Public Defenders

A blog that I like to follow is The Library of Defense. It's no coincidence because my old employer publishes it. Regardless, it is informative, especially to a criminal defense attorney like me.

Anyway, The Library of Defense linked to me this editorial in the New York Times. An interesting piece about the difference between a public defender - employed and trained by a public defender's office; and, a court-appointed defense attorney, who is often a sole practitioner who may have some experience, but......may not.

As someone who was a public defender, trained at one of the most organized public defense offices in the nation, I can't argue their point. And, for criminal defendants, they will usually be better off with someone from an office like my former one than most other situations. But, there are no guarantees - someone who is good at their job, is good at their job.

What I find strange about this editoral, and many like them, is that they look at murder cases as the example. If you really want to know what kind of service people are getting from their free lawyers, look at the misdemeanors and the low-level drug and property felony cases - the battle in the trenches, if you will.

The one constant for both is that they will be woefully underpaid for what should be expected to represent someone charged with murder. And, regardless of their employer, they will surely be outresourced, outmanned, and paid signficantly less then their counterparts on the side of the prosecution. When I was a public defender, I was consistently paid about 1/3 less than the prosecutor. And, in my humble opinion, my job was a lot harder.

Anyway, another thing I find interesting is that the editorial measured success by the difference in sentences between the well-represented and the others. In other words, if you got less time, you had a good lawyer. I guess that makes sense but wouldn't the crime and punishment defenders say - "all those muderers got less time, how is that better?" Just something to think about....

TIS’ THE SEASON OF DRINKING AND DRIVING

It’s that time of year again:  the holiday season.  The season of a. awkward company Christmas parties; b. aggravating family gatherings; c. serious financial stress

        

          With all of it comes an increase in DUII arrests. 

While everyone has fundamental constitutional right to fight a criminal case and require the state to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, when it comes to DUII, diversion is often the most sensible resolution. 

Bottom line:  if you are eligible for diversion and you enter and complete the program, your case is dismissed.  The consequences you avoid by successfullycompleting diversion include:

·         Not having your driver’s license suspended for an additional year (on top of the initial DMV suspension that comes with a failed breathalyzer or refusal to blow)

·         Not having to purchase SR 22 insurance or pay for an interlock device installed in your car

·         Not having a DUII conviction on your record

·         And so on, and so on

We are often asked, “If I’m eligible for diversion should I even bother paying for an attorney? Can’t I just do it myself?”

My answer is always the same:  anyone facing a criminal conviction and the consequences that come with such a conviction should retain an experienced lawyer to:

·         Review and evaluate the State’s case

·         Advise on all possible options (including diversion when applicable)

·         When applicable, put on a hearing for the Court arguing to allow diversion entry on those occasions when the  State objects;

·         Assist the client through the process

·         Advocate on behalf of the client and/or

·         Force the state to prove the client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when trial makes the most sense

In short, yes. Even those who are diversion eligible and want diversion should still retain an attorney.  If my brother/mother/friend was arrested for DUII, my advice would be that they retain counsel regardless of whether or not they are diversion eligible.

And here’s the thing:  even if you’ve never been arrested/convicted/accused of DUII in the past, there is no guarantee you will get into diversion.

Example:  in Oregon, if you possess a Commercial Driver’s License at THE TIME of the incident, you are disqualified from diversion.  It makes no difference whether:

·         You were driving a commercial vehicle at the time

·         You had stopped driving commercially ten years ago and didn’t even need the CDL

I realize it’s counterintuitive to think “hey, I don’t use my CDL anymore and if I get a DUII in the future I won’t be able to do diversion if I still have it, so I’m going to go to the DMV to get a regular driver’s license.”

But that’s exactly what you should do:  if you no longer use your CDL, go to DMV and get yourself a regular driver’s license. 

Here are the basic criteria regarding Diversion entry in Oregon.

