INNOCENT SHMINOCENT

As criminal defense attorneys who have handled countless sex abuse cases, we found this story particularly compelling and the timing interesting considering that March Madness Mania is in full effect.

Last week a jury acquitted a former Washington state high school basketball coach of communicating with a minor for immoral sexual purposes, a misdemeanor.  The jury reached its verdict within five minutes of the conclusion of the trial: almost unheard of in a criminal defense case.

Based on media reports, a 16-year-old girl accused Barry Johnson of making several inappropriate sexual comments to her which prompted the charge.  While Johnson denied any wrongdoing, he ultimately resigned from his position,presumably because of pressure from the school district.  At trial the defense introduced countless inconsistencies and contradictions in the girl’s story. 

As both the mother of a young child, and a criminal defense lawyer, I am often conflicted about issues concerning allegations of child sex abuse to be.

Admittedly, I would never hire a male babysitter.  As irrational as that sounds, the reality is that I’m entitled to be irrational when it comes to my kid. 

On the other hand, I know that for a variety of reasons, innocent individuals are routinely accused of sex crimes against children.  Despite the presumption of innocence our laws mandate, once someone is accused of this type of conduct, regardless of the outcome in a criminal case, game over. Their reputation is ruined.  

My guess is that Mr. Johnson will never again be able to work with children and will probably have a tough time finding any type of employment.  

And he’s one of the lucky ones. The jury did the right thing.  He wasn’t convicted. He won’t spend decades in prison for a crime he didn’tcommit.

Yes the safety of our children should be our number priority.  

But let’s make sure we get it right every time.   

Bojack Attacks Art Tax

Our esteemed colleague, fellow attorney, and friend, Jack Bogdanski has filed a lawsuit against the City of Portland over the recently enacted art tax.  The lawsuit, filed in Oregon Tax Court, claims that the tax violates Oregon's Constitutional (see, Article IX) ban against a head or poll tax.  Read more about the lawsuit here, or here, or here.  Read Mr. Bogdanski's fantastic blog here.

While the Mayor's office has remained mum on the lawsuit thus far, they apparently have been working to amend the tax to address some of the same issues raised by the lawsuit.  While another esteemed colleague, fellow lawyer, and excellent Judge, The Honorable John Wittmayer, already ruled on a similar argument last summer, we here at RG, LLP have little doubt that Bojack knows what he's talking about.  (Though we also must admit that Judge Wittmayer's smart as whip, too.)  All I can say is if it wasn't for Jack, I never would have passed the tax portion of the bar exam.  By the way, thanks for that Jack, not sure I ever got the opportunity to properly thank you for that one. 

As criminal defense, personal injury, and employment trial lawyers, we try to stay away from the tax stuff, but good luck!  If it violates the Oregon Constitution, it should be fixed.  Let's hope that between the mayor's office, the tax court, and whomever else is supposed to be in charge, we can get this right.

Suspect Drops Jailhouse ID While Fleeing from Bank Heist

I heard this story over and over on the news this morning.  This is one of those times, as a criminal defense attorney, that you wished your clients were a little smarter.  In all honesty, this guy probably has a serious addiction or mental health problem and expecting people similarly afflicted to have cogent, rational thoughts is even more ridiculous than his actual behavior.  Or, is he just that stupid?

What do you think?

The.Death.Penalty

A letter I wrote to the editor of the Oregon State Bar Magazine.  We would love to hear your thoughts on this very compelling subject. 

Why Chance It?

I write this in response to the article about the death penalty debate in Oregon (June 2012). In the interest of full disclosure, I am against the death penalty. I do not believe a civilized society should be in the business of killing its citizens.

From a pragmatic perspective, having represented hundreds of criminal defendants, I do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent. If there is a legitimate study that shows otherwise, I have never seen it.

The bottom line is this: The death penalty is an inherently flawed system that unnecessarily costs the state of Oregon billions of dollars. And when was the last time Oregon executed someone? What comes with a death sentence is the constitutionally required appellate process. And that process is very, very expensive.

We pursue death penalty convictions knowing that we really never execute anyone; and we do so fully aware that the process that comes with a death penalty sentence is incredibly expensive. I once asked a prominent district attorney, “Why does your office pursue the death penalty when you know we don’t end up executing in Oregon?” His response: “Because death row is a miserable existence.” So, given such a mindset, wouldn’t it make more sense to give people true life sentences and simply impose the same prison conditions as those on death row?

Lastly, and most importantly, in recent years this country has witnessed hundreds of death row inmates exonerated for the crimes for which they were convicted. Sadly, many of those innocent individuals were exonerated after they were executed. So why would we ever chance it? How can you tell me that some unquantifiable benefit of the death penalty outweighs the fact that at times we get it wrong?

Everyone loves to blame the lawyer

Last week the Oregon Department of Human Services agreed topay 1.5 million dollars to the heir of Jeanette Maples, a child who was brutallyand savagely starved and tortured to death FOR YEARS by her mother andstep-father. 

The mother is currently on Oregon’s death row (while I’m still 100% anti-death penalty, Mother Maples certainly makes me have a greater appreciation for those who support it).  The step-father is serving 25-years. 

What this child endured is unimaginable.  Like most parents, when my child scrapes herknee or is sick with the flu my heart hurts.  It is physically, intellectually, and emotionally impossible for me to comprehend how a mother could do this to her child. 

As a citizen, the fact that DHS received repeated reportsof abuse yet failed to intervene is shocking; stunning; unfathomable. 

