Aug. 3, 2010 News Clippings

GA VOICE

Teens arrested in bias crime against gay pastor to be charged as adults

BY DYANA BAGBY

WEDNESDAY, 28 JULY 2010 16:34

The six male teens arrested in the beating and armed robbery of a gay pastor and his friend in Piedmont Park on July 2 remain in police custody and are slated to have a court hearing Aug. 2. They will all be charged as adults.

The suspects, all facing charges of felony armed robbery, range in ages from 13 through 19. Four of the suspects are juveniles and will be tried as adults, according to Senior Patrol Officer Patricia Powell, the Atlanta Police Department’s LGBT liaison.

A date in Superior Court for the six suspects is set for Aug. 2, Powell said.

The six teens are charged with a “bias crime,” the same as a hate crime. While Georgia does not have a state hate crimes law, there is the recently passed federal hate crimes law — the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Act. Atlanta Police have asked the FBI to help in the investigation of the crime to determine if it falls under the federal hate crimes statute.

Rev. Josh Noblitt of Saint Mark United Methodist Church and his partner were attacked and robbed by gunpoint in Piedmont Park on July 2. Before they were attacked, the couple was asked by the alleged assailants if they were gay.

"They walked up directly to us and asked, ‘Are y’all gay? Two men laying on a blanket. We ought to beat y’all for that,’” Noblitt told the Georgia Voice.

Noblitt, a social justice minister at his church who works with teens in the criminal justice system, has said he is torn about the age of the suspects.

The fact one of the suspects is only 13 is “heartbreaking,” Noblitt said.

“I’m more sad than angry,” he added. “There’s a story that leads up to a choice being made … and I wonder what the story is for all of them.”

Noblitt held a community picnic on July 18 at the same spot where he was robbed to bring “collective healing” and build new memories in the space.


________________________________________

Daily Report

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

State Supreme Court launches e-filing

By Jonathan Ringel, Managing Editor



The Supreme Court of Georgia on Monday announced that it has begun accepting briefs and filings electronically.

"What we're talking about here is a revolutionary change that is a win-win situation for the Court and for the litigants," said Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein in a press release. "The parties will save time and money by no longer having to print, copy and deliver paper documents. No more fighting Atlanta traffic to get those documents into our Clerk's office by the 4:30 filing deadline."

Parties still may file paper briefs at the courthouse, according to information about e-filing on the court's website, http://www.gasupreme.us/. The site gives more details about how the process works.

The Court of Appeals launched an e-filing system earlier this year.





Copyright 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.



________________________________________

Monday, August 02, 2010

National Law Journal

NC courthouse has day care, Web for waiting jurors

By Associated Press writer



CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — It's not quite like home, but Mecklenburg County court officers have made jury duty less of a chore for thousands called in from their daily routines.

The juror assembly room in the downtown Charlotte courthouse has free wireless Internet, a business center to catch up on work, a day care center and even a place where mothers can pump breast milk, The Charlotte Observer reported Monday.

There's a 90-minute lunch break and two movies are offered. The courthouse provides free popcorn.

Court officials recognize most people don't look forward to jury duty, so the amenities and services aim to make performing the public obligation more pleasant, outreach administrator Charles Keller said.

Of course, there's another incentive to performing your civic duty: Those who don't show up may have to explain their absence to a judge.

The efforts seem to make a difference.

The benchmark-setting National Center for State Courts says fewer than 5 percent of jurors should be no-shows. In Mecklenburg County, 4 percent of those called from motor vehicle and voter registration records never show up.

"We're doing a pretty good job of making sure people show up," Keller said.

Mecklenburg County calls as many as 8,000 people a month for jury duty. Only about 6,000 have actually sat on a jury this year. The rest either were not selected for a trial or were disqualified in court by defense attorneys or prosecutors.

The Charlotte-area courts also try to thank those who serve.

Last week, the county's judicial district held a juror appreciation week that offered discounts for jurors at restaurants near the courthouse, a jazz ensemble and a celebrity speaker.

The district has made the effort to thank jurors every year for the last decade "to applaud the jurors who support the justice system," a news release said.



Copyright 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.



________________________________________

National Law Journal

What price justice?

Stephen N. Zack

August 02, 2010



Recent news reports tell of a Wall Street recovery and anticipated hiring in the financial sector. Yet for many of us, these indicators of economic improvement have not been felt.

Instead, Americans are grappling with double-digit unemployment, foreclosures that continue to devastate communities and businesses large and small that are still struggling to stay afloat.

One place where business is booming is in our nation's courts. It is no secret that, in times of an economic downturn, court filings go up. The American Bar Association's Coalition for Justice recently released results of a new survey of state court trial judges that affirms that more and more of our friends and neighbors are using our court systems.

