Courts

What’s Your Definition of a Pimp?

by Diane Dimond on May 19, 2013

  [caption id="attachment_6345" align="alignleft" width="150"] Danielle Douglas, Former Sex Trafficking Victim[/caption] Danielle Douglas had a wonderful Mother’s Day – breakfast out, a trip to the zoo with her husband and two children, snuggly nap time and the gift of a colorful necklace and brooch. This New Jersey woman looks like a modern-day young mother. She works at a pharmaceutical company and in her spare time she experiments with fashion statements - different haircuts and color and fanciful makeup to accentuate her beautiful hazel eyes.But Danielle, 30, is far from typical. She is a survivor of human trafficking, victimized during her teen years by a vicious pimp who turned her out as a prostitute in the Boston area. Those violent years and how she survived is the subject of an upcoming documentary called, “10,000 Men” to be released later this year.  Today, Danielle is a woman with a mission. [caption id="attachment_6339" align="alignright" width="150"] Sex Slaves Are Held Nationwide[/caption] On the heels of news about the House of Horrors in Cleveland where three young women were held as sex slaves, Danielle is pushing for heightened awareness about how pervasive human sex trafficking is – nationwide. For Danielle words matter. “We have to start by changing the vocabulary that defines the crime,” she told me. And for her, “It all begins with the pimp.” For Danielle that was the man who conned her, imprisoned her in a home with other women, brought in streams of strange men and allowed her only a few supervised phone calls home to her worried family. He lived off her labor.  Recently, Danielle turned to a dictionary to look up the word “pimp” and was floored at the milk-toast, turn-of-the-century definition she found in her Merriam-Webster: “A man who solicits clients for a prostitute.” [caption id="attachment_6346" align="alignleft" width="150"] Up to Date Definitions? Afraid Not[/caption] “This is like a 1920’s definition!” she said. “Anyone who works with the problem of human trafficking knows that isn't even close to what a pimp is! … nothing about the violence they perpetrate and what they actually do to people,” she said with anger in her voice. “I decided, I've got to start a petition about this….we have to get real!”   Danielle’s on-line petition calls for Merriam-Webster to understand that, “Pimps use fear, force, and coercion to abduct human beings. They are usually violent and abusive, and can use various tactics to keep the human beings under their control.” She asks the dictionary keepers, “How can we expect people to understand sex trafficking when the definition of one of the main aspects is incorrect?”  My repeated messages to Merriam-Webster in Springfield, Massachusetts were ignored. But Danielle is a determined sort. She told me she finally got past the tape-recorded phone system and got a man in marketing on the phone. She calmly explained that she would like to discuss changing the definition of a word.  “He told me they only change definitions when they aren't current anymore. And (that) ‘We decide what needs changing.’” Danielle was told that the brainiacs at Merriam-Webster scour the internet to study current word usage and that is what determines whether changes are made.  [caption id="attachment_6347" align="alignright" width="120"] Human Trafficking is a Global Problem[/caption] Gee, a quick Google search and I was able to find pages of information about physically violent and mentally abusive pimps identified in scholarly human trafficking studies. It took me no time to learn about the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 which equates pimps to slave owners. Let’s not overlook the fact that many pimps sell defenseless children. On the Justice Department’s web site I found more than 115 recent entries by simply searching the words, “Sex trafficking + pimps + children.”  The folks at Merriam-Webster may not know the term “pimp” means a lot more than just, “A man who solicits clients for a prostitute,” but we know. So, let’s take up the education campaign where the dictionary has faltered.  Armed with the knowledge of what a pimp really is – a modern day slave owner of women and children – let’s all do our part to make sure another Cleveland-like situation isn't happening right under our noses. Exact victim numbers are impossible to know but a recent message from Congress estimates, “Every year as many as 17,500 people are trafficked into the U.S. from over 50 countries.” That doesn't even count missing or exploited American citizens.  [caption id="attachment_6348" align="alignleft" width="120"] Castro Held 3 as Sex Slaves for a Decade![/caption] Obviously, the Cleveland monster, Ariel Castro, 52, was not your run-of-the-mill pimp but his brutality toward women had been well documented in a string of domestic violence complaints dating back to 1989. In 2004, police went to his home after he was accused of mistreating a child on his school bus but no one answered and police never tried to speak to him at the house again. More recently, when neighbors say they called in a report of seeing a naked woman chained in his backyard Castro should have already been on law enforcement’s radar even though none of the numerous complaints against him ever wound up in court.  Things won’t get better until we all get involved. Neighbors? Make it your business to know what’s going on at that spooky house down the block. Call police with your suspicions because there is no telling what – or who – they might find behind those blacked out windows. Call more than once if you have to.   To law enforcement I say: More awareness training, please, so officers don’t just stop-and-knock but actually ask to come inside for a routine welfare check – in all rooms of the house. And to politicians: How about some tougher anti-pimp laws to insure it isn’t just the prostitute that gets arrested? And while I've got your attention – why not sign Danielle’s petition? Words matter and true definitions enlighten.  home  