As a lawyer, the fact that DHS did nothing is truly mind blowing.  Why? Because I can’t count the number of cases I’ve handled where DHS has immediately intervened despite having:  1. little or no evidence supporting the allegations; 2. obvious improper motivation by the accuser (i.e. wronged dumped spouse trying to get back at ex).  

In these cases, DHS holds incredible amount of power and autonomy.  It takes months if not years for these parents to be reunited with their children and often that happens only after the parents agree to do whatever DHS asks.  Once DHS opens a case? Well….good luck. 

My point:  HOW DID THEY GET IT SO WRONG IN THIS CASE?  The step-grandmother reported abuse against her own son!  Mandatory reporters reported abuse! This girl was tortured for years.  She was starved. She was murdered.  And DHS missed it? 

And all I keep hearing about is the outcry that the attorney for the estate is going to receive a third of the settlement.

“No one should profit from this horrible crime.”

“That lawyer should donate all the money he receives to an organization that prevents child abuse.”

“Greedy lawyer”

Are you kidding me?  This lawyer is the reason DHS is being held accountable.  This lawyer’s advocacy will prevent future instances of child abuses – this lawsuit and the resulting settlement will force DHS to change things. 

This lawyer is being compensated for the hundreds of hours of time he put in to this case.

Like the lawyer in Jeanette Maple’s case, my firm takes cases on contingency.  What this means:  if we recover a settlement or prevail at trial we get a percentage of the recovery. If we lose, we get nothing.  Doesn’t matter how many hours we invested in case.  Doesn’t matter howmany nights we were away from our families. We get nothing if our client loses. 

Don’t you think it’s only fair that we get compensated if our client wins? 

Interesting Legislative Issue

An interesting legislative debate is underway concerning medical billing, health care, and patient safety issues. I cannot claim to be knowledgeable enough about the situation to intelligently comment but here are some thoughts from someone who is:

http://www.davidsugerman.com/2012/02/08/memo-to-the-oregon-legislature-healthcare-transformation-starts-with-patient-safety/

Please click, read, and tell us what you think.

Thanks,
The RG Blog Team

Drug Epidemic(?)

Saw an interesting article in yesterday's paper (see, here). Essentially, a local Multnomah County DA has proposed a new bill to the Oregon legislature to drastically alter drug prosecution laws - at least in regards to heroin. As a criminal defense attorney, this is piqued my curiosity.

Now, I haven't read the actual bill but the article says the proposal would amend the definition of "mentally ill" to include heroin addicts and allow a hearing to "commit" those addicts to treatment instead of the standard penalties for possession.

First, I applaud the idea of someone on the prosecution side of things thinking outside the box. This country needs to come to the sobering (yes, pun intended) reality that the current "War on Drugs" is an unmitigated disaster, and total failure. Simply put, it is not working and all the research and statistics prove that. So, on that end, bravo Mr. Prosecutor.

Having said that (my favorite phrase courtesy of Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David), this plan won't work for several reasons. First, as a criminal defense attorney, my experience is that there simply is not enough treatment beds or facilities. I have had numerous clients desperately wanting to get into inpatient treatment spending months in jail or prison waiting for an opening. So, unless the bill is going to fund new facilities, we simply do not have the room for these "commitments". The article says that the bill would pay for the treatment with money currently used for incarceration but it doesn't explain how or if enough money would be funneled from incarceration costs to treatment costs.

Second, and this is simply my personal and anecdotal experience, drug addicts often won't stick with a treatment plan until they are truly ready to quit - and that is a personal issue the timing of which cannot be measured in statistics or attacked with a broad brush or macro-analysis.

Further, my other problem with this plan is the terms. The article says that anyone with two drug possession convictions in the last five years would (or could, is this a decision left solely up to the individual prosecutor?) be subject to the new law. Listen, I'm no heroin addict, nor have I used heroin, but we need to have some serious discussions about the difference between an addict and a recreational user. I know there's little question about the powerful affects of this drug and, no doubt, anyone using is at-risk for an overdose - but two times in five years! To me, that doesn't sound like someone knocking on death's door. The real desperate junkies must have more contact with the criminal justice system than that. When you're using on a somewhat regular or daily basis, it's simply unavoidable.

Just like with so many other things, the system would take a broad-brush approach with this new law, rope way more people into its purview than is appropriate, and then miserably fail to deliver as all these people "committed" to treatment would be sitting around (in jail?) waiting to get into treatment without access - sound familiar? It does to me in my experience with the criminal justice system. Can't we take more pragmatic approaches to systemic changes and actually accomplish something?

Obviously, this whole discussion eschews all the significant constitutional and legal issues that would abound in forcing people into treatment but the article, and my former colleague, addressed those and I agree with his sentiments. But, maybe, this is the start of a discussion of moving drug addiction from the criminal justice system to the public health and mental health systems which is, in my humble opinion, a step in the right direction. However, we have got to properly fund those areas of society before we even begin to make that transition - moving some of the prosecution and incarceration funding in that direction would be a start. And, for all those who think taking money away from prosecution, enforcement, and incarceration is a terrible idea - do some research. The crime statistics over the last twenty years show a steep and steady decline. Any recent crime and drug epidemic discussions (at least on a macro-level) are mostly the products of political maneuvering and propaganda.

Finally, and most telling to me, is the statistic buried in the last line of the article. Of course, Mr. Crusading Prosecutor probably failed to mention this (and it certainly seems to fly in the face of the "problem" presented at the article's outset, i.e., the "epidemic of heroin overdose deaths") but the Oregon state medical examiner reports show that heroin-related deaths acutally dropped from 2009 to 2010 (the numbers for 2011 are not available yet)...hmmm....interesting.