(1) You have no charge of an offense of DUII or its statutory counterpart in any jurisdiction, other than the charge for the present offense, pending on the date you file the petition for a DUII diversion agreement;

(2) You have not been convicted of an offense described in paragraph (1) within the period beginning 15 years before the date of the commission of the present offense and ending on the date you file the petition for a DUII diversion agreement;

(3) You are not participating in a DUII diversion program or in any similar alcohol or drug rehabilitation program, other than a program entered into as a result of the charge for the present offense, in this state or in any other jurisdiction on the date you file the petition for a DUII diversion agreement;

(4) You did not participate in a diversion or rehabilitation program described in paragraph (3), other than a program entered into as a result of the charge for the present offense, within the period beginning 15 years before the date of the commission of the present offense and ending on the date you file the petition for a DUII diversion agreement;

(5) You have no charge of an offense of murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide or assault that resulted from the operation of a motor vehicle pending in this state or in any other jurisdiction on the date you file the petition for a DUII diversion agreement;

(6) You have not been convicted of an offense described in paragraph (5) within the period beginning 15 years before the date of the commission of the present offense and ending on the date you file the petition for a DUII diversion agreement;

(7) You did not hold a commercial driver license (CDL) at the time of the offense;

(8) You were not operating a commercial motor vehicle at the time of the offense; and

(9) The present DUII offense did not involve an accident resulting in:

(a) Death of any person; or

(b) Physical injury* to any person other than yourself;

(10) You have not been convicted of a felony DUII in Oregon or elsewhere. 

          You see, all this lawyer talk is confusing, isn’t it?  It’s why you should consult with an

 experienced criminal attorney if charged with DUII or any crime. 

          Happy Holidays, stay safe, don’t drink and drive.

          But if you do, give us a call….we can help.

*physical injury in Oregon means “substantial pain or impairment of physical condition.”  In other words, it’s subjective and arguments CAN be made to the Court proving that physical injury was not caused.  So don’t just give up on diversion if a victim alleges injury.  Discuss it with your attorney. 

SHOULD I HIRE A LAWYER TO FIGHT A TRAFFIC INFRACTION?

We routinely represent individuals charged with moving violations or traffic infractions in Oregon and Washington.  Often, our clients will be so angry at the overzealous police officer, the amount of the fine, or a combination of the two, that they decide “I don’t care how much it costs, I want my day in court!”

Our firm has been successful in negotiating these cases with either the citing police officer or the attorney for the jurisdiction who can make decisions regarding dismissal, reduced charge, diversion, etc. 

Here’s what you should know in dealing with a moving violation charge and evaluating whether it’s worth it to “lawyer-up”:

• ·         Moving violations such as running a red light; speeding; failing to signal, etc are NOT crimes which means that the penalty cannot be jail.  HOWEVER, if you ignore the information on the citation in terms of responding within the designated time frame, a bench warrant will likely be issued and you could be held in jail on the warrant.  So read the citation carefully and if you are handling things on your own, make sure to respond within the designated response time. 
• When the officer pulls you over, you are obligated to cooperate, provide your driver’s license and proof of insurance/registration but you ARE NOT obligated to provide statements which help the officer’s case.  So if he or she says something like “do you know why I pulled you over?”, the answer should be “no” – the end.  Don’t go in to a long sob story acknowledging that you messed up but…our experience has sadly been that unless you’re a very attractive woman, the sob story angle never works.  Seriously.  Ask one of your very attractive female friends if they’ve ever gotten out of a ticket and they will unanimously say yes. 
• If you are one of the said very attractive women, good for you for escaping the wrath of “the man”.
• ·         If you decide to hire a lawyer, do your homework:  these cases are tricky and you should find someone who routinely handles traffic matters, is familiar with the traffic code and understands the tactical complexities of the jurisdiction bringing the citation against you.  In other words, don’t hire Uncle Ralph, bankruptcy lawyer extraordinaire, to represent you in a traffic trial.  Hire a lawyer who knows what they’re doing: an experienced defense attorney. 
• ·         Every city/county has their own rules regarding traffic offenses.  Some jurisdiction’s have diversion programs that will result in dismissal of the violation at the conclusion of a time period (usually one year).  Other jurisdictions don’t have such programs so you or your attorney need to try to resolve the matter pretrial or go to trial, cross examine the police officer and fight.  The other side has the burden of proof – not you.  With weak cases, sometimes the best option is to challenge the citation in court and let the judge decide.
• ·         The rules are often different for individuals with commercial driver’s licenses.  So if you have one, let your lawyer know right away
• ·         Finally, in Oregon if you get too many tickets within a certain period of time, the DMV will suspend your license.  Really. They Will.

