Edie, you are a professional and a mother. How could you?

How could I religiously watch The Real Housewives of New Jersey? I’m a feminist. I’m a criminal defense attorney. I typically cringe at television shows that depict women as frail, dumb, boy-crazy, inept, greedy or shallow. Such women are pathetic. Such women have TERRIBLE taste. They literally get into fistfights in front of their young children. WTF, Edie? WTF?

I can’t get enough of this show.

Perhaps it’s the defense attorney in me. Throughout each episode, I find myself thinking about the various crimes these women could be charged with and convicted of: child endangerment, DUI,  fraud (declaring bankruptcy while driving a Mercedes, keeping a hair and makeup person on staff, living in a 10,000-square foot god-awful mcmansion), assault and harassment, to name a few.

Perhaps it’s the fact that the show confirms my theory that mothers who find ways to talk about their incredible mothering skills are in fact the very worst mothers. Am I really the only one who hates Caroline?

Perhaps it’s the fact that I feel better about myself as a mother whenever I tune in to this show.

Perhaps it’s that age-old quote “you can’t buy taste.”

Perhaps it’s the adorableness of gay, Jewish, Andy Cohen attempting to “moderate” these nutjobs.

Or perhaps it’s simply the opportunity to dish with my dear friend, the incomparable Scented Glossy. 

Or perhaps it’s just about my hatred for Caroline and my love for Jacqueline (the only semi-normal woman in the bunch).

Regardless, I profess to you all: This professional, educated, mother loves me some Real Housewives of New Jersey. 

See you at the reunion show!

Police Brutality

Saw this article in the news today. For most people who read this story and see the video, it is pretty shocking. Unfortunately for us criminal defense attorneys, it is an all too familiar story. Most likely when this girl ended up in custody and was appointed or retained a lawyer, she will tell them about the excessive force used by the officer. But, most cases do not have video evidence of it like this one. In those cases, a criminal defense attorney like myself can do little with that information unless there are independent eye-witnesses or medical reports detailing the abuse.

Otherwise, at trial we can cross-examine the officers about what occurred that day but I have a funny feeling that this push, will not be part of the officers' testimony, nor will it be included in their police reports about the incident. More often than not, these incidents occur without recourse, retribution, and worst of all, do not even make it into evidence in the defendant's trial, if they are charged.

Now, if one reads the entire story, they will find this girl was not some poor innocent teen attacked without reason. In fact, she is pretty unsavory herself. The officers arrived at the scene that day because the teen was being kicked out of school for being intoxicated and serving alcohol to other students. And, other parts of the video show her wrestling with her poor mother on the ground and even punching her mom in the head and face a few times. But, the story seems to indicate that this all occurred before the officers arrived and the video clearly shows a teenager calmly walking away from the scene.

Was she being insubordinate? Probably. Obnoxious? I would believe it. Had she done something wrong? I would certainly believe that and the video clearly shows it. Does any of that justify what the officer did to her? I wonder if opinions on that last question would differ? If so, please watch the video again. By the time the officers arrive (around the 1:30 mark), the scuffle between daughter and mother is over and she is walking away. Most likely the officer told the girl to stop and she did not listen. Having said ALL that (thanks again, Jerry Seinfeld), does any of that justify the tactic the officer used?

Apparently the "technique" is called an "impact push" which means that the officer not only used all his force to push this teenage girl down, but he was trained in how to do this. These criminal defense attorneys, have no objection to the technique used properly and in the appropriate situation, but was this the type of incident envisioned for its use? I think not; and I bet my partner would agree.

The other interesting part of this story is that the video was uploaded to You Tube in March - we don't even know when it was shot or when this incident occurred but it was at least a month ago. That begs the question, why are we just finding out about this now? Publicly at least, the local police department claims they were unaware of the situation. So, going back to my original point above, do you think this girl told anyone what happened? And, did anyone outside of the witnesses themselves believe her? Was anyone taking any action on her behalf or against the officer himself before the video became today's media sensation?

