U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 23, 2007 03:31 PM UTC
76 Comments
Michael Moore will be rallying with nurses at the Capitol at 6 p.m. on Sunday, prior to the showing of his new film Sicko:
http://www.rockymoun…
http://www.denverpos…
Say what you will about Moore’s agit-prop. But it’s still a smart way to promote his film.
Pride-fest in the morning followed by Michael Moore at 6 p.m.
If you believe that civil rights AND health care reform are both important issues, make a day of it!
did you say idiot/congress?
Sums up the feelings of about 90% of American voters, I imagine.
Ex-city attorney kills himself
May he rest in peace, and may his friends and family find their own peace.
How very, very sad this is.
I can understand why he chose that route. He had another 50 years to live, perhaps, for what?
So sad.
I can understand why he chose that route. He had another 50 years to live, perhaps, for what?
So sad. To think, two months ago, he was living well with a great future.
You can thank the vulture reporters for this one. Stolen computer bad? Yes. Deserved to lose his job? Yes. Deserved to be harassed and embarrassed by the news for having porn on his computer? No. What a waste. I hope this wakes somebody up over at the Post/News HQ so they realize that their stories can actually have consequences in real life.
They’ll be living with this for the rest of their lives. I doubt that we’ll know whether it was the news coverage, or just facing the charges themselves, that led to his decision to take his own life. You wonder if there was any hint this would happen – possibly not. And even if there was it can be very difficult to prevent once a person has made this decision.
According to this RMN article, it was the prosecutor’s office (not the media) to blame for holding a press release and releasing details about the porn. The photograph to this article shows Manzanares just a few hours before he ended his life. Someone (his family) should have had him on a suicide watch. It doesn’t take much to get a 72-hr mental health hold in Colorado under В§ 27-10-106.
commenting on what you believe his family should have done. I sincerely doubt you are in a position to know much about what went on in their lives over the past few weeks. And I don’t see how you have any right at all to judge them.
Lay off. Please.
Peace.
You can hardly call my comment offensive to his memory (or offensive in any respect). It’s not like I farted during the eulogy. This is a place for comments, not political correctness or censorship. All I said was that someone –probably his family, perhaps his lawyer, whoever– should have had him under a suicide watch during a time like this. He shouldn’t have been alone and he shouldn’t have had access to a firearm. It’s common-sense. In fact, if I didn’t have any friggin’ compassion, I wouldn’t be speculating at all on what could’ve been done to prevent this senseless tragedy. There, I said, I’m speculating. That’s what people do. Direct your superiority complext towards someone else, please.
This has happened before in high stress situations. I’m not blaming anybody, but yes, there should have been a suicide watch.
Since there has been no report of a note left behind, we don’t know if it was the arrest for the alleged theft, the reports about the porno, or a combo of the two. (My personal guess is that it was a combination of the two.)
Gary Lozow, Manazares’ attorney, attmepted to get the warrant affidavit containing all the salacious details about the porno sealed, at least temporarily. The D.A. (Storey’s office) opposed the request and Judge Perricone denied the motion to seal.
I’m not attacking the D.A. for prosecuting a theft case. If there was probable cause (and apparently was), then make the arrest and pursue the case.
But there was no allegation, let alone any evidence, that any of the subjects of the porno were anything other than consenting adults. There was absolutely no reason why porno stuff needed to be included in the case.
Storey’s office didn’t just want a conviction, they wanted more…..they wanted this guy’s life destroyed.
I wasn’t aware that the D.A. was pushing so hard. Even so, the media should use some editorial discretion. They don’t have to print every last word that they hear.
While my CrimLaw is admittedly old and cold, it seems to me that if Manzanares downloaded a lot of porn, it constitutes evidence of conversion, which would have to be alleged. And if Manzaneres had a right to have the warrant sealed, do you honestly think that a fellow judge wouldn’t have ruled in his favor? And if the “salacious” allegations are in the public record (I don’t see what the big deal is; it’s not like he was masturbating with a penis pump under his robe at trial or humping a nubile female prosecutor, like some judges), why shouldn’t the Rocky publish them? If they didn’t, someone else would.
It looks to me as if everyone was just doing their job, in sharp contrast to the standard practice in the Denver D.A.’s office.
The only person to blame here is Larry Manzanares.
Do even have a clue as to what you’re talking about? Your Crim Law is old indeed, esp. if it includes “evidence of conversion”! “Conversion” is a civil tort, not a criminal offense.
Where the hell did you go to law school?