More than half the responding judges in the survey reported that their docket filings have increased, with the bulk of the filings coming from foreclosures, domestic relations, consumer issues such as debt and nonforeclosure housing disputes such as rental disputes, in that order.

The courts are being called into service at these high levels at precisely the time when our judiciary — as with other public services — is suffering from budgetary constraints that are being felt by states from coast to coast.

And while states are doing what they can to keep their wheels of justice from grinding to a halt, eight states have resorted to closing courts on certain days every month; 19 states have instituted furloughs. In Vermont, for example, judges and all staff are furloughed one day per month with no pay. In Georgia, the state constitution prohibits lawmakers from lowering the state's Supreme Court justices' pay, but all seven of the justices voluntarily participated in all-staff furloughs through this spring. California has a statewide court-closure program that shuts courtroom doors the third Wednesday of every month.

The National Center for State Courts reports that states have significantly cut judiciary budgets, forcing such cost-saving measures as hiring freezes in 26 states, salary freezes in 12 states, layoffs in 11 states, pay cuts in nine states, early retirement in six states and increased filing fees in six others.

The stress is hitting our federal courts as well. Wall Streets folks may be putting up "Help Wanted" signs, but the Judicial Conference of the United States can't get congressional buy-in for the 69 new federal judgeships it has requested to dispense justice in some districts where caseloads have doubled in the past decade.

Other evidence of the economy's effect on the courts comes from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which reports that bankruptcy filings are at their highest since 2006. For the 12-month period ending March 31, bankruptcy filings were up 27% compared to filings for that same period the previous year. The majority of the 1.5 million bankruptcy filings involved consumer debt. Filings for business debt totaled 61,148, up 25% from the previous year.

Caseloads are one part of the problem. Another is court procedure — rules that have been implemented to make sure that each party in litigation receives justice. This is a laudable goal; however, the procedures can be complex and challenging, especially for nonlawyers who have not had training in such areas. But the judges responding to the ABA survey report that more people are showing up to present their cases in court without counsel.

Not surprisingly, 62% of the judges said that parties who were not represented by counsel experienced a negative impact on their cases. And the lack of counsel also affected the courts themselves: An astounding 78% of judges said that individuals' lack of representation had a negative impact on the way courts operate. It slows down procedures while judges strive to be fair but still efficient in performing their public responsibilities.

The ripples of our underfunded judiciary extend beyond our courthouses. Our jails, our police departments, our court-related social services — such as domestic violence service centers — are all negatively affected. The results range from a reduction in public safety to prison overcrowding to families and children without support systems in times of crisis.

There is no question that legislators confront hard choices in times of recession, but it is time for our lawmakers to recognize the value of our judicial branch as more than a line item in a budget. A strong judicial branch is essential to maintaining responsible government and protecting citizens' rights.

It is time to ensure that, in a country founded on the rule of law and the principle of access to justice, our judicial branch does not wither under the burden of financial stress.

The financial crisis challenges us all, but it also presents an opportunity for states and courts to find new ways to reduce spending while maintaining an accessible forum for efficient and effective justice. It raises a special obligation for the American Bar Association to provide the strongest advocacy possible for the uncompromised vitality of our judiciary. We ask lawyers everywhere to join that campaign — not for the sake of the lawyers, not for the sake of the judges or the bailiffs or the court reporters. We ask it for the sake of the public, for the future of our democracy and for the rule of law.

Some have, in the past, asked "What price freedom?" Today, the ABA asks, "What price justice?" We must all join together to find the answer.

Stephen N. Zack is administrative partner in the Miami office of Boies, Schiller & Flexner and the incoming president of the American Bar Association.



Rethinking the Politics of Crime

By Greg Berman

Sunday, August 1st, 2010 9:58 pm

Less rhetoric and more attention to research can cool the overheated media climate on criminal justice, argues the Center on Court Innovation’s Greg Berman in a special essay for The Crime Report

Last week, UK Prisons Minister Crispin Blunt gave a wide-ranging speech about criminal justice. Toward the end of his remarks, he devoted a single paragraph to arts programming in prisons, saying, “Arts activities can play a valuable role in helping offenders to address issues such as communication problems and low self-esteem.”For the British tabloid press, Blunt’s endorsement of arts programs for inmates was a gift sent from the slow-summer-news-day gods.

The front page of the Daily Mail heaped scorn on the announcement, declaring: “Now You Pay for Prison Parties: Tory Minister Says Taxpayer Must Fund Balls and Comedy Workshops for Criminals.” The Daily Mirror, summed up the same sentiment in fewer words: “You Clown.”

