Our blog has moved, and is new and improved.

You should be automatically redirected in 3 seconds. If not, visit
MinnLawyerBlog.com
and update your bookmarks.

Showing posts with label criminal law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criminal law. Show all posts

Monday, March 3, 2008

Criminal defense attorneys know how to have fun

While other types of lawyers may disagree, I have always felt that nobody knows how to have fun like criminal defense attorneys when they let down their hair.

As proof, I offer from this week's Bar Buzz column in Minnesota Lawyer the following intriguing silent auction items that the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers will offer at the group's annual shindig next week:
  • A weekend for four at attorney Carolyn Agin Schmidt’s beachfront home in Duluth;
  • A 90-minute plane ride for three with attorney Jeff Sheridan;
  • A New Orleans dinner for six cooked in your home by attorney Caroline Durham;
  • Two 45-minute guitar/song sets by attorney Jim Sheehy at your next party;
  • A guided kayak trip to the Apostle Islands with attorney Brock Hunter;
  • A four-day stay in a three-bedroom Telluride Colorado Condo from attorney Fred Bruno. and
  • A neon statue of Lady Justice to decorate your office window from attorney Mike McGlennen.
Can you imagine an intellectual-property lawyer auctioning off a neon rendition of Lady Justice? I rest my case.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Is there a right to a jury-waived trial?

One of the more interesting debates going on in Minnesota Lawyer right now is if the state should have a say in whether or not a defendant gets a jury waived-trial. So far, we have published two letters on the issue from Minnesota State Public Defender John Stuart and one from Stearns County Attorney Janelle P. Kendall, the president-elect of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.

Depending upon how you want to frame the issue, the question is whether:
-- the defendant should have the right to a trial without a jury; or
-- the state should have a right to a trial with a jury.

Right now, defendants can waive juries in favor of having a judge decide their case without regard to how the prosecutor may feel about it. The MCAA recently announced that it plans to lobby for a law change requiring the prosecutor to sign off on such waivers, sparking the recent spate of letter writing.

It's an interesting issue -- and one that both defenders and prosecutors obviously feel very strongly about.

Friday, January 4, 2008

Access-to-clients issue

The newly revamped Minnesota Lawyer website has an interesting article on it about what restrictions can imposed on meetings between inmates and their lawyers. A local attorney has been in a tussle with Scott County officials over jailhouse access to her client. Scott County has been apparently requiring 24 hour notice be given for such meetings.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

'Knock and talk' doesn't fly in 7th Circuit

Here's a situation we'll probably see on Law & Order soon.

A federal appeals court ruled this week that cocaine seized during a Milwaukee drug bust is inadmissible due to an illegal police search.

The case, USA v. Ellis, went down like this:

Police and DEA agents, following an investigation of drug activity, visited a Milwaukee home in 2005 for a "knock and talk" — a tactic where officers try to talk their way into a house without a warrant.

While chatting up the occupants — behind a closed door — officers said they heard activity inside. Believing that someone was trying to destroy illegal drugs, police busted down the door and later found 2.5 kilograms of cocaine.

The search was upheld in Wisconsin District Court, but the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wasn’t impressed with the probable cause. "It is reasonable that any person, not just people trying to destroy drugs, would be moving throughout the home to see what was going on the front, side and back of the home," Judge Michael S. Kanne wrote in the Aug. 27 opinion.

The officers later testified that they only heard movement inside the house. There was no flushing of toilets. No tossing bags out the window. No jumping down the fire escape. No other evidence, other than footsteps, to suggest that contraband was being destroyed.

Thus, no suitable reason for storming the house, Kanne concluded.

"The problem in this case is that the officers and agents lacked a warrant when they approached the home and utilized tactics that, if allowed to go unchecked, would eliminate the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for a home with any connection to drugs," he wrote.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John J. Manning told the Journal Sentinel that his office "is still studying the court's opinion."