Finally, the current story is that the officer was placed on paid leave? This, I cannot understand but is always what occurs in this type of incident. In other words, Joe Q. Officer, you acted completely out of line and used unnecessary and excessive force on a teenage girl - how about a paid vacation?!? This is like suspending the truant student - does this make any sense?

Hopefully, this girl now has an attorney working for her. Some personal injury or civil rights lawyer should have a field day with this one now that the video surfaced and the media is involved. The problem is that this officer is going to end up with a slap on the wrist and will be back to his policing at his, or some other department, real soon. And, if not, he'll get a job as a security officer at a mall which leads me to my last piece of unfortunate but true advice: stay away from the cops at all costs and avoid other security too as best you can unless you absolutely need help (and even then watch out). Simply put, if you feel the need to act like an asshole, do it at home and if anyone else is home, make sure they don't have a phone or won't call the cops on you. If they do, this guy might be coming to "help". This might seem extreme but I can tell you, as criminal defense and personal injury lawyers, we have seen cases upon cases of people getting hurt or mistreated by those authorities who were supposed to be there to help. It's hell out there people...

WTF?

Our firm is located in Portland, Oregon, a.k.a., Disneyland for the most liberal of liberals.  Fiscally conservative Portlanders are like the gay and lesbian Catholicsof the 1950s, i.e., in the closet, staying in the closet, and never coming out of the closet.

So you can only imagine that when the shit hit the fan in Wisconsin a few weeks ago (i.e., Governor Scott Walker’s proposal to limit/eradicategovernment employee’s ability to collectively bargain in an effort to reducebenefits to state employees), Portland’s fiscal conservatives kept their mouths shut. 

Nothing will make you a social pariah in Portland faster than expressing your views that, perhaps, benefits provided to government employees are ridiculous and part of the reason so many states are bankrupt.

How, you ask, does this have anything to do with today’s blog topic? Um…well…Oh! I remember my point:

I don’t know anyone on this planet, even the most fiscallyconservative, who won’t be appalled by today’s U.S. Supreme Court decisionoverturning a $14 million dollar judgment awarded to a wrongfullyconvicted/incarcerated man.

Not only was he innocent, the district attorney who prosecuted and convicted him was aware of DNA evidence proving his innocence, yet failed to provide that information to the defense – and deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence.

Honestly, I think $14 million is a steal. Because let’s be honest, if this wrongfully convicted man had been white, rich, and connected, the judgment would have been more like $14 billion and would not have been overturned. 

Another Wrongfully Convicted Person Freed

I saw this article in the Washington Post the other day. As a criminal defense attorney, I continue to be amazed by these stories on several levels.

First, the level of technology, science, and sophistication that our society has reached continues to rise almost daily. And yet, we still have (most likely) thousands, if not more, prisoners serving extensive sentences for crimes they did not commit. How can this be? How is our criminal justice system still so flawed?

Having said that, the incredible work of the many innocence projects around the nation also amazes me. If you don't already know, the innocence project is using today's technology, usually DNA evidence, to indisputably prove that many of these convicted people are innocent and obtain their release from prison after years and years of incarceration. The toll this takes on the individual is impossible to understand unless you have lived through this yourself, or watched a loved one endure it.

However, there is also a toll on society. The costs of incarcerating these individuals in astronomical. And, that is only the beginning because when these innocent victims of our system are freed - many have rights of actions against the municipalities that put them there costing our taxpayers even more money. Or, several states have passed legislation that sets the automatic compensation due to these wrongfully convicted people. Not to be callous to the individual stories, but the taxpayers are double-paying first to incarcerate and then after they are freed! Doesn't this warrant putting a little more effort into getting it right the first time simply for economic reasons? Especially in this day and age of shrinking budgets and states on the verge of bankruptcy.