{ 4 comments }

Judges Act for Justice

by Diane Dimond on April 8, 2013

[caption id="attachment_6188" align="alignleft" width="150"] Judges CAN Right Judicial Wrongs[/caption] We often hear people associated with the criminal justice system complain about how it works – or fails to work. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, police and social workers all cite specifics that they believe tip the scales of fairness. Very rarely – if ever – do we hear from a judge. The ethics of their profession mandate they remain mum about public policy issues while on the bench. Even after they retire the public rarely gets the benefit of their insight. I think that is a shame. Who better to help teach the public about how politician’s laws – sometimes crafted and passed with headlines in mind – actually affect citizens? This is a story about not one -- but two -- judges from different states that came together to pro-actively help a woman they believed had been given a raw deal at sentencing. Their actions speak volumes about our justice system and proves there really is no such thing as a one-size-fits all sentencing. [caption id="attachment_6189" align="alignright" width="150"] Dallaire at Home-Thanks to New York Times[/caption] In 2003, Denise Dallaire, a college graduate, was convicted for possessing and selling a relatively small amount of crack cocaine in Rhode Island. Seven years earlier she had been arrested on a similar charge. (She explained she really wasn’t into drugs herself but enjoyed the money she could make selling them) When Dallaire attended college in Connecticut she had once thrown a glass and injured someone in a bar fight and had been arrested. By the time Dallaire, at age 26, came before Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Lagueux to face the last charge she had three strikes against her. Under mandatory sentencing laws she was automatically considered a “career criminal.” Judge Lagueux made it clear at sentencing that his hands were tied – he was forced by law to pass a stiff sentence. [caption id="attachment_6190" align="alignleft" width="150"] U.S. District Judge Ronald Lagueux[/caption] “This is one case where the guidelines work an injustice,” he said that day in 2003, “And I’d like to do something about it but I can’t.” Lagueux sentenced Dallaire to 15 years in prison. That moment bothered the judge for all the years Denise served her time at the federal prison for women in Danbury, Connecticut. Over the last decade Dallaire has been an exemplary inmate. She has made thousands of blankets, hats and pillows to donate to children suffering from cancer, she organized fellow inmates to decorate and sell Christmas trees on behalf of cancer charities. Dallaire admitted she deserved prison and that she had made, “a lot of stupid and ridiculous decisions,” in her early life. She seemed resigned to her fate and looked forward to her release in 2018. She had no possibility of early release. At Danbury Prison Denise Dallaire met another judge – U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson from Brooklyn. Every year Gleeson makes a pilgrimage to the prison so as to remind himself where he sends defendants. The judge takes his New York University Law School students and clerks with him. Gleeson got to know Denise and told the New York Times he came to realize her case was a textbook example of how mandated sentences do more to ruin lives than protect society. [caption id="attachment_6191" align="alignright" width="150"] Judge Gleeson Made it a Habit to Visit Prison[/caption] “There are a lot of people like Denise doing bone-crushing time under the old sentencing regime,” Judge Gleeson said. “We need to try to find ways to help them.” It is important to note that just two years after Denise was sentenced the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory sentencing guidelines, originally designed to target drug kingpins, were unconstitutional. Congress agreed and has twice passed laws to reduce sentences for crack cocaine convictions like Denise’s. Judge Gleeson wants to start what he calls, “The Mercy Project” wherein pro bono lawyers would help the hundreds of prisoners (thousands, by some estimates) languishing under antiquated sentences. With that in mind, Gleeson convinced a friend, a top New York lawyer named Jonathan Polkes, to seek a presidential pardon for Dallaire. Part of the process required them to go back to Judge Lagueux to sign-on to the idea. Lagueux earnestly wanted to help Denise but didn’t think the pardon idea would work. Instead, he pointed out a procedural flaw that he, himself, had made at sentencing that could be exploited. Lagueux suggested bringing the case back to Rhode Island on the basis of his self-reported mistake. [caption id="attachment_6195" align="alignleft" width="150"] Mercy for Dying Woman & Daughter[/caption] Last month, Denise Dallaire was brought before the now 81 year old judge who had sentenced her so many years earlier. “I felt bound by those mandatory guidelines and I hated them,” Judge Lagueux explained to the sobbing prisoner before him. “I’m sorry I sent you away for 15 years.” The judge then instructed that Dallaire be released on time served. He told her to hurry home to her sick mother in Groton, Connecticut. She was able to be with her mother for her final eleven days. As for her future, Denise says she wants to dedicate her life to helping others who are serving long sentences win commutation like she did. Certainly, mandatory sentencing has helped lock up many real career criminals for a long time. But over-sentencing the undeserving doesn’t keep us safer. Keeping them in prison long after the law that put them there has been struck down only adds to our mammoth prison costs. And, with every year that ticks by it eats away at the prisoner’s chance for re-claiming a productive life on the outside. I like Judge Gleeson’s idea of a selective Mercy Project to review the sentences of prisoners caught in the cracks like Denise. Any other justice-seeking judges out there interested? home  

