Welcome to HackLawyer.net

Readers may recall my prior post on ex-judge Samuel Kent who was scheduled to go on trial today in a Houston federal court on charges of sexual abuse and harassment. (see “A simple ‘not guilty’ will do, Judge,” September 4, 2008, filed under Courthouse gossip, Criminal Law)  The charges stemmed from allegations made against Kent by a former secretary and a case manager.  All in all, the allegations were pretty lurid, including some acts where he would grope the women’s gential areas or force their heads into his groin. 

You want to tell yourself that they must be dreaming this stuff up but this morning, Kent entered a plea to one count of obstruction of justice in return for the Government’s dismissal of the four pending sexual assault counts.  Of course, this is federal court which means that Kent will be facing time in the Bureau of Prisons.  How much will be up to the specific offense characteristics and that hoary doctrine of “relevant conduct.” 

The plea agreement apparently included the requirement that Kent acknowledge in open court that the complainants did not consent to his sexual advances nor did they derive any enjoyment from them, contradicting his earlier statements made to the Fifth Circuit inquiry panel and the press.  If you will recall, when he was indicted, he made the statement that he was “looking very much forward to a trial on the merits.”  Even with Dick Deguerin, a pretty tough guy at his side at counsel table, the evidence must have been fairly daunting.  And the women’s testimony and demeanor surely were the factors that tipped the scales in favor of the plea.

As an aside, the obstruction of justice count was added as a result of certain statements Kent made before that Fifth Circuit investigatory panel.  Perhaps the prosecutors added the count as enticement to get Kent to enter into the plea which called for his immediate resignation from the federal bench.  But don’t think that he’s completely out of the woods yet.  He now has to navigate the treacherous waters of a pre-sentence report.  And since he pled guilty, he will have to answer a lot of uncomfortable questions from probation officers detailing all aspects of the indictment and that includes the sexual abuse counts that are to be dismissed.  If he tries to come out of the net on those or is untruthful, the sentencing court may deem those evasions to be lack of acceptance of responsibility or worse, obstruction of justice.  And here we go again.   

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general under LBJ, has filed suit against Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale University, alleging that its members robbed the grave of Geronimo in 1918 and have kept his skull under glass ever since.  The suit is directed at forcing the secret society to return the skull and other artifacts to a new grave at the headwaters of the Gila River in New Mexico where Geronimo was born.  A little history is in order here to give fuller background to the suit.

Geronimo, whose given name was Goyathlay, put up a ferocious resistance to white settlers as well as the U.S. and Mexican armies for nearly 30 years.  He finally surrendered to General Nelson Miles in 1886 on the New Mexico-Arizona border.  At the time, it was he and 35 ragged survivors.  He was made a prisoner of war and died in captivity at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma of pneumonia in 1909.  It is believed and accepted as true among most members of Skull and Bones that Prescott Bush, father of “Poppy” Bush and grandfather to George W. Bush, broke into Geronimo’s grave with other cohorts in 1918 and made off with the skull, two bones, a stirrup and a bridle, all of which were put on display at the club’s headquarters in New Haven, otherwise known as the Tomb.  The story gained some traction when, in 2005, a historian discovered a letter written in 1918 from one Skull and Bones member to another which referred to the theft of the skull and pieces of tack for a horse which had been taken from a grave in Ft. Sill.

To date, there has been no official response from the club which boasts membership among the most powerful and elite, among them the Bushs and John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat.  For the record, there is actually a skull on display in a glass case when one walks in the door to the Tomb and all members call it Geronimo or at least that’s what is alleged as true in the book “Secrets of the Tomb.” (Little Brown 2002). 

Well, listen up.  With these very, very low-tech help hints, you won’t need a computer propeller-head around to fix these kind of problems.  Never let it be said that Hack isn’t here to help.