“Conversion” is the unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, which was a state of affairs incompatible with his agency as an employee of the City. Felony theft requires that the actor have the intent to permanently deprive the victim of the use or benefit of a thing of value. If Manzanares had possession only, and no evidence of the requisite mens rea, there is no felony theft. Conversion loosely equals mens rea (though it is, as you have rightly pointed out, also a civil tort).
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this, as it has been ten years since I picked up a CrimLaw text.
Title 18, Article 4 is the Colorado Criminal Code enumerating property crimes in this state. I just skimmed over it. No mention of conversion as a crime.
You do, however, have part of “conversion” right in your last posting. It is the unauthorized assumption and the exercise of control or dominion over the property of another. But it’s still only a civil cause of action.
Are you sure you’re not confusing your torts class with your criminal law class?
How many times did you take it, and how did you do?
The simple fact is that (assuming the indictment to be true, as we must at this point) he took possession of the computer and used it in a manner incompatible with the rights of the true owner. As I said, felony theft requires that the actor have the intent to permanently deprive the victim of the use or benefit of a thing of value. “Conversion” is evidence of intent; the word means exactly what I said it meant (Black’s does not say that it can only be used as a term of art). It would be rather silly to suggest that Manzanares intended to return the computer with a hard drive stacked to the gills with episodes of “Debbie Does Half Of Texas.”
That much should be obvious. Whatever biases judges may (or may not) tend to have, it is unwise to generalize to a given individual on that basis. The behavior of an individual cannot be predicted by derivation from the charactersitics supposed to be typical of some category to which he/she belongs. So, yes, I honestly think it’s quite possible that a fellow judge wouldn’t rule in his favor, for any number of reasons.
And conversion is not “also” a tort: It is strictly a tort (or, rather, the name of a tort), though it is theft by another name.
Finally, downloading lots of porn isn’t evidence of anything other than, perhaps, bad taste (I guess it depends on the porn). Their is plenty of porn on the internet, for sale and for free, that can be downloaded completely legally. To suppose that this particular batch was stolen is akin to supposing that the money in someone’s wallet, or the merchandise in someone’s shopping bag was stolen, since it might have been. No such presumption of guilt is warranted.
…in this case, suspected kiddie porn. Correct me if I am wrong on this point, but my understanding was that the mere fact of possessing it — even if you didn’t pay for it — was a serious crime.
Let’s face it: Manzanares’ suicide doesn’t make much sense if all he had to do was face a felony theft charge. The DA would plead it down, and he’d end up getting a few months’ jail time and a load of community service. Given that Mary Mullarkey has given a law license to convicted felon and drug dealer who just happened to come from a family of Democrats (she is the most nakedly partisan judge in America), he might even be able to practice law again.
Put kiddie porn into the equation, and everything changes.
As for generalizing, how much experience do you need to have with a group of people before you can accurately predict what they will tend to do? Sure, it is possible that judges will act honorably — but they only do it when the klieg lights of the media are trained upon them. There is too much evidence that they are corrupt bastards to ignore.
I read that the porn was specifically NOT kiddy.
If it was, I would blow my brains out, too. Not his porn, my porn!
Without the kiddie porn, this story makes no sense. If it had been reported that Manzanares downloaded half of Larry Flynt’s personal collection of smut, would anyone but Dobby raise even an eyebrow? LM would have been suspended for two/three years (Harvard courtesy, don’t you know), and odds are that he would have only gotten a token sentence. (His dream of ascending to the federal bench might have been gone, but there’s plenty of a market in Denver for sleazy defense attorneys.)
when you consider that a going-places attorney suddenly has no career prospects whatsoever. In my reckoning the porn doesn’t even enter into it, although that’s a matter of how his family reacted.
And that’s all the speculation I’m going to engage in. The man deserves to rest in peace.
On several threads here, you are insisting that the only reason LM would have offed himself is kiddy porn. Whether ultimately your are right or wrong isn’t why you should stop with these hypothesis’.
Until we know otherwise, you have no right to keep insisting that you alone understand LM’s motivations.
You also know that from time to time I have stuck up for you, so I’m not writing this from some knee jerk reaction.
Enough already!
are just a series of arbitrary assumptions, and the conclusions that you draw from them.
1) We have no evidence that he had kiddy porn on the lap-top, and perhaps evidence that he didn’t (according to Parsing Reality).
2) Suicides don’t have to make sense. Before post-partum depression was identified, it certainly would have seemed to make no sense for a new mother of a healthy baby, and a mother who had always wanted to have a baby, to kill herself, and yet it happens all the time.
