We miss Big Love as much as the next guy...

But this dude is no Bill Henrickson.  The problem with misogynistic, abusive religious zealots who convince their followers that they are a prophet, is that they ruin it for the average middle-America hardware store entrepreneur  who just has a lot of love to give.  


Mr. Jeffs, we wish you the best in general population.  Please don't drop the soap. 

Pimpin’ Ain’t Easy

The older I get, the more frustrated I become by what I call the American Ideology of extremism. 

You’re either with us or against us. 

If I listened to what my fellow citizens advised, I would be forced to choose between being an anti-car, anti-business, dreadlock-rocking, vegan-loving, breastfeeding-my-child- until-she’s-six, hate-all-Republicans liberal, or a Palin/Beck-supporting, anti-choice, anti-gay-marriage, anti-union, pro-church-and-state conservative.

UGH!

I’m so tired of it. And yes, my frustration has prompted deliberate facebook posts written solely for the purpose of eliciting angry comments. 

Where are the moderates and why are we so scared?

“Edie, what does this rant have to do with the law?” you ask. Excellent question. “I thought you were a criminal attorney blogging about criminal defense law.” I am, and I’m getting to it. 

Here’s the thing: Nothing exemplifies my point more than the criminal justice system, which is all about black and white. For years, violent offenders got off easy, did little time, got out to commit even more heinous crimes, and generally were not held accountable.

And so the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Now, if you “catch a case,” particularly a certain type of case, you’re screwed…for life.

 The best example of this is pimping.

Yes, you heard me: P-I-M-P-I-N-G. Under Oregon law, an individual convicted of promoting or compelling prostitution is required to register as a sex offender. 

The elements of promoting prostitution are as follows:  A person commits the crime of promoting prostitution if, with intent to promote prostitution, the person knowingly:

(a) Owns, controls, manages, supervises or otherwise maintains a place of prostitution or a prostitution enterprise; or

(b) Induces or causes a person to engage in prostitution or to remain in a place of prostitution; or

(c) Receives or agrees to receive money or other property, other than as a prostitute being compensated for personally rendered prostitution services, pursuant to an agreement or understanding that the money or other property is derived from a prostitution activity; or

(d) Engages in any conduct that institutes, aids or facilitates an act or enterprise of prostitution.[1]

The elements of compelling prostitution are as follows:  (1) A person commits the crime of compelling prostitution if the person knowingly:

(a) Uses force or intimidation to compel another to engage in prostitution; or

(b) Induces or causes a person under 18 years of age to engage in prostitution; or

(c) Induces or causes the spouse, child or stepchild of the person to engage in prostitution.[2]

Now, don’t get me wrong. These are serious offenses and often very bad criminal acts; particularly cases involving compelling prostitution. I’m not condoning such behavior. I’m not suggesting that when the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that said individuals committed such crimes, they should not be prosecuted.[3]

However, I don’t understand why someone convicted of one of these offenses should be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his or her life. I just don’t see a causal connection.

Pimps are assholes. Pimps are terrible people. Pimps take advantage of the most vulnerable members of society – often underage girls who are fleeing terrible domestic circumstances.

But are pimps sex offenders? 

And the thing is, if part of our plan is to rehabilitate criminals, good luck when it involves an individual required to register for life as a sex offender. They can almost never secure legitimate employment. They can almost never secure legitimate housing. The registration requirement pretty much puts a stop to any attempt to lead productive, legitimate lives. 

Assume that there is at least one person out there convicted of compelling or promoting prostitution who has made a transformation; who has made amends for their past life; who has changed; and who wants to do the right thing and volunteer, work hard, pay taxes, serve the community, raise a family. It will be next to impossible for said person to do so.

I realize that to most, this isn’t a pressing issue. And I realize it’s not a very popular issue. The “pimping lobby” isn’t going to appear at the legislature anytime soon to advocate for an end to sex offender registration. 

And I get registration laws as applied to predatory sex offenders. But I don’t get it when it comes to pimps.

I just don’t.

Do you?

  

[1] ORS 167.012

[2] ORS 167.017

[3] Assuming, of course, that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated by po-po.

---

We thought we'd seen everything...

Well this is certainly a first.

 

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! 

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?