Whether or not to hire a lawyer to defend a moving violation is really case specific: 

·         Do you have a good case?

·         What are the implications of a conviction?

·         Do you have prior convictions?

·         Does the jurisdiction have a history of negotiating/working things out with defense attorneys?

·         Are you willing to spend the money on a lawyer with the understanding that you may end up getting convicted and being forced to also pay a substantial fine?

As we approach the holiday season, I will close by saying please do not drink and drive.  But if you do, and you get charged with a DUI, give us a call…we can help.  

WILL THERE BE RIOTS IN DOWNTOWN PORTLAND?

In a few, short hours, the Portland Police Bureau will likely forcibly remove those individuals who have been camping at two parks in downtown Portland for more than a month. If protestors refuse to leave, police officers likely will arrest them on charges such as: criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, interfering with a police officer, resisting arrest and unlawful camping, to name a few. 

If media reports are accurate, some of the protesters intendto stay put and will resist their eviction. We know that several area civil rights attorneys plan on being present downtown when the eviction starts to advocate on behalf of the protestors, advise them of their rights and assist them with representation if necessary. 

As a criminal defense attorney who greatly values fundamental constitutional rights such as the rights to assemble and speak freely, I must confess that I’m torn on this one. 

I definitely support the concept of the Occupy Movement. Like so many others, I too am fed up with an unmanageable student loan debt, crazy-high property taxes, and the requirement that I pay for my daughter’s full-day kindergarten at a PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

 And the list goes on.

While corporations, banks and big business continue to get break after break, exemption after exemption. 

I get it. 

But I’ve been down to Lownsdale Square and Chapman Square. From a pragmatic standpoint I’m confident that the majority of the people living down there are not representative of my struggles. Frankly, I’m not sure what most of them are protesting.   And because of the poor decisions our city leaders have made over the past month about these sites, the police officers who are there tonight are in anunwinnable situation. 

So here are my questions:

·         If overnight camping in Portland parks is illegal, why has there been an exception here?

• ·         Why did the city publicly sanction these activities by providing services to the campers? 
• ·         Why do the rest of us bear the burden of paying what it will take to repair these beautiful public parks and pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime to city employees?
• ·         If the campers have been warned and warned for days about the forced eviction,  if representatives from homeless and social service agencies have taken the time to provide the campers with alternative resources, and if the police have taken every possible measure to avoid conflict, and the campers still resist/fight/commit crimes, should I have any empathy?

And no.  I’m not a Republican.  I’m a grown-up.  And yes, there is a difference.  

Get This Camera Phone Thing Figured the EFF Out!!

Saw this article (and the video above) in follow-up to a previous post. We have a recurring issue here that the courts (or the legislature) needs to figure out fast.

The frequency in which these events are occurring are getting a bit out of hand. People are being charged or threatened with charges (or their phones are being confiscated) at an alarming rate. And, no one seems to know what the correct and current state of the law is at the local, state or federal level.

As discussed in our previous post and in the article linked above, federal or state wire-tapping laws prevent the surreptitious recording of someone's voice without their permission. Clearly, in my humble opinion as an experienced criminal defense attorney, these laws were aimed at preventing people from recording private conversations without permission - a well-intentioned law now, as always happens, being abused. Again, as an attorney who practices both civil and criminal law, I am not sure how one could interpret these wire-tapping laws to mean that video or audio taken in public like the one above (or many like it) fall within what the legislature intended when it passed these laws - how could it?