3) In this case, we don’t even have to rely on the irrationality of many suicides: This one, as Aristotle points out below, is certainly explicable without recourse to extravagant theories about what must have been the lacivious cause.
Yes, let’s let the poor man rest in peace.
PR hasn’t presented anything in support of his/her claims that the laptop didn’t have child porn on it.
While suicide doesn’t have to make sense, it is common in this sort of situation, and it generally makes sense. No one was all that surprised when Hermann Goering offed himself, and no one would be all that surprised that Manzanares would do so if he was caught with kiddie porn.
Unless I’m missing something important here — I may be, and I am relying on Polsters to point it out — it seems to me that Hanz Manz was almost certain to walk, with scarcely a slap on the wrist. Why commit suicide under that set of facts, with so much to live for? At worst, he gets an enforced two-year vacation, and there are plenty of Harvard grads out there who will look after him.
You have to look under the surface for reasons for suicide here. Kiddie porn is a reasonable explanation, and unless and until I hear it from Scott Storey himself (I will put the question to him if the opportunity arises, as discussion of how he handled this incident is certainly relevant to his re-election bid), I will continue to suspect kiddie porn as the real motivation behind his suicide.
No, you really don’t. A man’s stellar career had just come crashing down, accompanied by humiliating details. People commit suicide for less reason than that all the time (remember the Clintonite -Foster?- who committed suicide during the White Water scandal, just because the pressure was too much for him?). Giving examples of people who committed suicide for more reason than that doesn’t change the fact. Giving isolated examples of a certain “pattern” does not prove that the pattern is universal, or even a pattern at all.
Looking under the surface for explanations of events that are well-enough explained by the facts on the table is a common exercise whose fruits tend to be overwrought conspiracy theories, salacious tales, and a general loss of common sense.
God you are a disgusting puke!
Why doesn’t this site have a kill file?
….a job, I might add, necessitated by Manzanares’ unlawful actions. He brought this all upon himself.
Has anyone else in this saga broken any law? Done anything that they would not have done to any one of us, given similar circumstances?
I don’t see why Manzanares should be exempt from criticism because he was a Democrat, an attorney, a public official, a former judge, or a Harvard graduate.
Unless I missed something, I don’t think anyone was saying that he should’ve been given a pass. In fact, with the exception of the State Court Administrator’s Office’s initial attempts to suppress this, he wasn’t being given a pass.
I think what everyone here is saying is, the man took his own life; he’s now deceased; his family (including, I assume, young children) have to deal with the aftermath and a traumatic stigma for the rest of their lives and can’t we just have a little sympathy for them at this moment?
Besides, if this debate needs to be about legal ethics reform (and it doesn’t and I don’t know why it became that), keep your eye on the ball (i.e., turn your attention to the folks still in office, who are causing injury (alternatively, there are a few retired judges, Ruthanne Polidori, Ken Barnhill, Jim Zimmerman, to name a few, who ought to be scrutinized ex post facto)).
The man destroyed his life on his own–after destroying his life, he probably thought taking his life was his only way out.
I feel for his family, it is a heavy burden.
I understand that Lawyers have very high suicide rates. Disbarred lawyers have very high rates.
I actually have been expecting either or both nifong and manzaneres to attempt suicide.
In face, Eliz. Starrs (outgoing CBA Pres.) wrote an entire column about the phenomenon in the March issue of The Colorado Lawyer, entitled “Bumps in the Road.” One paragraph reads:
Although she offered a few possible explanations, I believe that, in cases like this one, it’s because prosecutors and judges (like clergy) hold themselves out to the community as stainless. Yet, they’re as vulnerable to human failings (such as corruption, especially with unchecked judicial power, which is highly facilitative of it) as anyone else. In the rare instances when they get caught, the shame must be unbearable. Perhaps, this is another compelling reason for a more effective and meaningful accountability in this profession (in terms of proactivity)?.
Before we get all teary eyed over the law profession, however, I’d like to mention one demographic that’s rarely considered in suicide rate metrics and that is the victims of overzealous lawyers. This includes persons, who are wrongly convicted; fathers (and occasionally mothers), who were knowingly fraudulently defamed during custody battles, who then lost the right to be involved in their child[ren]’s lives, yet were forced to pay their ex-spouse’s attorneys’ fees, the marital debts, alimony, child support, custody evals and supervised visitation fees; and other persons and situations too numerous to speculate about here.