The other amazing part is that many of these individuals were convicted based on one of two things: a confession or eye-witness testimony. What we are quickly (though it should be quicker) learning is that these two seemingly sure-fire and reliable kinds of evidence used to gain convictions are actually two of the most-flawed as evidenced by what DNA is showing us. This, I believe, is the hardest pill to swallow for lay people or the uninformed. As a criminal defense attorney who has seen this first-hand and argued with these uninformed individuals, the idea that false confessions and eyewitness misidentification not only exist but are rampant is a very hard idea to accept intellectually. I do not mean to demean the uninformed, but only wish to point out the importance of educating the public on a more widespread level.

Several films have been made illustrating these issues, both fiction and documentary. These are always amazing and triumphant stories, but are full of tragedy as well. And, for every one film or innocent person exonerated, how many countless ones still remain in custody with no hope and at exorbitant societal costs?

While I know our system will never be perfect, and it beats the hell out of a lot of other societys', is it wrong to expect a little more? We certainly don't think so - do you?

Teen Mom 2

Well, we first discussed this show in a previous post. Since then, a lot has happened. Without getting into all the nitty gritty details, suffice it to say that MTV returned with its second installment of this disturbing reality TV hit.

To remind you, the show follows a handful of teenage moms as they navigate the difficulties of real life with the added bonus of caring for a child after an unplanned teenage pregnancy. The show is actually a spin off of 16 and Pregnant.

This season, just like last season, is a series of uncomfortable scenes showing how the added responsibility of caring for a child significantly changes the lives of these young mothers. The cynic in me wonders whether the lives of these teens would be all that normal even without the babies, but that's a discussion for another time.

What, you may ask, does this have to do with a blog about lawyers and the law? Well, the legal issues these shows manifest through the lives of these young teens are limitless.

For example, similar to Season One, we have a domestic relationship that borders on abuse. Last season, it was Amber and Gary who displayed their dysfunctional and abusive relationship for all the world to see. In our previous post, we pondered whether Amber, who appeared to be the aggressor, would be prosecuted for her abusive behavior towards her baby-daddy, Gary. Turns out, she was.

In Season One, we also witnessed the prosecution of Farrah's mother, who abused her daughter, and was arrested for hitting her and, possibly, threatening her with a knife.

This season, we have Jenelle and her mother. We have already seen several instances of what could be considered criminal harrasment, at least here in Oregon. Some of their interactions border on assault and, as a criminal defense attorney, I would not be surprised to see some district attorneys try to prosecute some of these disputes as domestic assaults.

While Jenelle's behavior towards her mother is nothing but distasteful, my opinion of her is saved by the fact that her mother seems even more awful than she. And, as we all know, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, right? Jenelle is clearly not excelling in her role as a teen mother, however, her mother is such a terrible control freak, it is almost impossible to even witness her behavior towards her daughter and how she uses the baby as silk in her web of misery - mostly against her daughter.

Now, I'm no family lawyer - I do criminal defense and personal injury, remember? - but, Janelle's mother threatens to take her to court for custody of the baby and, in so doing, forces her to voluntarily give up temporary custody of the child. Normally, and even somewhat in this case, this is a benevolent maneuver for the welfare of the child. However, here, as we see in all the episodes since, Jenelle's mother uses the custody situation against her, and does so vindictively.

Not to be outdone, in last night's episode, Jenelle steals her mother's credit cards to take her and her deadbeat boyfriend (who is strangely likable in his supporting role though he does nothing productive for the duo), on a road trip to New Jersey to see the boyfriend's older brother. WHAT IS SHE THINKING!?!??! This maneuver is a shining example of what medical science has proven about teenagers brains not functioning properly as they have not completed their judgment determinative growth - in other words, they are unable to make appropriate decisions at this age which is only exacerbated by these dysfunctional relationships and, obviously, the additional pressure of parenting an infant or toddler.