And, what's worse, is that police - who work for US mind you, the citizens who pay taxes and hence their salaries, claim the authority to stop us from videoing or recording public displays of police activity under the auspices of these wire-tapping laws. This is just wrong (in my opinion, some may differ - do you?). If you watch the video above, near the end, you'll hear an officer say that very thing. And, if you read this blog post and accompanying comments, you'll see that no one who's reporting these events (ore reading the articles) really seems to know what is legal and what is not.

As the article linked above explains, the ACLU has now stepped in to file suit (or threaten as much) against the police for doing just this. A private citizen recorded this event at this year's Preakness Stakes near Baltimore, MD. This is, obviously, someone else's video of the same event. The police confiscated his camera and deleted ALL his videos including video of things he had done with his children that he can never recover. Not the world's biggest crime, but as a parent of two youngsters, I would be big time pissed if this happened to me. These are recordings of things his children did that he can never get back.

My understanding of the law is that it would be illegal to record someone when they have an "expectation of privacy". So, who can claim an expectation of privacy when doing anything (short of dropping some kids off at the pool in the bathroom) at the effing Preakness!! Especially the police who say that they have an expectation of privacy as they beat the $*!#@ out of some sloppy drunk girl who (allegedly) took a swing at one of them. Does this pass the smell test? Or, as we used to say in law school, can you make that argument in the mirror without laughing? If not, I think you know what that means....

Please fix this! While I am all for recording everything (in public, mind you), especially as a criminal defense attorney, if the legislature wants to outlaw this, then do it!!! Take everyone's camera phones away. Otherwise, we need to realize that applying these laws to these circumstances is poppycock (yes, I did just use that word).

Have a great weekend everyone - and please, if you see me doing something ridiculous, please do not record it. However, if that's me getting pummeled by the authorities, video away! I know some great lawyers to help both of us.

Mayor Adams Do You Hear Me?

Earlier this month, the Oregonian ran a story stating that due to budget cuts, Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Shrunk has been left with no choice but to stop prosecuting hundreds (if not thousands) of low-level criminal offenses such as drug possession and theft for first- or second-time offenders.

When I read the story my instant reaction was, “this is politically brilliant. The average citizen who reads this story is instantly going to be afraid…they will either put pressure on the legislature to give more money to the DA’s office or vote for whatever tax levy feeds money into the district attorney’s budget.” 

As someone who has worked as a criminal defense attorney in Multnomah County for 11 years (six of those years as a public defender), I’m here to call bullshit. 

If the average taxpayer had any idea just how much money is WASTED in the criminal justice system, I have no doubt that there would be an outright revolt. 

You want examples? Here are just a few (and remember, I could list a dozen more):

1.    Anyone who works in the system will tell you that drug addicts are only going to successfully complete treatment and stay sober if/when they are READY to get sober. You can send an individual to the Betty Ford Clinic or any other super-fancy, cutting-edge treatment program; but if they’re not ready to get clean, it will do no good. Last time I checked, the Multnomah County DA’s office (as well as DA offices in countless other counties) refuses to acknowledge that fact.

I have represented hundreds of addicts who have said, “I’m not ready for treatment, if given probation, I will violate, just get me a straight jail sentence.” What this means is that these defendants know that they will never make it through probation. So they just want to do jail time.

If they could get a straight jail sentence, once it’s up, they are free to go about their business. Nine times out of 10, that is not an option. The DA offers only probation, plus treatment, plus fines/fees, etc. And judges are usually not inclined to impose straight time sentences.

So you know what happens? That’s right: The person takes the deal, gets out of jail, and starts using the minute they step foot on the outside. You know what happens next? A warrant is issued for their arrest. Tax payers then pay for law enforcement officers to find these individuals and once they do, they go back to jail, and usually spend a week or so locked-up before a Judge finds they violated their probation for not doing the treatment they said they were not going to do in the first place. Repeat the scenario two to three times per drug defendant.