You forgot to take your charger on that overnight trip to Dallas

It’s happened before and will again.  You dashed off to the airport and forgot to pack the charger.  You’ll only be gone for a day but you know the cell’s battery is going down.  Cellphone batteries indeed last a bit longer if kept cool.  Normal body temperature can transfer heat through a cloth pocket where the cellphone is stored into the inner mechanism of the battery, speeding up the chemical processes inside.  As a result, the battery runs down faster.  So, to preserve what life you might still have in the battery, turn off the phone and place it in the hotel refrigerator overnight to slow down the battery’s natural tendency to lose its charge.

Using the remote key to unlock the car across the parking lot

Suppose you want to unlock your car in a parking lot but it’s a tad too far away.  Or, say, you know it’s in the general area but you can’t remember exactly where.  Do this.  Hold the metal key part of your key fob against your chin, then push the unlock button.  This little trick has just turned your head into an antennae.  Believe it or not, by doing this, your head has become a capacitor for the key fob.  That’s because all the fluids in your skull act as a conductor.  Don’t ask me how this works; I read an article written by a radio engineer.  It works.  You’ve now extended the range of the remote key unlock function by a few more car lengths.

You have to have it NOW and the printer runs out

You must have the print job completed ASAP and then boom, out comes those streaky pages, a sure sign that the printer just ran out of ink.  You don’t have time to go to Office Depot to get another cartridge.  What to do?  Take the cartridge out and run the hair dryer over it for two to three minutes.  Then, while still warm, place the cartridge back into the printer.  The heat from the dryer heats the thick ink which has coagulated in the tiny nozzles that distribute the ink onto the paper.  With the applied heat, the ink loosens up and again flows through the nozzles, giving you a few more pages before the cartridge goes on to that huge recycling bin in the sky. (more…)

Ellis Berry is the kind of client to run from.  The problem is that as is the case with the practice of criminal defense, so many lawyers don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing who they represent.  And once you’re stuck with someone like Berry, you press on as best you can, letting the chips fall where they may.  So, consider Berry’s defense lawyer and how he heroically performed under some very difficult circumstances.

It seems that Berry took it upon himself to terrorize his neighbor who lived right next door to him and his mother in an Austin duplex.  Although the appeals court opinion does not make clear exactly why Berry confronted the neighbor, a single mother, let’s just say that he frightened her to death.  After his incessant banging on her door, she called the police for assistance.  Before they could arrive, however, Berry retreated back into his apartment and swallowed five crack rocks.  He did so, according to his testimony at trial, to avoid being charged with possession of a controlled substance once the police showed up.  After their arrival, Berry was placed in an ambulance since he was exhibiting erratic behavior, no doubt due to the ingestion of the drugs.  While inside the ambulance, he was given verbal and written warning not to return to his neighbor’s apartment or bother her in any way.  Of course, immediately after his discharge from local hospital later that night, he promptly returned to her apartment, took a large rock and smashed the sliding glass door leading into her living room.  He entered and threatened to kill the hysterical woman.  The woman’s boyfriend, luckily, was present and forcibly removed Berry from the apartment.  When the police were summoned, they discovered Berry fleeing on foot.  He was arrested, after a brief struggle.  He was indicted for burglary of a habitation, enhanced with a prior felony for - what else - burglary.

At trial, Berry made a number of outbursts which prompted the patient trial judge to remove him from the courtroom.  Prior to his removal, Berry also made it known that he wanted a restraining order against his court-appointed defense counsel.  When the request was denied, Berry assaulted the attorney, striking him in the face.  After Berry was hustled out of the courtroom, the trial judge asked the lawyer if he would be able to continue his representation.  Admirably, the lawyer told the judge that he could and that Berry’s tantrum would not prevent him from exercising his best efforts at trial. 