Moving quickly to halt the damage, 10 Downing Street distanced itself from Blunt. A spokesperson for Prime Minister David Cameron effectively drew a line under the matter, declaring, “We just want to make it clear to the public there will be no such parties.”

In all fairness, Blunt could have easily avoided the whole incident with a quieter approach to change. But while the “prison parties” controversy is of minor consequence and will no doubt soon be forgotten by everyone (save perhaps Crispin Blunt), it does offer a telling example of how an overheated media and political culture complicates criminal justice policymaking.


Risk-Averse Policymakers

It’s as true in the United States as it is in England.

It is fair to say that many American criminal justice officials live in fear of finding themselves in a similar position to Crispin Blunt: out on an island, on the wrong side of the “tough on crime” debate. This understandable fear has broad consequences for the field of criminal justice. Among other things, it creates a risk-averse environment where both policymakers and practitioners are reluctant to challenge the status quo and test new ideas.

This is a problem that Aubrey Fox and I examine in our new book Trial and

Error in Criminal Justice Reform: Learning from Failure (2010: Urban Institute Press). The central argument of the book is that criminal justice officials should adopt a lesson from the field of science, embracing the trial-and-error process and talking more honestly about how difficult it is to change the behavior of offenders and reduce chronic offending in crime-plagued urban neighborhoods.

In an effort to encourage greater reflection within the field of criminal justice, Trial and Error in Criminal Justice Reform tells the stories of several criminal justice programs that have experienced both success and failure, including drug courts, Operation Ceasefire and D.A.R.E. The trials and tribulations of these programs offer a host of important lessons, highlighting the challenges of inter-agency collaboration, the difficulties of managing leadership transitions and

the gap that often exists between criminal justice researchers and practitioners.

Of all the obstacles that bedevil criminal justice reformers, none is more complex than mastering the politics of crime, particularly when the media gets involved.

In the US, there are countless examples of cities and states passing “get tough” legislation quickly on the heels of horrific local tragedies that attracted frenzied media coverage.

Unintended Consequences

These laws, which include truth in sentencing, mandatory minimums and three-strikes-and-you’re-out legislation, often have unintended consequences. For example, California’s efforts to reform its parole system and reduce the unnecessary use of incarceration have been hindered by an array of laws and ballot initiatives that have limited the flexibility and discretion of criminal justice officials.

Thankfully, some places have managed to avoid the fate of California. As we detail in our book, one such example comes from Connecticut, where state legislator Mike Lawlor found himself in the media spotlight in the aftermath of a horrible triple murder committed by two parolees who had been released from prison by the local parole board.

Local papers and elected officials clamored for someone to blame and something to do. Into this vaccum rushed advocates for ‘three-strikes-and-you’re-out” legislation.

Rather than fight this movement head on, Lawlor provided the media with another target: the failure of Connecticut’s criminal justice infrastructure to communicate all of the necessary information about the parolees to the local parole board. By focusing attention on this mistake, Lawlor was able to use the media coverage to help pass nuts-and-bolts technology improvements rather than sweeping sentencing changes.

Of course, understanding the impact of media and political outrage is one thing; actually doing something about it is quite another.

For example, one criminal justice official in the United Kingdom recently acknowledged that even well-thought-out policy is often altered ”at the slightest whiff of criticism from the popular press.” He went on to promise a change from an era of policymaking with “a chequebook in one hand and the Daily Mail in the other.”

The official? None other than Crispin Blunt.

Greg Berman is director of the Center for Court Innovation in New York City



________________________________________

August 2, 2010

New York Times

A Mailroom Mix-Up That Could Cost a Life

By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON

Sullivan & Cromwell is a law firm with glittering offices in a dozen cities around the world, and some of its partners charge more than $1,000 an hour. The firm’s paying clients, at least, demand impeccable work.

Cory R. Maples, a death row inmate in Alabama, must have been grateful when lawyers from the firm agreed to represent him without charge. But the assistance he got may turn out to be lethal.

When an Alabama court sent two copies of a ruling in Mr. Maples’s case to the firm in New York, its mailroom sent them back unopened.

One envelope had “Return to Sender — Left Firm” written across the front along with a stamp that said “Return to Sender — Attempted Not Known.” The other was stamped with slightly different language: “Return to Sender — Attempted Unknown.”

Two associates handling Mr. Maples’s case had indeed left the firm, but it seems that no one bothered to tell the court or the mailroom that new lawyers there had stepped in. By the time Mr. Maples’s mother called, her son’s time to appeal had run out.

The firm’s name did not appear on the papers it had submitted in Alabama. The reason for that is not clear, but it may have been to avoid offending corporate clients. It certainly added to the confusion in the mailroom.