Oh, there’s more. Once a judge finally decides, “Okay, clearly this isn’t going to work. I’m going to revoke your probation and GIVE YOU JAIL TIME,” that individual ends up spending the time in jail they would have spent had they just been given the “straight time sentence” in the first place.

Now I don’t have the exact figure of the average daily amount spent to house the average Multnomah County defendant – but it’s a lot. I promise you that. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if we just allowed these people to serve their straight time sentences, there would be more than enough money to prosecute all crimes in the county. 

Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Well, yeah.

The thing that gets me more pissed off than anything? Yeah, the $58 million Wapato Jail, which has been EMPTY since it was built because there is no money to staff it. Oh, the irony.

BUT WHERE IS THE OUTCRY? We spent $58 million dollars of tax payers’ money to build a jail that has never been used. Sam Adams, are you listening? Oh right, you’re at your bike meeting with bike people about special bike things. Sorry to interrupt. 

2.    Prostitution “stings”: There’s a reason people say that prostitution is the oldest profession. Men always have and always will buy sex, and there will continue to be women (mostly) to provide it.

I’m happy to have a conversation about the fact that it is often the weakest, most vulnerable women who end up as prostitutes. I agree. But again, that’s an entirely different conversation, which requires a meaningful dialogue about sexism, bad parenting, self-esteem, drugs, etc.

In the meantime, I will tell you that police departments around the country spend hundreds of thousands of public money setting up stings. They put female police officers on street corners pretending to be prostitutes. Once they engage in the legally required exchange, “If you give me your money, I will give you my vagina.” The men they encounter are arrested.

At times, the reverse happens. But does it help things? No. Has prostitution gone away? No.

For every man who is arrested and shamed into not repeating his behavior, there are countless other men who will go out and seek prostitutes. But remember, we’re spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on such police stings. Don’t the police have better things to do with their time and OUR MONEY?

You’ll read stories in the newspaper telling you that, due to budget cuts, our streets aren’t safe.

Violent predators will be let loose.

Lock your doors.

Don’t let your children play outside.

But think about the waste. 

There’s no politician in the world who’s willing to step up and tell the truth. These are not popular topics. No one wants to admit that drug addicts will continue to be drug addicts until THEY are ready to get clean.

No one’s willing to admit that men from all socio-economic levels will continue to pay for sex. 

But that’s our reality, and I challenge anyone who’s worked in the system to say differently.

And yes, I call bullshit. 

Teen Mom

A couple of weeks ago I was watching TV with my wife when she recommended that we watch a reality show on MTV called Teen Mom. Now, I am not above reality television but am also not one to tune into a show that appears aimed at a different demographic than mine, aka teenagers. Further, it has been quite some time since I have watched anything on MTV - sorry to say, that I figured I was just too old for their programming...at least since they stopped showing Van Halen and ZZ Top videos (and I'm talking old Van Halen, none of that Sammy Hagar crap - though he does make damn good tequila). While that may date me, I can't hide from the truth - I am just not an MTV guy anymore.

Having said that (thank you Jerry Seinfeld), I may have lightly protested watching this show, but not longer after it began. I was taken in by it. Unfortunately, this is not because this show is a thing of beauty - its more akin to rubber necking that accident on the freeway. (And, if you have been in an accident, I know a really good personal injury attorney who can help you.) But, lets be honest, isn't that what reality television is all about? Its voyerism on crack.

So, now having watched a few episodes of this show, I am not only still taken by it and its characters (as is much of the nation), but there have been some surprising legal issues or circumstances that led me to want to discuss them here, in our forum.

First, in episode 1, it was amazing to see MTV show a terribly unfortunate and very serious incident involding Farrah and her mother in which the mother assaulted her teen. While the show did not make this completely clear, it appeared that at least at some point, a knife was involved. This is a serious situation that is unfortunate for all those involved. While, as a criminal defense attorney, I never advocate to get the police involved because it rarely ends up good for anyone, this certainly seemed like the appropriate time to call them.

