Saturday, November 25, 2017

Calif. High Court Signs Off On Prosecutor Ethics Rule

By Melissa Daniels

Law360, Los Angeles (November 3, 2017, 9:05 PM EDT) -- California prosecutors have new ethical guidelines to abide by after the California Supreme Court signed off on state bar rules requiring them to inform defense counsel of discovery and exculpatory evidence in more cases as an attempt to address prosecutorial misconduct.
The California Supreme Court signed an order Thursday that approves an amendment to the State Bar of California’s Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5-110.

The new language says prosecutors must "make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the offense or mitigate the sentence," except when the court grants them a protective order when the prosecutor thinks the disclosure of the evidence could result in substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest. The rules are effective immediately.

“Prosecutors must be held to a high standard to ensure public trust in the justice system and to protect defendants and their rights,” Leah Wilson, executive director of the State Bar of California, said in a statement.

The amendment to Rule 5-110 was made as part of a broader overhaul to the California State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct, the first of its kind since the 1980s. The California Supreme Court had allowed the state bar to send in updates to the prosecutorial ethics rules on an expedited basis compared to the rest of its rule updates.

Prior updates were approved to Rule 5-110 in May, but the court sent back the provision about the ethical disclosure obligations for further revision. The state bar’s board of trustees returned a revised version in August.

Michael Ogul, a board member and past president of the California Public Defenders Association, wrote a letter to members Thursday to announce the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the amendment. The group had supported the change and actively pushed for it by writing letters and testifying before the Rules Revision Commission and state bar’s board of trustees, publishing columns in legal newspapers and having members submit public comments.

“Prosecutors will no longer be able to shirk their disclosure obligations by rationalizing that the exculpatory information doesn’t matter,” Ogul said in the letter. “Instead, they will now be subject to discipline any time they fail to disclose exculpatory information.”

Ogul, who is a deputy public defender in Santa Clara County, told Law360 that the net effect of the new rule will be that California prosecutors must abide by the laws of disclosure or else face professional discipline. Prior to this change, some prosecutors could have withheld evidence that they didn’t think would make a material difference to the case, he said.

“I’m not saying they don’t all the time, I’m not saying they don’t a majority of the time, but I am saying that scores, if not hundreds of prosecutors, at least on occasion, fail to turn over exculpatory information that they are required to turn over under California law,” Ogul said. “And this rule is designed to put that to a stop.”

The new prosecutorial ethics rules are in sync with the American Bar Association Model Rule 3.8. Ogul said this rule is already in play in 49 others states and California was the last to adopt a version of it.

A representative for the California District Attorneys Association didn’t immediately return a request for comment Friday.


Labels: , , , ,

I found this interesting

I was reading about the death of Thomas Doheny and I found this comment from a poster with the screen name "nomoremaxistsinDC"who claims to seen the inside of the family court racket and he posted the following:

Did you know that the more monies awarded, collected and enforced by the courts, is rewarded by the federal government with child support enforcement funding of 66 cents-$3.00 for every dollar awarded, collected and enforced? See Title 42 USC Sections 651-669 (Federal Child Support Enforcement Act), specifically 42 USC Section 666 showing how its done. Read specifically 42 USC Section 658a which is called the Federal Reimbursement Incentive to the States. It shows that the states receive billions from the Feds for support collections and enforcement. The more money they can extort from parents, the more money the state makes. If a state like Illinois collects $1 BILLION in child support (including enforcement and collection costs) they stand to receive $3 BILLION from the Feds (US TAXPAYERS!!!!!!). The federal statutes say that the states can use the money any way they see fit. It doesn't go to the children, but to help try and balance the state employee pensions. And, who are the first people paid out of state employee pensions???? Judges, child support workers, law enforcement, politicians!!!!!!

The US Supreme Court in Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville, Caperton vs. Massey, etc. have said that judges sitting on cases where they have a financial interest in the outcome of those cases, must disqualify/recuse themselves for unconstitutional conflicts of interest, otherwise it is fraud and extortion and their orders are nullified.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Comments policy

Do me a favor. Do everyone a favor and stop spamming my blog. If you want to comment on a particular post that is fine but don't spam my blog. Whoever is doing it just know this: your bullshit is not going to be published so you are wasting your time. If you have a serious comment to make fine. If you disagree with me fine but don't spam my blog.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, November 11, 2017

'No stained garment, no smoking gun, nothing,': Cosby juror explains why he wasn't convinced by the plaintiff

One of the jurors in Bill Cosby's trial said that he did not find the accusation of rape convincing because the accuser had worn a bare midriff and had no "stained garment" to show.

Last December, famed comedian Bill Cosby was charged with three counts of aggravated indecent assault in relation to allegations that he drugged and molested Canadian basketball player Andrea Constand in 2004.

On June 17, the judge in Cosby's case declared a mistrial after the 12-person jury spent six days and more than 50 hours trying to decide whether Cosby was guilty or innocent of sexual assault. Once the case went public, more than 60 women have come forward with similar accusations of sexual assault against the comedian.

"She was well-coached," the juror, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Inquirer and The Daily News. "Let’s face it: She went up to his house with a bare midriff and incense and bath salts. What the heck?"

The juror then added that Cosby had already "paid dearly" with his ruined reputation and should not be made to go through another trial. That said, he still refused to say whether he wanted to find Cosby guilty or innocent.

The juror also said that, at one point, 10 out of the 12 jurors believed Cosby was guilty before three jurors changed their minds and the judge had to announce a mistrial. Throughout the deliberations, jurors had difficulty with legal terms such as "reckless" and "severely impaired," with the juror adding that the language describing the counts of assault was "too legal."

Even though Cosby's defense lawyer spent just six minutes to say that the relationship was consensual, the juror still said that he found Cosby more convincing than the prosecution, which spent five days laying out extensive evidence from the police, legal experts and Constand herself.

He said that Constand should have only seen Cosby at his home if "she was dressed properly and left the incense in the store" and was influenced to go to push forward on the trial years later by her mother.

"No stained garment, no smoking gun, nothing," he said, adding that you could draw little from evidence from decades ago.

He further added that the accusations of 60 women who have since come forward with similar accusations had played no role in his deliberations — he thought many of them made up their claims to get attention.

“This is ridiculous, unbelievable,” he said. “I think more than half jumped on the bandwagon."

While the courthouse said that he was proud of having done his civic duty, he does not plan on paying attention if there is a second trial.

"They should’ve left it closed," he said.


Labels: , ,