After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the prosecutor, obviously not satisfied with having these terrible facts and Berry’s prior conviction at his disposal for punishment purposes, moved to introduce evidence of the courtroom assault on our hero defense lawyer.  He made a number of objections and pointed out to both the judge and jury that Berry’s assault should be interpreted as evidence of “serious mental health issues” rather than a manifestation of anti-social behavior.  Counsel stressed that the incident be treated as mitigating evidence when assessing punishment.  Certainly, he was placed in a very awkward position, thanks to the prosecution and the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence.  The jury returned a verdict of 45 years.  And the thanks the lawyer gets for his perseverence and fidelity to duty at trial? 

On appeal, Berry raised ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that his lawyer operated under a conflict of interest because of the lawyer’s status as victim of an extraneous offense litigated at the punishment phase.  However, Berry failed to explain how this could be, particularly since the trial lawyer stated on the record that he did not wish to press charges against Berry.  Rather than donning the garment of victimization, counsel consistently and zealously advocated on behalf of Berry right up to the bitter end and went so far as to ignore his own personal interests in an attempt to minimize the assault perpetrated against him.  And so the appeals court found.  Such is the thankless life of the criminal defense practitioner.  And appellate counsel ought to taken to the woodshed for raising the issue in the first place.   see Berry v. State, No. 03-08-00031-CR, Austin Court of Appeals, February 4, 2009.   

It’s beginning to take on a mantra-like quality.  Another inmate freed from prison after years of confinement.  Almost all involve exonerations based on newly-acquired DNA evidence which conclusively eliminates the offender as the guilty party.  But yesterday, there was a twist to the old, old story.  Joshua Kezer, 34, walked out of prison a free man after 17 years in a Missouri prison after a judge ruled that he simply did not commit the crime for which he was convicted.  Kezer had been imprisoned since 1992 for the murder of a nineteen-year old nursing student.  The trial court in Cole County ruled on Tuesday that Kezer had been wrongly convicted, criticizing one particular prosecutor for withholding several crucial pieces of evidence.  New prosecutors have already announced they will not seek a retrial.  There must have been some pretty potent Brady material involved here, huh?  And what became of the guilty prosecutor?  Sitting on the bench somewhere, no doubt.  What limited information there is gives no clue.

Readers will know that I have written about Roman Polanski’s attempts to dismiss his 32-year old sexual abuse case, still pending in Los Angeles County because he took a powder before sentencing and fled to Europe. (see posts of March 31, 2008; December 3, 2008 and January 9 of this year).  His California counsel recently filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct.  Much of what Polanski complains of has to do with lobbying efforts initiated by a L.A. County prosecutor which purportedly influenced the presiding judge to announce that he would impose a harsh prison sentence rather than probation expected by all.  It’s all captured in a recent documentary on Polanski, Desired and Wanted.  His lawyers referenced the film several times in the motion to dismiss. 

A hearing was held on the dismissal motion yesterday.  Although the trial court rejected the request to dismiss, citing Polanski’s fugitive status as barring him from complaints of continuing jurisdiction, the court did leave the door somewhat ajar for the director.  His order makes clear that Polanski has until May 7 to return to this country and argue the merits of his motion.  By this, he would surrender to authorities who have an open warrant for his arrest and would submit himself to the jurisdiction of the convicting court.  However, in return, he would be given the opportunity to present whatever evidence he has which addresses the prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.  That evidence, the order makes clear, would be considered in the context of one, whether the case should be dismissed and two, whether evidence of that ilk should mitigate the punishment to be assessed in the case. 

It’s a clear invitation to Polanski to act and probably it’s now in his best interest to do so.  One thing about this country: we forgive just about anybody for whatever they have done, short of murder or looking for sex in airport bathroom stalls (sans outing yourself).  Do I need to repeat a few names to drive the point home?  Marv Albert.  Chuck Colson.  Woody Allen.  Martha Stewart.  The list goes on and on and . . .  And don’t forget Patty Hearst.  Hell, she’s acquired muse status for John Waters and all of his films. 