The interesting part is the relationship that appeared to continue between Farrah and the prosecutor after Farrah's mom eventually pleaded guilty to whatever she was charged with, presumably a felony. The show certainly didn't seem to address this and I don't blame MTV for glossing over it as it really is not an important part of the show, but again, as a criminal defense attorney, I could not help but notice that on multiple occasions, Farrah referred to the prosecuting attorney as "her attorney."

Again, defense lawyers (and prosecutors) know that a prosecutor is NOT the alleged victim's attorney. S/he works for the "people" as a collective - not anyone specifically. And I don't know how things work in the jurisdiction where Farrah resides, but that is certainly not the case here in Portland, Oregon. What became even more interesting is that as this storyline continued in future episodes, Farrah kept visiting "her attorney" aka, the prosecutor. And, it wasn't only to discuss Farrah's ongoing issues with her mother and the mother's compliance with her probationary terms, like treatment and counseling. They also discussed obtaining social security for Farrah's baby. What the audience eventually learns is that the baby-daddy perished in a drunk driving accident sometime in the past - we're not sure when, just that it was after conception.

I do not have a problem with Farrah rightfully applying for these benefits for her child - the system exists, she deserves to access it. And, this is not the place where I would argue the point of our country providing those benefits. What sparked my interest, as an attorney here in Portland, is that when Farrah needed advice on applying for these benefits (and then going through the process itself), MTV certainly made it appear that the prosecutor was the lawyer who helped her get these benefits. Again, from my experience as a criminal defense attorney, this is not the job of a prosecutor. Certainly, here in Multnomah County or other areas of Oregon and Washington that I am familiar with, that would not occur.

District Attorneys or prosecutors work for the state or the "people." They are supposed to investigate and prosecute alleged criminals. They are not supposed to spend the people's money (by spending their time while on the job) to help an individual obtain social security benefits. It was just interesting and not sure if MTV just edited the footage to appear that way or if that was how it actually happened. The prosecutor's job is not to do this - and, s/he definitely shouldn't get paid to do it. That would be the job of a civil lawyer retained to obtain those benefits on behalf of the child. Further, even if he did it pro bono, i.e., for free, he still isn't supposed to be spending his time working for any one individual. However, I only bring this up as a lawyer as it is of interest - things could either be different where they live, or MTV may have performed some creative editing for the sake of time savings or plot arcs. I guess that is their prerogative.

The second intersting event from this criminal defense lawyer's perspective is what appeared to be more criminal activity that appeared on television. Again, this comes from someone who did nothing more than watch the show - I have no idea what happened behind the scenes. But, in episode 10, another teen mom named Amber clearly assaults her boyfriend/fiance, Gary by punching him in the face. Then, as Gary is leaving, she kicks him in the back as he is walking down the stairs - something that really could have injured him had he fallen. Amber and Gary clearly have a volatile relationship, and I'm sure an audience member doesn't see the whole story - one never does in reality television, right? Having said that (thanks again, Jerry), from the perspective of a lawyer, was this an event that was prosecuted?

There is no getting around the event took place - see the video here. And, not only did Amber punch Gary squarley in the face, she did it in front of their young daughter which here in Oregon would be considered a felony. I bring this up for a few reasons. Again, was Amber prosecuted? Even an experienced criminal defense attorney would have a tough time defending these actions caught clearly on video - something that is rare in the world of criminal justice. If not, why not? Did MTV get some deal ahead of time from the local prosecutor's office that if they aired this footage Amber would not be prosecuted? Was she but MTV buried it? Its not something that was hidden from the audience as Amber and Gary even discussed it again in its on-line wrap up shows.

And, if she wasn't prosecuted and it wasn't because of some deal that MTV obtained, why wasn't she? Is it because she is a girl and the alleged victim was a boy? In my experience here in Multnomah County, that would not be the case. I have handled domestic violence cases where the female was alleged to have assaulted the male (and even won a jury trial obtaining an acquittal for my female client, thank you very much). But, in other jurisdictions (as explained in a previous post), maybe those cases aren't prosecuted because the district attorney has prosecutorial discretion to charge or not charge any case or incident of which they learn. Is that fair? Would the DA simply turn a blind eye simply because the events occurred on MTV?

