Welcome to HackLawyer.net

Now here’s something I wasn’t aware of.  Warren Chism, R-Pampa, hardly a “Greenie,” has been gushing lately about the benefits of wind power and biofuels.  Chism recently told a reporter with The New Republic that “[s]elling wind up here is our next boom.  We’re tickled we’re doing it.”  This from an ultra-conservative best remembered outside the confines of the Panhandle as the legislator who put forward a measure in the statehouse to ban heterosexual sodomy.  That prompted a bemused Democrat to stand up during debate and ask what would happen if the husband were to “slip” during coitus.  The chamber erupted in laughter but an unruffled Chism solemnly intoned “I suggest you go see a doctor about his aim.” (more…)

The latest proponent of Holocaust-denial is the Iranian nutcase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  This brand of dementia has other illustrious adherents, not worth identifying here.  But the fact is that there are sane, serious people who actually believe in this as a historical fact.  Their faith would be strained if not altogether shattered should they allow themselves to amble along the corridors of the huge archive of Nazi documents located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.  There, Ahmadinejad could sit down and comb through one particular binder which contains hundreds of pages written on both sides.  This is what it contains. (more…)

It was a decision that stunned Baltimore County prosecutors.  On Tuesday, October 23, Circuit Judge Susan Souder ruled that the State’s fingerprint evidence would not be allowed into evidence.  In a 32-page decision, Judge Souder characterized fingerprinting as “a subjective, untested, unverifiable identification procedure that purports to be infallible.”  The judge acknowledged the nearly-100-year history of fingerprinting as a crime-busting tool but concluded that such history “does not by itself support the decision to admit it.”  Judge Souder’s ruling, under state law, cannot be appealed.

The fallout was immediate.  The state’s top prosecutor expressed concern that the decision would result in loads of cases being filed in federal court to avoid the exclusionary ruling.  The assistant district attorneys involved in the subject case, State v. Bryan Keith Rose, scrambled to find additional witnesses who could place the defendant near the scene of the crime, a shopping mall where a store owner was shot during an attempted carjacking.  State Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger promised that his office would look into all possible avenues to “make sure that some kind of justice can happen for the [victim’s] family.”  On the other side of the bar, Patrick Kent, chief of the state public defender’s forensics division, said the questions raised about the reliability of fingerprinting extend to other types of scientific evidence that have unfortunately gone unchallenged for too long by defense lawyers and judges.  “This is the beginning of the scrutiny.  These issues will not go away.  We will litigate these issues, because there are too many ‘forensic sciences’ that have never been scrutinized and that lack a scientific basis.”

Another prosecutor, Jason League, weighed in with an even  direr comment, “This ruling virtually overturns 100 years of jurisprudence with respect to the admissibility of latent fingerprint evidence.”  But not so fast.  While the legal challenge did not explicitly question the underlying premise of fingerprint identification - that no two persons’ fingerprints are alike - the defense successfully argued that two prints from two different fingers can be mistakenly judged as matching by a fingerprint expert.  That possibility becomes even more likely when analysts are working with partial latents that are smudged, distorted or exposed to the elements.  It’s high time that fingerprint identification was attacked specifically on these grounds. (more…)

The Grievance Symposium held at the Belo Mansion in Dallas this past Tuesday, October 23 was designed to put members of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline (CFLD) in contact with the various parties who implement the grievance system on a day-to-day basis.  That includes those who work within the offices of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) and the volunteers, both lawyer and lay, who serve on the evidentiary panels which hear the actual contested grievance matters.  Rounding out the field of attendees were selected lawyers who represent respondent attorneys before the CFLD.  It was my privilege to participate with five other lawyers who work in this unusual field of law. 

John Neal, the Chief Discplinary Counsel for the State Bar and a very fine lawyer indeed, presented the gathering with an overview of what his office has been trying to accomplish and outlined the changes implemented under his leadership.  One of the most significant changes discussed was the Commission’s aggressive implementation of the Grievance Referral Program (GRP).  This initiative seeks to refer to the program certain lawyers who have engaged in minor misconduct and who meet the GRP’s eligibility criteria.  Experience has shown that a great number of grievances which end up in the system and consequently take up an inordinate amount of time for all concerned usually arise from communication problems; poor organizational, time management or office management skills; minor neglect of a simple matter entrusted to the lawyer that gets ignored or otherwise swept under the rug; substance abuse or depression.  In other words, a lawyer’s avoidant behaviors, usually brought about as a result of overextension and at worst, depression, exposes him or her to a host of problems which otherwise, under normal circumstances, wouldn’t have amounted to a hill of beans.

