« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »
April 30, 2005
Kudos to California Lawyer Magazine
The April 2005 edition of California Lawyer magazine has a great article on false confessions. It's encouraging to see an effort to raise awareness amongst attorneys about this issue. Among the "Top 10 False Confessions" listed in the article is the Central Park jogger case where NYPD interrogators coerced confessions from five teenage boys in the rape and beating of a white investment banker. Thirteen years later, serial rapist Matias Reyes confessed to the crime while in prison on other charges. Mr. Reyes' DNA matched sperm samples found at the crime scene. He was never convicted, howevever, due to the running of the statute of limitations. Needless to say, the Central Park jogger case was a bad result: the innocent were convicted and imprisoned, and the guilty escaped punishment. The legislature should consider legislation requiring requiring police interrogations to be videotaped. Such legislation presents a drafting challenge: it is in everyone's interest to videotape police interrogations, but a valid confession should not be thrown-out because no video tape was available, or the machine malfunctioned. The article does a great job of explaining just how false confessions occur. Attorneys representing persons susceptible to police pressure must make an extra effort to properly investigate false confession claims.
Posted by Tim Warriner at 08:09 AM
April 29, 2005
From the Ninth Circuit . . . the good, and the bad and ugly
First the good news: Moreno v. Baca, 400 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreno is a civil rights action where the plaintiff, a parolee, claimed he was wrongfully detained by the LAPD. The court, relying upon Knights, agreed that, despite the standard parole search condition, he was illegally detained. The court held that even if you are on parole, law enforcement must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The plaintiff in this case was just walking down the street. There is some great language in this opinion for future search and seizure motions. California state practitioners must be sure to move to suppress evidence even if their clients are subject to parole/probation search conditions.
Now the bad & ugly: United States v. Pulliam (9th Cir., 2005). The court held that passengers of automobiles do not have standing to suppress if the vehicle they are in is wrongfully stopped. The passenger must demonstrate a privacy interest in the automobile. One of the problems with the opinion is that it does not discuss prior 9th Circuit precedent holding that passengers do have standing. A case of mine on this same issue is now pending before the California Supreme Court. I suspect Pulliam will be cited. This issue ought to go to the United States Supreme Court.
Posted by Tim Warriner at 07:43 AM
April 03, 2005
The New Yorker on Justice Scalia
Margaret Talbot's piece about Justice Scalia ("Supreme Confidence") in the March 28, 2005 New Yorker provides some excellent insights. Talbot does a great job explaining Scalia's "originalist" jurisprudence. While he is a man of great intelligence, his rigid judicial philosophy has created conflict on the court, particularly with O'Connor. The exception to this is apparently Justice Ginsburg, with whom he maintains a friendship. Talbot writes that "despite Scalia's failure as a politician, he has influenced the way the Rehnquist Court approaches jurisprudence. . . . Under Scalia's brusque tutelage, the other justices have paid closer attention to the language of particular statutes." Talbot has written an interesting and readable profile of this enigmatic jurist, and I would highly recommend it to you.
Posted by Tim Warriner at 09:27 AM