{ 7 comments }

Let ALL Jurors Ask Questions!

by Diane Dimond on April 1, 2013

[caption id="attachment_4134" align="alignleft" width="150"] Watching the Jurors Watching the Trial[/caption] I have sat in many courtrooms during my career and studiously watched the faces of jurors listening to evidence in cases ranging from murder and rape to assault and political corruption. I've strained to see if I could get a clue from them as to what their ultimate verdict might be. It is journalistic gold to be able to report that a juror was seen crying, wincing or rolling their eyes in response to specific testimony. Rarely, however, have I seen a juror telegraph their feelings. Most appear to take their jury service very seriously. That said, I have also caught some jurors yawning and looking bored – a few times a juror appeared out-and-out asleep and not just ‘resting their eyes’ as they would explain later. Nearly every juror I've spoken to at the finish of a case has admitted there were times during trial that they simply did not understand what was going on or the importance of certain testimony. More than one has told me it’s as if lawyers and judges speak an entirely different language than the rest of us. [caption id="attachment_6176" align="alignright" width="150"] Arias Took More Than 200 Juror Questions[/caption] I've always wondered why jurors aren't allowed to play a more active role in the trial process. If we count on our fellow citizens to pass judgment don’t we want them to fully understand the proceedings and the facts of a case? That’s why I've been so entranced watching the current headline-making, televised murder trial of Jodi Arias, 33, in Phoenix. Arizona is one of the few states with a specific law giving jurors the right to ask their own questions if something isn't clear. Panelists write down what they want to know and if their inquiry passes legal muster the judge poses the question to the witness. (Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky and North Carolina have similar laws.) In a rare move the defendant herself took the stand so jurors got to pose questions directly to Arias. She is charged with brutally stabbing and shooting to death her boyfriend, Travis Alexander, after their stormy love affair fizzled. During her testimony Arias described what she said was the final, furious physical attack she endured at the hands of the abusive Alexander. She says she dashed to Alexander’s closet shelf to get his gun so she could defend herself. The meek looking Arias maintains she has no memory of stabbing her lover yet she remembers that she cleaned up the murder scene, ditched the gun in the desert and began concocting multiple alibis – three different ones. [caption id="attachment_6177" align="alignleft" width="150"] Travis Alexander and Defendant in Happy Days[/caption] This jury had plenty of pointed questions for this defendant: “How did you have time to get the gun down if he was right behind you?” Arias answered, “I just had the sense that he was chasing after me.” “If you shot Alexander first (before the stabbing) how did the bullet casing land on blood?” Arias’s  answer seemed to indicate that in the struggle the bullet casing probably got moved around. “Why did you call the cops on your ex-(boyfriend) who shook you but you never called the cops on Travis?” Because, Arias said, her past experience with 9-11 was, “negative.” In all, about 200 juror questions were put to Arias. And while some, like those above, went directly to the substance of the case many seemed almost silly, asking about Alexander’s Spiderman underwear and why she appeared so calm in pre-trial TV interviews which were played in court. [caption id="attachment_6178" align="alignright" width="150"] Why NOT Let Jurors Ask Questions?[/caption] One of the main arguments against allowing jurors to ask questions is that they might decide on a verdict based on the answers they get to their particular questions and not on the totality of evidence. Some lawyers fret about a judge allowing an inappropriate question that is later used to appeal the verdict. Many attorneys fear losing control of their case if jurors wander into territory that flies in the face of their trial strategy. And, there is always the chance that one smart-alecky juror will dominate the questioning and alienate others who might then disengage from the testimony. Another frequent complaint? That it just takes too much time. In the Arias case it certainly has. This trial is now in its third month! The defendant was on the stand 18 days. Her psychologist, Richard Samuels, slogged through five days as a witness. After he testified that Arias suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and dissociative amnesia jurors let loose with more than 100 questions for him including this doozie: "How can we be certain that your assessment of Ms. Arias is not based on her lies?" [caption id="attachment_6179" align="alignleft" width="150"] Judge Davis Blazing a New Trail in Texas[/caption] Last year about this time Texas’ Chief Judge Leonard Davis heard an important and complicated corporate damages case and decided to experiment with allowing juror’s questions. (Other states allowing this at the judge’s discretion are Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan) At the conclusion of the trial Davis announced the questions only added about 15 minutes per witness and he saw no downside to applying the idea at future trials. Even all eleven lawyers involved reported their support and enthusiasm for the process. Independent research by Professor Nancy Marder, director of IIT Chicago-Kent’s Jury Center, also concludes that when all the pros and cons are weighed, “justice is fully served when a jury is informed and understands all the mechanisms.” It’s time for all states to allow jurors to become fully involved in the judicial process. I say it’s the very best way to keep them awake, interested and actively engaged in finding justice. home