The GRP works like this: In exchange for a likely dismissal of the underlying complaint by the Commission, the respondent lawyers agrees to complete a remedial or rehabilitative program specifically tailored to address the issues that gave rise to the grievance in the first place.  If the lawyer does not fully complete the terms of the agreement in a timely manner, the underlying complaint then moves forward through the usual disciplinary process to resolution.  As the experienced criminal practitioner can see, it works like the familiar pre-trial diversion.  I can guarantee you that I will be utilizing the program whenever the appropriate case comes along.  I bring up the GRP not only because it reflects a progressive step forward, inspired under the leadership of CDC John Neal, but because it recognizes the criminal defense lawyer’s greatest enemy.  It’s not booze or prescription drugs but depression. (more…)

As he watched his sister mix a can of Swanson’s chicken broth with rice and vermicelli, Vincent DeDomenico, Sr. got an idea.  Why not concoct an identical version but sell it to the public as a dry commodity.  And so was born that favorite “Rice-A-Roni, that San Francisco treat!” in 1958.  Remember the jingle from the television ads back in the early 60’s?  Well, maybe not but I sure do and so do a lot more lawyers who will admit to their age and graying hair. (and cut out that damn Grecian Formula 44 or tinting) 

Rice-A-Roni transformed the business of the Golden Grain Macaroni Company, established by DeDomenico’s father, Domenico, a Sicilian immigrant who came to this country in 1890.  That small company began as a simple vegetable store that later grew into a distributing factory, selling pasta to Italian restaurants and food stores in San Francisco.  Vincent, born in 1915, eventually took over the reins of his father’s business and ran it along with his two brothers, Tom and Paskey.  In 1964, Golden Grain bought the famous San Francisco icon, the Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, founded by another immigrant Italian family.  Finally, by 1986, Golden Grain had grown to $250  million in sales.  It was sold to Quaker Oats in that year for $275 million.

One year after the sale, and restless for something to do, Mr. Dedomenico bought 21 miles of Southern Pacific Railroad tracks in Napa Valley, restored some Pullman cars and started up the Napa Valley Wine Train which ran through the gorgeous Napa Valley and offered riders elegant meals and of course, excellent wines as it snaked through wine country.  The project drew strong opposition from valley dwellers who wanted to “moderate” tourism in the valley.  The company continues to run its line but riders are not permitted to get off at the end of its trek at St. Helena.  Mr. Dedomenico managed the trains until the very day that he died. 

Virgil Van Camp has all the credentials for a Panhandle conservative.  If you think about it, it’s rather safe to be a conservative in these neck of the woods.  You’re in with the vast majority of folks and one can be in favor of a whole host of issues in theory yet not have to practice them in public.  I mean, think about what things have been like for the past seven years.  A political party that preaches fiscal responsibility yet has spent the public money like a drunken sailor on shore leave, leaving us broke.  A president who refuses to fund research into stem cell technology which we know can alleviate the suffering of scores and which we, as a nation overwhelmingly support yet, at the same time, trumpets a sort of Flash Gordon expedition to explore Mars.  I mean, he actually got up in front of cameras and promoted the idea and he sees no inherent contradiction.  There’s your cognitive dissonance.  But enough of this foolishness that has passed for credible domestic policy during the Bush reign.  I want to comment briefly on Van Camp’s Friday, October 19 column on abortion in the Amarillo Globe.

I’ve never written on abortion because, frankly, what else is there left to say?  The lines have been drawn for quite some time.  But Van Camp’s pithy comments drove home for me why I favor abortion as an alternative to unwanted children.  Here he is, an avowed conservative and from all accounts, one who has consistently voted Republican for decades, distilling the abortion issue down to its element.  And that is, for the true believers, for those who stand outside Planned Parenthood, who burn and bomb the abortion clinics, who torment those unfortunate women (most alone and without adequate resources) as they trek inside for a referral, for those who have their unforgiving opinions so that they might ease themselves into a comfortable, morally superior frame of mind - it’s really none of your business. 

Forget about breaking down the pregnancy into its trimesters or the manner of late-term abortions.  I concede, quite readily, that at some point, some arbitrary point along the continuum, society has interest in that developing life.  But at that discrete moment in time when the woman is advised or, on her own, knows she is with child, that decision to terminate or go forward is hers and hers alone.  When we allow government to step in here and now in time to dictate, we are no longer free.  That’s what I think Van Camp is trying to say.  What’s compelling is that he pointed those comments at those with whom he shares a political philosophy as a challenge.  I wonder how many will re-examine their convictions.  I remember when he ran that column years ago and I’m glad he do so again.  It will be interesting to see what critical outpouring there will be from the right.  Buddy Seewald is a convenient target with a brickbat but not so with a Hobbsean like Van Camp.   

When hack writes about all the WWII heros who are now dying off as a result of attrition and old age, it’s not just about men.  The war effort and victory over the Axis powers were fueled by brave women as well.  Andree de Jongh, whose youth belied her courage and survival skills exhibited while leading scores of downed Allied pilots to safety along a treacherous clandestine escape path, died Saturday in Brussels at the age of 90.  Her bravery made her a legend.

Derek Shuff, in his recent book Evader (2007), writes about three British crewmen whose bomber made a forced landing in Belgium in 1941.  They made their way to the Underground and were hidden away in a safe house when they were introduced to a 24-year-old woman.  “My name is Andree,” she said, “but I would like you to call me by my code name, which is Dedee, which means little mother.  From here on I will be your little mother, and you will be my little children.  It will be my job to get my children to Spain and freedom.”  Shuff writes that after she left, the three airmen sat in stunned silence and finally one spoke to observe that their lives now depended on a schoolgirl.  Two of the three survived on a harrowing trek along a 1,000 mile route which became known as the Comet escape line because of the speed with which soldiers were hustled along it.