So, Roman, come on over from across the pond and prostrate yourself before L.A. County Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza and the court of public opinion.  I just don’t see you getting popped that bad, I really don’t.  You can get all the Hollywood bigshots to go to bat for you, including the ”Governator.”  Besides, California is broke right now and I mean really broke.  Not just technically or from an equitable standpoint.  The state is bust.  There’s no room for you in the inn so to speak since a recent federal court decree ordered the release of 53,000 inmates to ease overcrowding.  Now is the time to strike while the iron’s hot.  With a good team of lawyers, give it a shot.  And get it over with.  Thirty-two years is long enough to have this hanging out there.  It’s Polanski’s turn to act now and there’s no real excuse not to take advantage of the subtle invitation extended by the trial court.  And I won’t write about any of this again unless and until Polanski does the right thing, sidles up to the licklog and takes some medicine for what he did (and confessed to) long, long ago.   

Now here’s something I wouldn’t mind watching - Roger Clemens’s pending deposition at the hands of Richard Emery, lawyer for Roger’s former trainer, Brian McNamee.  And why?  Well, for starters, a federal judge in the Southern District of Texas pitched out the lion’s share of Clemens’s defamation lawsuit which he filed, on the suspect advice of lawyer Rusty Hardin, against McNamee.  In the ruling, Judge Keith Ellison explained that the statements attributable to McNamee were made in response to a federal investigation and therefore, were privileged.  Those statements alleged use of steroids and human growth hormones by Clemens and others.  Moreover, Judge Ellison ruled that for the most part, his court did not have jurisdiction over several of the statements since they were made outside the Southern District.  What remains of the lawsuit are accusations that McNamee defamed Clemens when he told Andy Pettitte in 1999 or 2000 that Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs. 

McNamee has specifically denied that he ever told Pettitte that Clemens was using steroids or other such drugs and instead, has testified that Pettitte came to him and asked him why he had not informed him that Clemens was using banned substances.  What’s even more troubling is that Pettitte has already testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that Clemens admitted to him in 1999 or 2000 that he was using banned substances. (more…)

The Juvenile Law Center out of Philadelphia had been making complaints about Judge Mark Ciavarella, particularly his penchant for sentencing first-time juvenile offenders to detention centers for seemingly innocuous, minor offenses.  The Law Center also criticized the aura of intimidation which permeated his courtroom.  He discouraged parents who appeared in his court with their children from hiring lawyers and worse, if they wanted one appointed, the wait might take up to several weeks.  And all the while, the child would have to sit in detention.  The Law Center even filed a petition with the Pennsylvanie Supreme Court in an effort to put pressure on the legal community to examine Judge Ciavarella’s methods.  That court dismissed the petition out of hand. 

Undeterred, the Law Center began to tabulate the number of children that Judge Ciavarella committed to detention.  It clearly exceeded the statewide average.  Whereas the state rate was 1 in 10, the judge’s frequency of detentions was 1 in 4.  And the kinds of cases for which he sentenced these children to detention just didn’t make sense.  One offender, a 16 year old female who was a stellar student and had never been in trouble before, was cited for having built a fictional MySpace webpage which spoofed an assistant principal at her high school.  She even included a disclaimer at the bottom of the page which said it was a joke.  But when she appeared in front of Judge Ciavarella, she and her parents were shocked to hear that she was sentenced to three months in detention.  She was led off in handcuffs in full view of her parents and probation authorities.  She had no lawyer.  Another youth had gotten involved in a mill-run fist fight and blackened the eye of a classmate.  When he showed up for his hearing, he and his parents, sans lawyer, were fully expecting probation as had been promised him by probation authorities and family friends.  Instead, Judge Ciavarella likewise sentenced him to 90 days in detention.  He too was led away, shacked.  