{ 34 comments }

Hey, Steubenville: Where Was Everyone?

by Diane Dimond on March 25, 2013

[caption id="attachment_6163" align="alignleft" width="150"] Guilty: Trent Mays,17, (L) and Ma'Lik Richmond, 16[/caption]             “There are crimes very similar to this that occur every Friday night and every Saturday night in communities across this country….” Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine  Many of us watched with interest the rape case that recently played out in Steubenville, Ohio. The two defendants, Trent Mays, 17, and Ma'Lik Richmond, 16, were star members of the local high school’s football team and many in the community felt they had been maliciously targeted for prosecution because of their popularity. However, the evidence was overwhelming and both teens were convicted of sexually assaulting a female classmate. There was a video, still pictures and dozens of contemporaneous text and Twitter messages flying back and forth discussing details of the assault. The victim, a 16 year old girl, was so drunk (or perhaps drugged) that she was unconscious during much of the prolonged assault. Included in the torrent of more than 3 thousand tawdry messages read aloud to the court were those from eye-witnesses and classmates joking about the “dead-looking” victim and saying, “some people deserve” to be urinated upon. [caption id="attachment_6164" align="alignright" width="150"] An Example of Ugly Tweets[/caption] One text sent the day after the attack from defendant Trent Mays begged a friend to delete the video of the incident that had been posted on You-Tube and added, “Coach Sac knows about it. Seriously, delete it!” During the trial it was learned that football Coach Reno Saccoccia knew about the sexual assault and refused to suspend the defendants or other players who had knowledge of the incident until the season was nearly over. As I watched the case unfold – and read the un-varnished blog by former Steubenville resident Alexandra Goddard who had immediately captured the offending texts, video and pictures before they were deleted -- I couldn't stop thinking:  Where was everyone else as this crime was happening? As this young girl was being humiliated and brutalized, stripped of her clothing and carried around like a rag doll, what were her classmates doing?  Why didn't anyone step in to say, “Stop!”  Didn't other girls at the event feel her shame and move to help cover up her nakedness?  Where was the homeowner of the house where the party was being held?  What had the parents of these teenagers taught their children about coming to the aid of a fellow human being in trouble? [caption id="attachment_6166" align="alignleft" width="150"] Victim Carried By Defendants From Home to Home[/caption] None of my questions were part of the court proceedings, of course, but as Mike DeWine the Attorney General of Ohio said upon the conviction, “I'll guarantee that there are crimes very similar to this that occur every Friday night and every Saturday night in communities across this country where you have people, particularly young people, who are drinking too much and a girl is taken advantage of, and a girl is raped."  DeWine is right.  It is surely happening in your community and mine too. Yet DeWine believes that justice may not have been completely served in the Steubenville case.  His investigators interviewed 56 witnesses – from teenagers who attended the party to assistant football coaches and the high school principal – yet there were still 16 people with knowledge of the crime who have refused to talk.  So, DeWine will convene a Grand Jury next month to determine whether other people should also be charged in this case. Leave it alone, you say? The conviction of Mays and Richmond is enough?  I don’t think so. [caption id="attachment_6167" align="alignright" width="150"] Mass Protests Outside Jefferson County Court[/caption] Consider that even after the guilty verdicts some in that football crazed town were still not convinced the pair had done anything wrong and they turned their wrath on the victim.  After the guilty verdicts were announced two teenage girls were taken into custody for allegedly using Twitter and Facebook posts to threaten her with a “beating” and “homicide.” They now face felony counts of witness tampering among other charges.  After the girls arrest A.G. DeWine announced, “Let me be clear.  Threatening a teenage rape victim will not be tolerated. If anyone makes a threat … we will take it seriously, we will find you and we will arrest you.” Blogger Goddard reports she and her family continued to be harassed and maligned. She also had to fight back a defamation lawsuit filed against her and two dozen people who left comments on the case at her web site.  “Perhaps most ridiculously,” she wrote, “I was accused of ‘complicating’ the case because I posted the screen captures of content that these kids willingly posted themselves.”  Clearly, not all of Steubenville has learned the obvious lesson of this case. [caption id="attachment_6168" align="alignleft" width="120"] Blogger Alexandra Goddard[/caption] In the meantime, the victim’s mother told CNN, “We hope that from this something good can arise … (to) possibly change the mentality of a youth or help a parent to have more of an awareness (as) to where their children are and what they are doing. The adults need to take responsibility and guide these children." Yep. This is one of those teachable moments, the perfect time for folks to sit down with their kids and have a serious talk about the issues this case raised.  Drinking and drugs, athlete adoration, teen age sex and doing unto others as we would need them to do for us if we were in trouble.  It is also a good time for parents to re-examine where the circle of accountability begins and ends when one of our children is so publicly victimized. home  