Sullivan & Cromwell has worked hard to undo the damage, but it has so far failed to persuade the courts to waive the deadline for filing an appeal. After losing in the federal appeals court in Atlanta, the firm persuaded a former United States solicitor general, Gregory G. Garre, to represent Mr. Maples in the Supreme Court.

Last month, Mr. Garre asked the justices to hear the case. The core of his argument — one that might convince a schoolchild if not a federal judge — is that Mr. Maples should not be blamed for a mistake he did not commit.

Variations on Mr. Garre’s argument arrive at the Supreme Court all the time. For the most part, they are rejected, on a theory that is as casually accepted in criminal justice as it is offensive to principles of moral philosophy.

Mr. Maples’s case “is a textbook illustration of why the doctrine of imputing responsibility to the client for a lawyer’s mistake is so out of touch with reality,” said Deborah L. Rhode, an authority on indigent defense and legal ethics at Stanford.

There is substantial evidence that Mr. Maples murdered two companions after a night of drinking. It is less clear that the crime warranted the death penalty, which is said to be reserved for the worst of the worst.

Mr. Maples’s court-appointed trial lawyers were novices at presenting evidence about the appropriate penalty, conceding to the jury that they “may appear to be stumbling around in the dark.” Even so, the jury vote in favor of recommending the death penalty was the bare minimum under Alabama law, 10 to 2.

Alabama is the only state that does not provide all poor death row inmates with lawyers to challenge their convictions and sentences. In an appeals court brief in 2006, the state explained that it relied on fancy firms like Sullivan & Cromwell to handle such cases.

“The overwhelming majority of Alabama death row inmates enjoy the assistance of qualified (and often über-qualified) counsel in collaterally attacking their convictions and sentences,” the state’s lawyers wrote, which is another way of saying that lawyers from prominent firms donate their services to fill the gap left by the state.

In the Maples case, Judge Glenn E. Thompson, of the Circuit Court in Morgan County, Alabama, was not willing to cut the pro bono lawyers before him any slack. He said deadlines were deadlines and ruled that a court clerk was not required to do anything to follow up when life-or-death rulings came back from Sullivan & Cromwell unopened.

“How can a circuit court clerk in Decatur, Ala., know what is going on in a law firm in New York, N.Y.?” Judge Thompson asked.

An Alabama lawyer, John G. Butler Jr., also represented Mr. Maples, and there is no dispute that he received a copy of the crucial ruling.

But Mr. Butler said in a sworn statement that he was Mr. Maples’s lawyer in name only, serving as local counsel because the New York lawyers were not licensed to practice in Alabama. He said he had not passed the ruling along to his co-counsel or to his client.

Nor did the court clerk think to inform the man whose life was at stake. A federal appeals court last year said that was Mr. Maples’s fault. “Maples never requested the clerk to give him personal notice in addition to his counsel,” an unsigned opinion for a divided three-judge panel of the court said.

A spokesman for Sullivan & Cromwell declined to comment on the case, citing the pending Supreme Court petition.

That petition discussed a precedent that might seem instructive.

In 2006, in Jones v. Flowers, the Supreme Court considered what sort of notice must be given when the government wants to sell a home for unpaid taxes. If a letter is returned unopened, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, officials must try harder to reach the owner.

“This is especially true,” he wrote, “when, as here, the subject matter of the letter concerns such an important and irreversible prospect as the loss of a house.”




Chicago’s New Face Of Heroin Addiction Is Young, Suburban

The Chicago Tribune visits a University of Illinois at Chicago drug clinic in a story that addresses the city’s dubious standing as having the nation’s most severe heroin problem. The clinic offers clean syringes, HIV tests and other services to those buying $10 baggies of dope on the drug-soaked streets nearby. Some of its patrons are old-timers, weary and bedraggled, their forearms misshapen with the knots and abscesses from years of shooting up. When you imagine an addict, they’re probably what comes to mind.





These news articles were compiled by the Superior Court of Fulton County, Office of Public Information as a service to the Fulton Judicial System. The purpose of this service is to keep judges, court staff and other interested parties informed of the latest developments affecting the practice of law, the administration of justice and public perceptions of the judiciary. News stories are selected after the consideration of certain criteria, including if the article contains news about the Superior Court of Fulton County or the judicial system. News stories will not be included if they contain profanity or vulgarity or come from a publication that defines its circulation and audience in terms of a special interest. Exclusively political stories will not be included, except for stories about the announcement of a candidacy for judicial office, major editorial endorsements of candidates for judicial office, or the outcome of judicial elections.


For further information about this news service, contact: Don Plummer, Public Information Officer, Superior Court of Fulton County. Don.plummer@fultoncountyga.gov.