Sure, coming out on the wrong end of a judicial stick is pretty depressing – been there – but to the point of suicide?
. . . but, we hear about them (particularly, the one’s who take out others before themselves) all the time. George Lott (Tarrant County, TX), Bart Ross (Chicago, IL), Patrick “Butch” Bailey, Sr. (Chesterfield, Virginia), Paul Trimboli (Springfield, Mass.), L. Michael Bochicchio, Jr. (Torrington, CT), Perry Manley (Seattle, WA), etc., etc., etc. Even in cases where these persons took their life only, the way that the media characterized the real reason is, itself, offensive (e.g., “Perry Manley didn’t want to pay child support, and the seeming unfairness of a system that hounded him to turn over his hard-earned cash to his ex-wife had made him angry and obsessed over the past 15 years”).
…Mr. Manley had a lot of “issues” for many years. Too bad he wasn’t enough of a man to support his children.
. . . and if it does, it’s because that’s about the only sentence or two that the media chose to mischaracterize the underlying motives for his behavior. Just as we’re taking the time to not pass judgment on Larry Manzarnares, we should not pass judgment on some poor loser, who took his life because he had been beat down by the system and deprived of contact with his child for years and years (very possibly based on false allegations of sexual or domestic abuse, mind you). If you do the research in to his background and many of the others and find out different, please let us know.
A lot of men don’t pay child support and they don’t kill themselves.
I was judging only to the extent of the information given to me, and I still say he should have paid his child support, or found a better lawyer, or something that didn’t traumatize his children by killing himself. Believe me, there have been times in my life that I’ve thought about that option, but having children and family, I could never do it. It is in almost all cases, a pretty selfish act.
I didn’t give you any facts, only a misleading newspaper quote, which I introduced as or implied was misleading. To the best of my knowledge, none of these cases was a case of a person choosing between either killing himself or paying C$.
We do agree, however, to the extent that the act of killing one’s self almost always arises out of either self-pity (selfishness) or delusional state of mind – i.e., the belief that doing so is really a favor to everyone else, anyway.
You know the rules around here, Tilt. You shouldn’t judge … well, when it comes to thieves like Larry Manzanares. Anyone else is fair game, and uninformed speculation is the currency of the realm.
Forgive me for being politically incorrect here, but it is this glaring double-standard that I find so offensive. Yes, I am mixing things up intentionally — I wish no harm upon LM’s family — if only to point out this hypocrisy, and shove it in the faces of its most egregious practitioners.
Compared to how Bart Ross was treated, the post-suicide coverage of Larry Manzanares has been positively obsequious.
I meant, “in fact,” not “in face.”
who are in fact innocent, but spend years in the can waiting for trial … and their families.
Sucks for the Manzanares family, but they don’t deserve to go to the front of the line because he was a city attorney and a judge.
So far, the only line that they’ve been pushed to the front of by virtue of Manzanares’ status is the line for public humiliation heaped on top of private grief.
OR: So far, the only line that they’ve been pushed to the front of by virtue of Manzanares’ status is the line for public humiliation heaped on top of private grief.
Green Arrow shot right through the heart of all this carping by the pro-corruption government crowd: http://www.coloradop…. If alleged rapists and child-killers (how would you like to stand accused of throwing your little girl off a cliff, and have that broadcast from Australia to Zambia?) deserve that sort of treatment, “Hanz Manz” has earned it, as well.
The “I bought it in the parking lot” lie was as transparent as it was blindingly stupid. That excuse alone sealed his guilt, and his family must live with his choices.
Heard that somewhere once…..
other than to say that it is the work of someone who would probably be well-advised to pause a few more moments before clicking “post.”
I’m also appalled that the Jeffco DA would put references to some (apparently LEGAL) “porn” into the warrant affidavit, which of course was lapped up and regurgitated eagerly by all the news media. I agree that if there was probable cause for a theft charge, then they should have charged him, which they did.
But even today, the Denver Post couldn’t stay off stupid. Their online story started with a sentence which said he was “facing prison time.” HUH? The case had just been filed; he was facing entering a plea. And even if he pled guilty or was found guilty, it’s unlikely he would be sent to prison over a nonviolent theft of that relatively minor amount.
The man is dead, and the Post just can’t quit poking at him, putting him in the tumbrel and rolling it up to the prison door.
I am so sorry for his family and his friends. Whatever his failings – even if he did commit theft – he also worked hard not only for himself and his family but for the community at large. People are complicated. And it’s not as much fun to remember that as to sort them into “good” and “bad” or “us” and “them.” And then cheer or boo, praise or blame, accordingly.