{ 28 comments }

[caption id="attachment_6095" align="alignleft" width="120"] Pope Benedict XVI Says Good-Bye[/caption] It is no secret. The Catholic Church is in crisis with many of its priests charged with un-Godly crimes. There seems to be no end to the reports of sex abuse of children, sex scandals within the ranks of the clergy and the blatant cover-up by church elders who should have been protecting the flock of faithful and not their ne’er-do-well colleagues. I don’t pretend to know why Pope Benedict XVI became the first to resign in almost 600 years. But, I’m going to bet it had something to do with the constant drumbeat of scandal that marked his 8 year reign. Before he became Pope he was Joseph Ratzinger, a German Cardinal. You may not know, however, that he had long been in charge of the Vatican office to which all reports about sexually misbehaving priests were directed. In other words, for years every single complaint about sexual abuse by a priest crossed the desk of Cardinal Ratzinger. [caption id="attachment_6097" align="alignright" width="120"] Will The Next Pope Deal With Priest Predators?[/caption] It would have been next to impossible for Ratzinger not to have noticed the trend. He surely must have wondered and prayed about the best path to take. Was Ratzinger the one who counseled silence among the ranks or did he just go along with it? And then, after all those years of monitoring the growing tsunami of sexual abuse complaints Cardinal Ratzinger became the Pope. Certainly during his years in that seat of power he had the authority to enact meaningful change. He did not. Agreed, he was just one man within the vast Vatican framework. But he was at the top. He was the man within the organization who was in a position to know about every accusation and what action (if any) had been taken to learn the truth about allegations of sexual abuse. The information about priests with multiple complaints against them was at Ratzinger’s fingertips. [caption id="attachment_6102" align="alignleft" width="150"] It Has Been Simmering For Years[/caption] He could easily have looked up information about all those priests who had been transferred from parish to parish – and the children who claimed they too had been abused. Ratzinger’s office kept track of priests who had been sent away for “rehabilitation” to treatment centers in New Mexico, Missouri and Maryland to name just three. I had a sort of complicated religious upbringing. My mother was from a devoutly Methodist household and my father called himself agnostic. I went to Sunday school as a child and later my step-Grandmother began to take me to her Catholic church. I was mesmerized by the cathedrals, the pageantry and the seemingly devoted priests who the congregation called “Father.” I sent my only child to Catholic elementary and high school and to this day I feel she got a great education. I think that there are many good and dedicated men in the priesthood. [caption id="attachment_6103" align="alignright" width="150"] Conclave Held Inside Vatican Gates[/caption] Today, as plans are underway for the Vatican’s Conclave where the Pope’s successor will be chosen I wonder what he is thinking. Does he look back and wonder about the wisdom of keeping the secrets of predatory priests all these years? Does he worry about the fate of victimized children? Does he wonder if the wiser path might have been to stand firm against sin, call in the police and let prosecutors do their jobs? Certainly, the church’s reputation would have emerged stronger had offending priests been treated like other criminals. As the world’s Cardinals converge on Rome I imagine many of them are looking for a sign from God about the right thing to do, the right ballot to cast. Who should they vote to be the next Vicar of Christ? Who among them has the strength and moral character to do what must be done? Do they want a caretaker or a leader? [caption id="attachment_6105" align="alignleft" width="150"] What Will The Discussion Be Before The Vote?[/caption] Before they vote I hope they first realize that if something definitive isn't done to respond to the sex scandals – something grand and meaningful -- the very future of the institution is in grave danger. The sheer breadth of the disgrace engulfing parishes across the United States, the British Isles, Latin America, Africa and other countries is so immense as to be completely debilitating if not addressed. Who am I to offer suggestions? But I hope they begin the conclave with a discussion of this most obvious problem. Each Cardinal should carefully weigh what their colleagues say about how to deal with the scandal. I hope they don’t vote for a candidate because “it is time” for a Latino, Black or American Pope. They should vote for the best, most forward thinking man for the job – and they should vote like their organization’s future depends on it. Because it does. [caption id="attachment_6106" align="alignright" width="122"] Not A Natural Way of Life?[/caption] They also, clearly, need to discuss the elephant in the room: Celibacy. Requiring that any human being abstain from all sexual activity is an unnatural prerequisite to my mind. I’m not saying that being celibate – or struggling to remain celibate – causes pedophilia. But I think it is safe to say it can cause sexual confusion and frustration. Further, I think there have been some men who have gravitated to the priesthood because they feared their sexual desire for children and thought the church could help them keep it in check. And, the most obvious point about the celibacy requirement: it automatically excludes all men who have loving and healthy relationships with women. Isn’t a man who knows the true love of another person the perfect candidate to minister to and counsel others? It seems so self-defeating for a church to exclude faithful men at a time when they are reported to be so desperate for new priestly recruits. Lift the celibacy rule and I bet the church would see a flood of devoted religious men step forward to spread the gospel. As the conclave gets underway I hope the Cardinals understand it is time for moral, compassionate and truly healing leadership at the Vatican. There is no better time than now for the church to clean up its act. home