Ms. de Jongh eventually led 33 expeditions across occupied France and over the Pyrenees Mountains to Gibraltar.  She personally escorted 118 Allied soldiers to safety; at least 300 made their escape along the Comet escape line.  She was finally captured on the 34th attempt in January 1943 when betrayed by a German collaborator.  After 20 interrogations, the Gestapo simply refused to believe her confessions about the extent of her involvement in escorting servicemen to freedom, mainly because of her youth and beauty.  She was eventually shipped to Ravensbruck concentration camp where somehow, among the squalor, disease and death, she survived. 

After the war, she received the Medal of Freedom With Golden Palm, the highest award the United States can give to a foreigner who helped with the war effort.  She later worked in leper hospitals in the Belguim Congo and Ethiopia.  She was made a Belgium countess in 1985. 

Now there was a life lived to the very end. 

The next time some moron pulls in front of you on the freeway, wouldn’t it be nice to have a reservoir of epithets at your disposal to hurl instead of the usual “jerk,” “a-hole” or “s***head.”  Well, now you can master Yiddish for each and every occasion.  Michael Wex has written a book, Just Say Nu, published by St. Martin’s Press which outlines those situations that require that one use ”Yiddish for Every Occasion (When English Just Won’t Do).” 

Let’s take that idiot who pulled out in front of you.  Is he a shmendrik, kuneh-laiml or just a yold?  Yiddish breaks down the stupidity of others in a way that no other language can even come close.  Fine distinctions do matter.  “A shmendrik walks (or drives) into a wall because he expects it to get out of the way; a kuneh-laiml didn’t notice the wall to begin with,” Mr. Wex explains. 

The book is packaged as a primer and jokingly marketed as a “how-to” manual.  It lists Yiddish numerals, explains pronouns and, this is the best part, has drawings of a man and woman with the principal parts of those bodies identified in Yiddish.  My bet is that most readers will skip over the lessons in syntax and grammar and go right to the sections that promise to provide the user with the right word or phrase at the right time.  Yiddish is that one language known for its ferocity and aggression and it looks like this book delivers.  Yiddish seems to be the better alternative to the upraised middle finger.

And for the record, the word “nu” is the Yiddish equivalent to that utilitarian English word “well.”  It maintains a special slot in Yiddish in that is gives the speaker time to pause and collect his or her thought such as “Nu, let’s get down to business.”  It can also mean “so” which gives the speaker an escape vehicle to get out of an unpleasant situation: “X died suddenly, nu, let’s speak of happier times.”  A long, drawn out nu, addressed to a stranger, might mean “What are you doing here and what do you have to say for yourself?”  Then there’s the nu of indifference which is really a new say of saying “so what?”  So try that during your next address to the bench during a pre-trial hearing. 

(Reproduced from The New Republic, October 15, 2007, at www.tnr.com)

TO:  Senate Republicans Except Senator Craig

FROM:  Your New Republican Strategists

SUBJECT:  Getting Senator Craig to Stop Coming to the Senate

Dear Senators:

Please rest assured that we, like you, want to maintain the strong family-values reputation of the Republican Party and thus have been working around the clock to get Senator Craig to quit his job.  So stop sending messages accusing us of being “lazy bums,” “traitors to the party,” and possibly bi-curious.” Please remember that political strategists have feelings too.

Solving the Senator Craig issue if of the utmost importance to us.  A few days ago, we asked President Bush for his thoughts on the matter.  “What would Jesus do?” the President asked as he closed his eyes in prayer.  At least we think it was prayer.  To be honest, it looked like he fell asleep.  Eight hours later, around 4:00 p.m., the President reopened his eyes and announced, “He said to ask Karl Rove.”

As your new Republican strategists, we didn’t want to simply ask Karl.  We wanted to prove ourselves.  So, we decided to try out a few things on our own.  You may remember the following attempts to rid the Party of Lincoln of Senator Craig. (more…)

Today, October 15, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of an inmate convicted of two capital murders thirty years ago.  Joe Clarence Smith argued that his 30 years on death row constituted “cruel and unusual punishment.”  Smith’s death sentences have been set aside twice and twice reconfirmed as late as 2004.  His appeal contended that the mere fact that he has lived on death row with anxiety and uncertainty of the imposition of the death penalty was in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s proscription of cruel and unusual punishment.  The eight-justice majority turned away Smith’s appeal with lone justice Stephen Breyer dissenting.

Breyer stated in a short memo that he knew of no execution having taken place after so long a delay, thus making Smith’s case unusual and worthy of consideration.  Of course, it leaves one to wonder if any of  the briefing clerks alerted Justice Breyer to the case of Ronald Chambers, Texas death row resident since 1976.  Chambers faced a death date just last spring but gained yet one more reprieve when a federal district court issued a stay to review his Penry claims.  (more…)