Suz: People are complicated. And it’s not as much fun to remember that as to sort them into “good” and “bad” or “us” and “them.” And then cheer or boo, praise or blame, accordingly.
If you’re expecting that, you’ve definitely come to the wrong blog.
Many of us appreciate the thoughtful, subtle, intelligent posts that make up a significant portion of the material on this blog (which means the posts that don’t sort people into “the good guys” and “the bad guys”). Suz, believe me, Riogrande is neither representative of the bloggers on this site, nor does he speak for any significant portion of us.
Despite my railing against the double standard of legal ethics in Colorado, I agreed with TW’s comment last week that this was a tragedy for his family and that there should be no comic relief enjoyed at their expense and as a result of his lapse in judgment. Now, he has made another poor judgment but, which is final in its impact on his wife and children. My thoughts are with them; my heart breaks at the mere thought of their grief, especially after all they’ve must already have been through.
Just horrible all around. His poor family.
It’s not like Manzanares didn’t do this to himself. He had no one else to blame. It’s not like he couldn’t earn a living as an attorney; hell, he could afford to buy his own lap dances, to say nothing of a cheap-ass laptop.
When you are the victim of a crime who has no hope of redress, that is a tragedy. Manzanares was no better than the thug who holds up a Seven-Eleven. We’d harbor no sympathy for him, or for the impact his wrongful actions would have on his family. Why should we treat Manzanares any better?
I agree with Tilt that he should have been on suicide watch, and he sure as hell should not have had access to a handgun. If there was a tragedy here, it was that his needless death could have been stopped.
As for Manzanares’ family, they most certainly deserve no more courtesy nor sympathy than you have extended to us “courties.” We were the victims of crimes; Manzanares was a common thief.
Manzanares was no better than the thug who holds up a Seven-Eleven.
This shows to me that you have no comprehension of what our society considers right and wrong. In addition, you place no value on our system of innocent until proven guilty. It sounds to me like you are a sociopath.
When public officials commit crimes, it is a good thing, but when a desperate man knocks over a Seven-Eleven to feed his family, it is a bad thing? I guess I really don’t understand what this unique society of corrupt public officials and/or corporate lobbyists considers to be right and wrong, though I’d be content to settle on “Thou shalt not steal.” Larry Manzanares stole an asset worth $1,500; if a thug holds up a grocery store and took the same amount of money, how exactly would it be worse?
As for “innocent until proven guilty,” Manzanares has taken care of that canard by offing himself. Why would an innocent man off himself? Does he have so little faith in our justice system that he would kill himself, as opposed to letting the wheels of justice roll?
I should be locked up for insisting that public officials be treated in the same manner as average citizens? Shame on you, Winston … you’ve been listening to the broadcasts of MiniTrue for far too long.
You’re a scumbag.
Apparently in your Criminal Law class of ten years ago, you also missed out on the distinction between “theft” (i.e., the taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to steal), and “robbery” (i.e., theft from a person by the use of force, or the threatened use of force).
Theft is a property crime which is serious but relatively speaking, not THAT serious. Robbery is a crime against a person and generally associated with violence, or the threatened use of violence.
Manzanares was charged with theft. Your Seven-Eleven desperado was committing a robbery.
You can’t see a difference? God help us if you are ever called for jury duty………
The operative word here is “crimes.” If “theft” is not so serious, kindly explain to me why in the hell he faced two years in prison. I see a difference, but not a salient one.
The apparent salient difference here is that one crime was committed by someone you like (fellow Dem, bottom-feeding public official [Dems like ’em for some strange reason], etc.) and the other, by someone everyone loathes. You give Hanz Manz a pass.
I bet that robbery carries stiffer penalties than two years in prison.
If theft is no big deal, why not issue a parking ticket?
Talk to CAR31 about that one.
Take that one up with CAR31.
Thankfully, it’s not a prevalent one. Such a cavalier attitude toward human suffering in general, and the suffering of innocents (the family) in particular, is not something decent people should aspire to, no matter what chip they may have on their shoulder.
And to the best of my knowledge, no member of the family has ever expressed a sentiment as worthy of reprobation as the one expressed above, and so are all certainly worthy of more sympathy than is any person who could be so callous. If you were indeed the victim of a crime, you invite only indifference by demonstrating such ill-will toward others.
Riogrande is a disgusting puke.