{ 24 comments }

[caption id="attachment_6043" align="alignleft" width="150"] "The Great Brain Robbery"[/caption] The worldwide headlines say it all.  From the United Kingdom: “Pathologist ‘Stockpiled Children’s Organs.’” In Canada, the headline: “Ontario Service Has 4,000 Autopsy Organs, Unmatched to Families.” From Las Vegas, this shocker: “Misplaced. Thrown away. Stolen. Sold? Nobody Knows What Happened to Richard Boorman’s Missing Organs.” And from New York: “Parents Shocked to Learn Examiner Kept Son’s Brain.”  The cleverest headline for this macabre topic: “The Great Brain Robbery.”  It is the last thing grieving next-of-kin should have to worry about. But if burying an intact body is important to a family’s religious, moral or ethical beliefs, they should ask the funeral home to make sure their loved one has all of his or her organs in place.  [caption id="attachment_6044" align="alignright" width="150"] Study Should Be Done on Donated Organs[/caption] Now, I understand that student doctors and pathologists need to study, hold and dissect human organs to become good physicians. But I always thought they were donated organs. That’s why I checked the donor box on the back of my driver’s license, right? But that’s not always the case. Sometimes medical examiners hold back organs of the dead and their families have no idea.  If pressed for an answer, a pathologist would most likely justify the action by explaining it is for the advancement of science. What about the rights of the dead?  In New York, it has been revealed that the medical examiner’s office had kept the brains of more than 9,200 people in the past eight years. From that finding came two particular stories I won’t ever forget.  [caption id="attachment_6045" align="alignleft" width="150"] Classmates Saw Shipley's Brain in Jar[/caption] First, was the case of Jesse Shipley, who died in a horrible car accident at age 17. Two months after his funeral, Jesse’s Staten Island classmates happened to be on a field trip to the local morgue. There, on a shelf in a glass jar, floated a human brain with the label “JESSE SHIPLEY.” That is how Jesse’s parents came to realize they had buried their son without his brain: Tearful classmates told them.  The Shipley case changed the rules in the Empire State. Henceforth, medical examiners were required to fully inform next of kin if any organs were held back for examination. Families can then choose to postpone the funeral until all tests are complete and the organs are returned or proceed with burial or cremation.  The second case involved a woman named Cindy Bradshaw. Her attorney, Daniel Flanzig, told me her sorrowful story. Last May, Bradshaw buried her stillborn son, who had died from an abnormality in the umbilical cord and placenta. Just hours after little Gianni’s funeral, the medical examiner’s office called to inform her (under the Shipley regulation) that they still had the baby’s brain. Too little effort, too late.  [caption id="attachment_6046" align="alignright" width="144"] Pflanzig: Kept Baby's Brain for the "Purpose of Research"[/caption] “Why did they keep the brain?” Flanzig asked. “They already knew the cause of death. Our research shows the baby’s brain was retained for the purpose of research.”  Indeed, there is an abundant supply of adult brains available for autopsy, but a newborn’s brain is a rare commodity for pathologists to study.  Different states have different procedures for medical examiners to follow, and not all require the upfront honesty that New York has tried to instill. Aggrieved families can sue in civil court, claiming their common-law right of sepulcher has been violated (the right to find “solace and comfort in the ritual of burial,” as one judge explained), but none of these missing organ cases is considered to be a crime. Only the black-market sale of organs rises to the level of a felony criminal case.  There are those who might think: “Well, the person is dead. What does it matter?” Please, don’t tell that to Mary Jane and Dan McCann of Fairfax County, Va. I spoke to an agonized Mary Jane last week and wrote about their sad case last year. For four years now, they have tirelessly fought the Baltimore medical examiner’s finding that their 16-year-old daughter, Annie, committed suicide by drinking Bactine. (The honor roll student carried a small bottle of Bactine to cleanse her newly pierced ears.)  [caption id="attachment_6047" align="alignleft" width="150"] Mary and Annie McCann[/caption] The makers of the antiseptic as well as other prominent medical examiners pooh-pooh the idea that Bactine could cause death. In reviewing Annie’s autopsy seven months after her burial, her devoutly Catholic parents were shocked to find her brain and heart had not been interred with her.  As the McCanns put it, “The state has no right to abort our effort at a Christian burial by carelessly losing our Annie’s brain and heart — her very essence.”   To make matters worse, they still can’t find out if Annie was raped. The Baltimore police say they must get that information from the medical examiner’s office. The ME then refers them back to the police. Catch-22, Baltimore style.  This may not be an important issue in your life — not yet, anyway — but for countless Americans like the Shipleys, Bradshaws and McCanns, it has left a gaping wound in their soul.  [caption id="attachment_6050" align="alignright" width="150"] Medical Profession Should Police Itself[/caption] I think it is time for a uniformed set of standards that require each state and every medical professional that deals with the dead to be responsible for restoring a deceased patient to his or her pre-autopsy condition. If an organ must be held for further examination — a brain, for example, must harden in a formaldehyde solution for several weeks before it can be biopsied — then full notification to the family must be made.  Withholding organs without permission may not constitute a crime, but in my book it’s a crime against nature. home