Finally, it was all too much. (more…)

Critics were surprised by the brisk sales of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation.  But I wasn’t.  Because deep down, millions and millions of Americans - I’ll say that again - millions and millions of citizens have had it with religious arrogance and bullying that has gone on for too long in this country, all under the guise that it’s some sort of constitutionally protected conduct.  These two books, among many, simply spoke to a very strong undercurrent prevalent among numerous folk and that is, deep down, they ask themselves: how did atheism or agnosticism, for that matter, get such a bad name?  How did Christianity get away with the hijacking of morality?  Why can’t any of us honestly engage in critical debate about religion?  It’s for fear of being labeled an atheist which, I guess for the most holy and pious, is maybe a notch above (or below?) pedophilia, genocide and the belief in evolution. All this came to mind when I read the smug, oily op-ed piece authored by one David Grisham, a “director” of this outfit who call themselves Repent Amarillo.  Like a ”good Christian” (how many times have I heard that, as if it’s equivalent to the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval), he quotes the Good Book, over and over and over.  It’s an old ploy, one I’m used to from my days in the old C of C.  So I’ll toss one back to him.  At this very moment, I can’t remember the exact chapter and verse but I do recall the admonition about those who pray loudly on the streetcorner.  Beware of the fanatic for he is forever busy and needs constant feeding. 

It’s no secret that National Public Radio has an inbred, deeply-rooted bias against Israel.  It shows in its reporting of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  A deaf man could tell.  Please don’t even try to persuade me otherwise; it’s an argument you’re going to lose.  And you can bet a pound to a ruble that here’s two items that will not make it on the Morning Edition or All Things Considered.

First, The United Nations agency that provides assistance to Palestinian refugees reported Wednesday that Hamas police (thugs) had seized aid supplies intended for needy Palestinians.  It’s more evidence of increasing tension between these various relief groups and the militant Hamas goons who control Gaza City.  The accusation was made in a statement issued by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency or Unrwa.  It condemned the thievery “in the strongest terms” and demanded return of the goods.  Now that’s something when considering that the UN reserves its most damning language for anything that Israel does which might be interpreted as harmful to the perpetual Palestinian refugee population.  A spokesman for Unrwa added that Hamas thugs “were armed and we were not.”  The goods stolen consisted of blankets and more than 400 food parcels.  And what was the response of Hamas, the duly elected leaders of these wretched Palestinians?  It was investigating whether Unrwa was “working with any organizations in Gaza that were not licensed by the local government and that have a political agenda.”  In other words, is Unrwa connected with anyone who does not support the aims and ends of Hamas, first and foremost being the ultimate destruction of Israel.

Second, the Israeli military acknowledged on Wednesday that its soldiers fired two tank shells on January 16th, at the height of the incursion into Gaza to quell Hamas rocket attacks, into the house of Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish.  The explosions killed three of his daughters.  The military concluded from an investigation into the incident, angrily demanded by groups such as Amnesty International and the U.N., that the infantry had come under heavy sniper and mortar fire from a house next to the doctor’s.  Soldiers identified “suspicious figures” in the upper level of the doctor’s house whose actions were consistent with being spotters directing fire for the snipers and mortar fire.  The doctor had consistently denied that his house was being used by Hamas at numerous Hamas-sponsored press conferences held in and around Gaza.  At one of these press conferences, he stated that he would count on the ”professionalism [of Israeli leaders], that they are serious and they have the courage to say the truth - they committed a mistake.”  The military revealed evidence which showed that Israeli officers personally contacted the doctor in the days leading up to the shelling and urged him to evacuate his home because of intense fighting in the area.

The military, in its released findings, noted that it was “saddened by the harm caused to the doctor’s family, but that under the circumstances, it considered the decision to fire towards the building ‘reasonable.’ “  Dr. Abuelaish is well known as a strong advocate of reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians and has worked for many years in Israeli hospitals.  

In a statement broadcast throughout Israel and Gaza on Wednesday after the military released its findings, Dr. Abuelaish, speaking in Hebrew thanked the Israelis for carrying out an honest investigation.  “We all make mistakes,” he said and added that he hoped that such a mistake as affected him would never happen again.  So, he counted on the professionalism of Israeli leaders to carry out an honest inquiry and he got exactly that.  Think NPR will ever report on this scoop?  Doubtful, very doubtful.