Adding to the pain of the family is the Saturday, June 23rd RMN story entitled “Laptop case on lockdown” picturing Larry entering Denver District Court on Friday morning. Apparently the RMN gets it’s information second-hand. I extend my condolences to Larry’s family as well. What a senseless and needless tragedy.
Trying to get us back to happier topics, here’s my latest post on the Boulder election.
Here is the public policy issue: Should the law regulate what the media may print and broadcast when a defendant has been indicted but before the triall occurs? Or, is the damage done to the presumption of innocence before charges are even filed? And, if so, how is that fact reconciled with the public’s legtimate right to know?
whether or not the prosecutors in this country would forgo announcing arrests in a press conference and using the press to promote a Circus Maximus-like atmosphere in order to make their names more prominent.
The press is only doing what the press has done since its’ inception as far as being sensationalistic. The juicier the details, the more horrible the crime, the more papers they sell and the higher the broadcast ratings. If it bleeds it leads. Maybe a law could be passed to make all indictments sealed until the start of a trial, but you would probably have prosecutors against it, and the press would scream bloody murder about censorship.
It becomes very hard for the accused to get anything like a fair hearing under those circumstances, and unless you have the money to fight the charges, (like the Duke lacross players as the most recent prominent example) you are very easily steamrolled into a plea-bargain and the local D.A. has another conviction to place on his resume come election time.
Should our judges and prosecutors be immune from personal liability for willful misconduct? If the answer is no, the likelihood of abuse is low, not just in the higher-profile cases but also, in those cases that the public never hears about because they aren’t as “sexy.” If we care about justice, we can’t just stop at the O.J.s and Scott Petersons.
As for the public policy issue Dwyer raises, the answer is no. An indictment is nothing more than a collection of accusations by government officials, who are often motivated by something other than a search for the truth. If people have forgotten that, it is because our educational system has served us so well over the years….
What happens in our courtrooms must be open to the public; we have seen how the star-chambers work in the bar admission and disciplinary process.
The public policy questions concerns pretrial publicity and whether or not it compromises the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. Britian has laws which govern pretrial publicity…I think it would be wise to review them to see what might work here…
All judicial proceedings should be open to the public, with the exception of grand jury and when something is sealed after a judicial hearing. I certainly did not mean to suggest that judicial proceedins should be secret……
All the “law” is ad hoc and all the decisions, unpublished. Members of the investigation team (the Inquiry Panel) sit on the judicial team (the Hearing Panel), in clear contravention of statute, and nothing is done. It is a due process-free zone, with deliberately vague statutes which are roundly ignored whenever they become inconvenient. Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force was more open.
Although I know it is impolitic to mention it around here, we already have ethics rules imposing special responsibilities upon prosecutors (e.g., CRPC Rule 3.8). But of course, when ethics rules are only enforced occasionally in extreme cases for show, they have no deterrent effect. The same goes for the lack of personal liability in tort for judges, which, in concert with the refusal of prosecutors to prosecute criminal actions by judges, enables them to commit felonies on an industrial scale with utter impunity.
Better to enforce the law as against the criminals within the criminal justice system than to gut the First Amendment.
I’ve not researched the subject of adherence to or consistency of bar admission rules but, I’ve no reason to doubt him. I’ve had more than enough personal experience to know that ethical and procedural rules and statutes and precedents are acknowledged, interpreted and applied very selectively in Colorado as well as in the federal court system. (They are viewed as suggestions, not rules).
I had this discussion (about respecting and adhering to the civil law as the only proper alternative to inappropriate self-help), yesterday, with a member of the Mass. bar (no longer practicing). He concurred with my frustration and observed, “If you and others like you play by the rules and you get screwed, then why should you play by the rules, anymore. And, if word gets to enough people that playing by the rules is a waste of time, then some percentage of them, I assume, are going to look at other altheratives.”
The only point I’d add to his observation is that “playing by the rules,” means hiring a well-heeled reputable attorney (regardless of one’s own legal acumen in representing his interests). If you violate this unwritten rule in the exercise of your illusory Faretta right to proceed without an attorney, you will be designated (predetermined) to lose, unless, perhaps, your opponent is a private party and the outcome of the case has no consequence to the legal community. See Prof. Barton’s Do Judges Systematically Favor the Interests of the Legal Profession?. Of course, you don’t get to adhere to this unwritten, harshly enforced rule unless you are independently wealthy and have no other financial obligations (you know, a family to support, mortgage, all those pesky responsibilities, etc.)
Prof. Barton’s Do Judges Systematically Favor the Interests of the Legal Profession?.