{ 12 comments }

Open Up DNA Databases To All

by Diane Dimond on January 28, 2013

[caption id="attachment_5988" align="alignleft" width="150"] Justice For All, Right?[/caption] The scene: A criminal courtroom anywhere in America. The players: A judge, a prosecutor, a defense attorney and the accused. The assumption: That all parties involved enjoy a level playing toward the twin goals of discovering the truth and finding justice. The fact: In many criminal cases the prosecution holds the key to what could be the most important evidence of the trial – DNA. Prosecutors in most states have exclusive access to CODIS, the national database of more than 11 million DNA samples, which is considered to be the gold standard in forensic-based investigations. CODIS is used in two ways – to match a known suspect to a crime or to find an unknown suspect who may have been entered into the system years earlier. [caption id="attachment_5989" align="alignright" width="150"] DNA Computer Checks - Easy, Fast, Accurate[/caption] Surely, you've seen TV cop shows where a lab technician simply punches a bit of information into their computer to try to get a match with DNA gathered from a crime scene. CODIS results are easy to get, remarkably fast and are widely considered to be extremely accurate. So, why doesn't everyone get to have access to the system? Consider that we, the American taxpayers, have annually paid out multi-millions of dollars (ever since The DNA Identification Act was passed in 1994) to build this massive database of DNA samples. But if we find ourselves in trouble and our lawyer discovers DNA evidence that needs to be check out - we’re not allowed access? Does that sound fair to you? Over the last decade or so there have been dozens upon dozens of reported cases where an attorney for a convict – a person who has always maintained their innocence – has dug deep into the case file and found untested DNA that could exonerate their client. But often when they return to court to ask for the right to test the new evidence they are told judges don’t have the power to force prosecutors to re-test. Prosecutors are duty bound to turn over to the defense all the evidence they have but sometimes they fail to do so. Sometimes they don’t even realize what their own investigators have missed. Currently there are only nine states with laws that grant defense attorneys access to DNA databases. I think the rest of the country should join Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. That one side gets to keep such important information all to itself is not the level playing field our criminal justice system demands. [caption id="attachment_5992" align="alignleft" width="150"] More than 11 million DNA Samples Now on File[/caption] Almost every state has a law permitting some post-conviction DNA testing (although the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that it is not a constitutional right) but it is done at the discretion of the prosecutor and they very rarely jump at the chance to re-open a convict’s case. Each of them would likely declare that they are in the business of “finding justice” yet there are cases on record where, to site just one, a new DNA test showed the semen found in a 16 year old rape victim did not match the Long Island, New York man convicted of the crime. Well after the revelation the prosecutor continued to insist he had convicted the right man and that the girl had engaged in consensual sex earlier in the day. The victim’s mother and best friend swear she was a virgin. As University of Virginia Law Professor Brandon Garrett says, “(Prosecutors) are attached to their convictions, and they don’t want to see their work called into question.” Hey, who wants to take one out of their own win column, right? Now look, I’m not naive enough to think that every defense attorney petitioning for a new DNA test will be on the up-and-up. Yes, some might be on a fishing expedition on behalf of their client. But, as with everything in the justice system, standards can be established for re-testing and a balance sheet can be kept of offending attorneys. Believe me, none of them want to be reported to their state’s ethics board for reprimand or suspension. Government and judicial watchdog groups maintain that hundreds and maybe thousands of prisoners could substantiate their innocence if only they could tap the CODIS system. Some of the convicts say they falsely confessed to crimes they did not commit after being deprived of sleep and enduring day-long interrogation sessions. (This happens more often than you think.) Other prisoners maintain they were wrongly convicted and just want a chance to prove it. [caption id="attachment_5996" align="alignright" width="150"] Every DNA Strand Tells A Different Story[/caption] Groups like The Innocence Project estimate that in the last 15 years some 300 prisoners have been given access to DNA databases and won their freedom. I cannot confirm the 300 figure but what if someone you loved was unfairly convicted – wouldn't you want them to have every chance to prove their innocence? It might cost a bit more to fully open the data base to both sides but if it frees innocent people isn't it worth it? It won’t surprise you to learn that the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, is all for the idea of opening up the CODIS system. The group’s president, Steven Benjamin, says, “Science doesn’t belong to the government, but they act like it does.” But guess what? Even the National District Attorneys Association agrees with the idea. NDAA’s executive director Scott Burns, has said, “It seems like there should be laws for it, and I agree that the defense should be given the information.” Well, okay then. Let’s really start leveling the playing field, shall we? home  