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Tidbits from the U.S. high court

I have spent the last 2.5 days at Minnesota CLE's Criminal Law Institute, picking up a bevvy of CLE credits and seeing what's new in the criminal law area. From this morning's lecture on the U.S. Supreme Court, here are just a few interesting tidbits:

-- The high court decided 68 cases this term -- the lowest output since 1953;
-- Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote in every one of the more than 20 opinions decided by a 5-4 margin;
-- some lawyers have, as a result, begun tailoring their Supreme Court arguments specifically to court Justice Kennedy;
-- the high court has shown a strong proclivity toward taking business cases (40 percent of the docket) and toward deciding in favor of the business in most of those cases; and
-- a woman who mailed poisoned home-baked cookies to all the justices in 2005 was sentenced to 15 years in prison last year.

The last point gave me some pause as I munched absent-mindedly on one of those free bagels they set out for you at CLE programs ...

Monday, May 21, 2007

Prostitution ring prosecution

The U.S. Attorney's Office announced at a press conference today that 25 people arrested over the weekend have been charged in federal court for crimes related to the operation of a major prostitution ring in the Twin Cities.

The charges include conspiracy, transporting a person to engage in prostitution and enticement of another to travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Mass. lawyer shot during alleged attack on cop

We don't usually cover news strictly out of Massachusetts, but this little item from our sister publication, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, caught our eye for obvious reasons.


Lawyer is shot in leg after allegedly attacking cop with knife

A criminal defense lawyer who regularly practices in Dorchester District Court was shot in the leg by a local police officer and arrested for attempted murder after she allegedly charged police with a knife. ...

A statement released by Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said that 38-year-old Aderonka O.A. Lipede allegedly came at one of the officers with the weapon. ...

And here is my favorite part ...


While the matter is still under investigation, preliminary indications suggest the lawyer was emotionally disturbed at the time of the shooting. ...

Do ya' think?

In any case, click here for more.

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

A 750-year sentence imposed in kiddie porn case

A Burnsville man was sentenced to 750 years in prison for creating at least 29 pornographic images of prepubescent girls in his basement.

The tip-off that helped investigators put him away: a Brownie uniform in the background of one of his photographs.

For more, see "He made child porn - and gets 750 years" in the Pioneer Press.

The sentence was meted out by U.S. District Court Judge James M. Rosenbaum.

St. Paul attorney Earl Gray had a great quote in the article about the defendant's prospects on appeal.

"If you appeal the sentence to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, they'll probably give him 1,500 years," Gray said. "They're tougher than Rosenbaum."

Was justice served here?

Friday, April 13, 2007

Judge Randall bares his mind


Court of Appeals Judge R.A. “Jim” Randall vented his frustration with the Minneapolis Police Department in a 16-page dissent in a case released earlier this week, State v. Thoreson.

The defendant had been convicted of misdemeanor prostitution after a Hennepin County District Court judge refused to dismiss the case on the ground that police misconduct violated the defendant’s due process rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Randall disapproved of the police officer’s investigative techniques, which included inducing the woman to disrobe completely in the front seat of his unmarked squad car.

Randall thought the woman didn’t commit a crime by taking her clothes off without accepting money for sex. He called the police conduct “somewhat egregious.” Arrest her, if you must, but do not “make sport” with her, said the judge.

Randall is no stranger to a well-turned phrase as the following excerpt from his dissent illustrates:

“Respondent argues that asking a strange woman to take off all her clothes and go naked in front of a strange man is a ‘legitimate’ police tactic. Respondent argues this is so because ‘good girls won’t do that but bad girls will.’ Looking back, at my age, perhaps I did miss part of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Maybe there never was a senior prom where, after the midnight close of the official school gym dance, the party continued until the wee hours of the morning at some neighboring park by a lake where drinking and swimming, bathing suits optional, were varsity sports du jour. Maybe nobody was ever 19, went to college, went to fraternity and sorority parties, and in a large group both male and coed, ceremoniously ‘mooned’ their school’s arch rival football team as it drove into the parking lot or, for that matter, tried to moon their arch rival’s entire student body until the college president sent security in. Funny how the memory is affected. Funny how life imitates art.”

Hmm ... It’s good to get the naked truth from a judge.