
THE COURT: But it -- parts are added in, so it’s a proforma
form.
THE DEFENDANT: Excuse me?
THE COURT: I said, parts are added, so it looks proforma to
me. You got this from somebody.
THE DEFENDANT: I wrote it in handwriting, and I had
somebody type it up for me.
THE COURT: No, I don’t believe you.
THE DEFENDANT: I did, Your Honor. That’s the truth.
THE COURT: But you copied it from something.
THE BAILIFF: Ma’am, if you continue to react, you’ll be in
the hallway.
THE DEFENDANT: I have a piece of discovery right here that –
THE COURT: Excuse me. I’m reading this. You gave it to
me.
(A Pause in the Proceedings.)
THE COURT: You did not draft this. There’s no way.
THE DEFENDANT: I did, Your Honor. That’s the honest
truth.
THE COURT: No, there’s no way.
THE DEFENDANT: I did, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don’t believe you; it’s that simple. I don’t
believe you. You did not draft this […]
But the truly extraordinary thing about this story is how in the world was Judge Comparet-Cassani on the bench to even commit this conduct?
In the current disciplinary report the CJP reveals that Judge Congeniality has a prior record of discipline For ordering an in-custody defendant’s 50,000 volt “shock-belt” activated for 8 seconds, not because he posed a security threat, but because Judge Comparet-Cassani did not like the man’s attitude!!!! So why is this Natzi-like judge from hell still on the bench?
In reaching its decision, the commission viewed as aggravating factors two prior
matters in which Judge Comparet-Cassani was disciplined for misconduct similar to that at issue here, namely, abuse of authority with regard to a pro per criminal defendant and poor demeanor. In 2000, the judge was privately admonished, in part, for ordering a sheriff’s deputy to activate an electronic stun belt being worn by a pro per criminal defendant that was designed to deliver a 50,000 volt electric shock for approximately eight seconds. The judge ordered the belt activated during a hearing not to prevent courtroom violence, but because of the defendant’s verbal interruptions. The admonishment also included two prior incidents, one involving the defendant who was shocked and one involving another defendant, in which the judge threatened the use of the belt as a means of controlling non-violent courtroom behavior.
So why is this judge still on the bench? You tell us, because we haven’t a clue.
MEL GIBSON EX RECEIVES $750K INSTEAD OF $15M
We authored several posts regarding the Russian scam artist’s dubious claims against actor Mel Gibson, culminating in a $15M settlement agreement, which the Russian—who also sued actor Timothy Dalton for child support—reneged on when she learned that Gibson’s ex-wife was to receive a reported $650M in their divorce.
At long last, though, the case has been resolved.The Russian will get a mere $750,000, her daughter by Gibson will receive the same child support she was always going to get by law, and the Russian has been ordered to keep her mouth shut—which should not be hard now that no one is listening anyway.
What can we say, except “we told you so!"
Hat tip: Kelly Green.
NOT GUILTY!
OK, we were not going to go near the Casey Anthony case for a number of reasons.
But since the major networks and even a prestigious law blog jumped on the Trials & Tribulations, golly Jose Baez is the most incompetent lawyer E-V-E-R bandwagon, and in view of the stunning NOT GUILTY verdict, we could not resist a brief post.
Having second chaired a death case early in our legal career and dutifully attended the 3-day death-penalty-boot-camp sponsored by the California Appellate Project, we are aware that the realities of death litigation are so grim that counsel are urged to set aside all lofty notions of an outright win in favor of a strategy of saving your client’s life.
Second, jurors that are “death qualified”, that is swear under oath that they could and would impose a death sentence if the facts warrant it, are more prone to convict during the guilt phase than a panel that includes jurors philosophically opposed to the death penalty--which question cannot even be asked of potential jurors unless death is on the table.
Third, death penalty appellate specialists stress that—other than avoiding the death of your client as your overarching objective—your goal is object, object, object—even if the law appears settled against you on a particular point. You just don’t want to be that lawyer whose client gets the needle after the United States Supreme Court decides that the death penalty is unconstitutional because you did not make that motion at trial, thereby waiving it for later review. Likewise with any number of lesser "waivable" but potential appellate issues. Therefore, all of those “dumb” objections that Baez was ridiculed for making were actually precisely what any competent lawyer SHOULD DO in a death penalty case.
But the bottom line is this: Under a media spotlight, with a very unsympathetic client and in opposition to some very compelling and prejudicial prosecution evidence, Baez did the near impossible: Not only did he save his client’s life, she was acquitted not only of murder but of the other serious charges as well, suffering a conviction only for lying to police—and local police at that (not the FBI). The trial lawyer’s equivalent of walking on water. In the context of a capital murder case, the defendant might as well have been convicted of disturbing the peace, so stunning and complete was Baez's victory for his client.
So, to all of you in the media, the blogosphere, and the general public who bought into the party line that Jose Baez is an incompetent idiot, to quote Toby Keith “How do you like me now?”
Ha! We love it! Jose Baez was giving the prosecution the old rope-a-dope, and just about everyone fell for it! "Incompetent" defense counsel wins the "social media case of the century"! Every criminal defendant facing the death penalty should have a lawyer this "incompetent" :).
Read more: Anthony not guilty of killing daughter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