Just food for thought - do any attorneys, criminal or otherwise, have an opinion or inside information about this? Should girls get a free pass when they beat on their boyfriends? Does it matter who is bigger or how badly the other person is hurt if at all? (FYI, getting "hurt" or what "physical injury" means becomes a legal issue when one gets charged with assault in Oregon.) What about any laypeople out there whether you watch this show or not - do you have an opinion? Give us a shout out and let us know....

Women Sports Journalists in the Men's Locker Room





Before the “Jets' locker room incident”, Ines Sainz was not a familiar name to many of us.  Now, she seems to be the #1 topic of conversation around the water cooler.

For those of you hiding underneath a rock for the past week, Ines Sainz is a Mexican journalist who was recently the target of inappropriate and suggestive comments made by some New York Jets' football players while waiting to interview Jets' quarterback Mark Sanchez.  According to reports, while Sainz was waiting for the interview, several Jets players made inappropriate and suggestive comments to her.  Another journalist, who was present but not the target of the comments, complained about the behavior.  Since the complaint, the Jets have apologized, and just this week the NFL issued a memo with the following statement:  "Women are a common part of the sports media…By law, women must be granted the same rights to perform their jobs as men.  Please remember that women reporters are professionals and should be treated as such."  

Professional athletes and sports journalists alike have felt the need to comment on the incident.  Washington Redskins' running back Clinton Portis shared his view on air by saying,  "I think you put women reporters in the locker room in position to see guys walking around naked, and you sit in the locker room with 53 guys, and all of the sudden you see a nice woman in the locker room. I think men are going to tend to turn and look and want to say something to that woman."  Really, Clinton???     

It's no shocker that this recent incident has fueled many discussions, including debates on what constitutes sexual harassment, whether woman journalists should be allowed in men’s locker rooms, and whether male journalists are allowed in the women's locker room.  All very interesting issues that undoubtedly foster strong views.  DRG is interested in hearing your position on one or all of these topics.  We are looking for both male and female perspectives.  So, please do share! 

“You have the right to remain silent.” For the love of god, REMAIN SILENT!

So here’s the thing: Police officers are very good at making you feel like they are your friend because they are trained to make you feel like they are your friend. And nine times out of ten, they get convictions because they convince people, like you, that they are their friend. They’re not. I don’t care how nice/sweet/innocent you are or how much money you have. Agreeing to give a statement to a police officer without an experienced criminal attorney present is the best chance you have of getting convicted of a crime.

Forget Law and Order. Forget Cold Case. Police officers and district attorneys get convictions as a result of statements made by defendants. It pains me to think of the number of cases I’ve handled where, without a defendant’s statement, the state would never have had enough evidence to convict.

When a police officer tells you that you have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, they are doing so because the law requires them to do so. Not because they really want you to remain silent and/or call a defense attorney.

But I get it…it’s human nature to want to cooperate, be nice and go with the program. And when someone wearing a uniform and carrying a gun says something like “I’m sure once I hear your story, everything will be fine and you’ll get to go home,” your first reaction will be to just tell them your story.

DON’T TELL THEM YOUR STORY!

What 99% of the country doesn’t know is that years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the police can legally be deceptive when questioning suspects. In other words, police officers are lawfully allowed to lie in order to get a confession.

Examples:

“Your friend just gave you up” (untrue).

“You might as well come clean. We have evidence linking you to the crime” (untrue).

“I’m sure if you just tell me what happened things will go easier for you” (untrue).

The bottom line is that it is NEVER in your interest to give statements to the police. Even if you’re completely innocent. The right to an attorney is there for a reason. Use it. And yes, police officers will often say that if you just give them a statement you’ll most likely get to go home. Almost always not the case. If anything, giving a statement will lead to an indictment.

If you tell a cop that you want a lawyer, they must stop interrogating you. Regardless of circumstances, please, please, please take advantage of your constitutional rights and tell said cop that you want a lawyer and DON’T SAY ANYTHING until you’re criminal attorney arrives. In almost every instance, a good criminal attorney will tell you to say nothing.