I can tell you, as an experienced criminal defense attorney, Jenelle's behavior could easily qualify as theft here in Oregon. The show does not provide the audience with just how much she rings up in credit card charges (gas and food) for this little adventure before her mother catches wind of the game and cancels the cards so its impossible to know whether this behavior would rise to the level of a felony or simply a misdemeanor. And, any criminal defense attorney could tell you, those levels vary from state to state. But, clearly, she has stolen from her mother. What is interesting, at least to this attorney audience member, is will the local district attorney attempt to prosecute Jenelle since their entire case is laid out in living color on television. I always knew that DA's had it easier than criminal defense attorneys, but this is ridiculous.

Finally, the other legally, intriguing couple this season is Kailyn and Jo. This is any normal human's worst nightmare scenario. When the season began, we learned that Kailyn was living at Jo's house out of the charity of his parents when Kailyn (for currently unknown reasons) had nowhere else to go. Then, Jo impregnated Kailyn and after she had the baby, she remained in their house. The brutal part is that when she and Jo stopped getting along, she could not escape because to leave this house would render her (and her baby) homeless. And, Jo's poor parents who are trying to do the right thing are stuck in the middle of two teen parents who no longer like each other. This is one of the more miserable human scenarios I have ever witnessed.

The legally interesting part is during a surprising moment of generosity, Jo lends Kailyn $600 to start college. Then, last night, after Kailyn reveals that she wants no part of any relationship with Jo, she is asked to leave their house. Suddenly, Kailyn's mom who has been around in previous episodes but was extremely unsupportive for unknown reasons, now offers Kailyn a place to stay for her and her child. So, Kailyn moves out, but when she tries to recover her belongings from Jo's house, he refuses until he gets his money. The unfortunate parents are stuck in the middle of this mess of trying to support their son and their grandchild. Eventually, the cops are called.

Again, I'm not a property lawyer, but the cops presumably listen to both sides of the story and eventually send Kailyn away without her stuff claiming that Jo is allowed to hold it until he gets his money back. What do the other lawyers out there think about this? What about the non-lawyers? Discuss....

I’m driving my husband crazy

My daughter is starting kindergarten in the fall and this milestone is wreaking havoc on my family. No, I’m not having an emotional crisis because my baby girl is growing up.  No, my husband and I are not fighting over private-versus-public school.

I’m freaking out because our neighborhood school is one of the worst in the entire district and, as a result, we are moving. The “driving my husband crazy” part relates to my calling said husband at work 20 times a day with reminders of all the things that must get done in order for us to move (i.e., “don’t forget you have to caulk the bathtub tonight.”).

To be honest, part of me feels guilty. I have these Erin Brockovich fantasies about keeping our daughter in our terrible neighborhood school and dedicating our lives to making this low-income, inner-city school the best in the entire city. After all, the more people like us, who choose to go elsewhere, the greater the chance this school will continue its ineptitude.

“We’ll show those rich, west-side, stay-at-home mommies,” I say to myself. “We’ll start a movement!”

And then reality sets in. 

The reality is that what’s best for our daughter is for us to move to a neighborhood school that consists of well-connected, educated and dedicated parents who devote a considerable amount of time raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for the music, art and P.E. teachers the state no longer funds.

Which brings me to the point of this post: My parents happen to live in the neighborhood that has, hands down, the best public elementary school in the city. And in the past month, as I’ve been fretting over kindergarten, I’ve been stunned to hear dozens of my peers and colleagues tell me I should just use my parents’ address as our residence in order to get our child into this fabulous school. Apparently this is common practice. 

But it’s a practice to which my husband and I will never resort. And no, it’s not out of fear of getting caught, or getting prosecuted like this poor woman. It’s because we believe it’s wrong. That this practice further divides the haves from the have- nots.

We believe that if it’s important enough to send our child to a certain school, then we must make the sacrifice of moving. We think it’s wrong to cheat the system.

But apparently we are the minority.

So I want to know, people: What do you think? Is it okay to lie about where you live in order to ensure your child will go to a better school? Would you do it?

Do tell.

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.

---