And odds are, it will save your life.

I’ve been arrested or charged with a crime. Now what?

A pending criminal case can be one of the most stressful times in a person’s life.

Regardless of whether a person is looking at a misdemeanor DUI, drug offense or serious felony that carries a maximum minimum penalty, the months or years it takes to resolve such a matter will be very hard on even the most optimistic person.

Hiring the right defense attorney is a critical step in successful resolution, whether that means avoiding jail or prison or going all the way to trial with a seasoned criminal defense attorney who will give you the best chance of a not guilty verdict.

If you open the phonebook in Portland, you will find hundreds of lawyers who sell themselves as the best criminal attorney in town. But how can you truly know if that Portland lawyer has the experience, smarts, aggressiveness, and reputation to get you the results you need?

Of equal importance, if you need a lawyer, you should hire someone with whom you feel comfortable. A lawyer who demonstrates good customer service and recognizes that you, the client, should always have phone calls returned, questions answered, and issues explained to you in a way that is not condescending, but communicated in a way you understand (no fancy lawyer speak!).

Not all criminal lawyers have experience with all types of charges. While driving under the Influence charges are usually misdemeanors (meaning the maximum jail time is one year), good DUI defense lawyers understand the complexities of such cases. It’s not just a matter of was she or wasn’t she driving under the influence. There are many challenges DUI attorneys can make to the methods and tests employed by the police officer who made the arrest. But those challenges require experience. Just because someone markets themselves as a DUI attorney, that doesn’t mean you should hire them.

When you meet with a criminal defense attorney in Portland, Vancouver or elsewhere, you should interview them. Ask them how many similar cases they’ve had. Ask them how many of those cases went to trial? Ask specifics about their practice – what percentage is criminal and what percentage is other kinds of law. How often do they practice in the county where you were charged? Have they ever had a founded bar complaint?

There are several lawyer referral websites you can search to learn specific information about the attorney you’re looking to hire. Such sites provide client reviews (good and bad) as well as endorsements from other lawyers who have worked with these individuals. Do your homework!

And at the end of the day, you should feel comfortable with your attorney: comfortable speaking openly about your case or your circumstances; comfortable calling your attorney with any questions or concerns, and comfortable that your defense lawyer, above anything else, is advocating for you and your interests. Trust your instincts.

A twenty-five year prison sentence for stealing food?

For those of you who think only hardened, violent criminals are subjected to the harsh mandatory minimum sentences enforced across the country (including Oregon), let us introduce you to Gregory Taylor, a homeless, hungry Californian sentenced to 25 years in prison for trying to break into a church kitchen to find something to eat.

Thanks to the work of Stanford University law students and the law school’s “three strikes project,” a Superior Court judge amended Gregory Taylor's sentence to his eight years already served. The 47-year-old, who was sentenced in 1997 to 25 years to life, will be a free man in a few days.

Due to two prior robbery convictions in the 1980s (one for stealing a purse containing $10 and the other for trying to rob a man on the street—neither of which involved the use of a weapon, and neither of his victims was injured), Taylor was convicted under California’s notorious three-strikes law.

While Oregon’s mandatory minimum statute is not exactly the same as California’s, the result is the same. In Oregon, for certain offenses, the circumstances of the case are irrelevant and judges have no discretion with regard to sentencing. Regardless of the individual’s background, age, criminal history (or lack thereof), or the role he or she played during the criminal act, if convicted of one of the specified crimes, that person will be sentenced to prison for a very long time. If the District Attorney is unwilling to reduce the charge, even the best Portland criminal attorney will have few strategic options if their client is convicted.

Stated simply, the mandatory minimum-sentence requirement does not work. It sends homeless people to prison for years for trying to steal food. It prohibits judges from using their training, experience, knowledge and common sense when sentencing defendants.

Ask yourself why we should have judges if they’re not allowed to make the decisions that would best serve our communities?