{ 20 comments }

America’s Immigration Mess – The Next Big Issue?

by Diane Dimond on January 21, 2013

[caption id="attachment_5972" align="alignleft" width="150"] If Not Now - When?[/caption] ~ In the midst of national debates on fiscal cliffs and gun control could this also be the time to tackle our immigration woes? ~ Let’s be honest and agree that U.S. immigration policy is a complete disaster. For too many decades this country has ignored violations of our immigration laws and now we have a real mess on our hands – an estimated 11 million people who have entered the country illegally and are living and working here under the radar. Whose fault is it? There is plenty of blame to go around so I suggest we don’t even go there anymore. Presidents from both parties have declared they would do something to curb the flood of foreigners illegally entering the country. No meaningful changes occurred. Over the years both political parties promised to punch into place an effective immigration policy. Yet Congress has still failed to pass laws that would truly get a grip on the problem. Time to stop the blame game. Time to start figuring out what to do. Time for the one side to stop bellowing, “No amnesty!” and time for the other side to stop declaring, “No one is illegal.” [caption id="attachment_5973" align="alignright" width="150"] Intriguing to Say - But Not True[/caption] The cold hard facts are clear: Millions of people knowingly and willingly broke our laws by entering the U.S. illegally or staying here after their visas expired. These illegal immigrants (call them undocumented workers if it makes you feel better) knew that any day they could be caught but they proceeded to have children – the very children they complain about being separated from once the U.S. begins deportation efforts. Look, an individual’s past bad choices are not the fault of the host government. But let’s face it, these folks and their families are settled here and a majority of them are otherwise law-abiding and hard working. It would be impossible to catch, convict and send home more than 11 million people. Besides, we are a nation that prides ourselves on human rights – our nation was founded on that principal and we boldly preach it to others. So, what does our conscience tell us we should do with those immigrants who find America such a desirable place to live that they would break their backs for a poverty-level wage just to raise their families here? Calling for mass deportations isn’t a workable solution at this point so give up the thought. There are fresh indications that a President is once again going to push Congress for an overhaul of the immigration system. According to reports, President Obama’s proposal will include a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million but it apparently won’t be an easy journey. There will be provisions for fines, payment of back taxes and other obstacles that must be faced before the immigrant reaches the bona fide, tax paying status of an American citizen. [caption id="attachment_5974" align="alignleft" width="150"] Will His Immigration Plan Be Dead-on-Arrival?[/caption] The president’s proposed legislation is also said to include a guest worker program for future immigrants, extra visas for highly skilled foreigners to legally remain here and a mandatory nationwide employment verification system that would check every workers legal status before they are hired. [The so-called E-verify system achieves this now but is strictly a voluntary program for employers.] Would it be too much to ask the opposition party not to automatically hate the president’s proposal? Could the politicians somehow find a way to sit down and peacefully study the suggestions before declaring the plan dead-on-arrival? Maybe after a bi-partisan group of Senators finishes hammering out its version of an immigration reform package the two proposals could be calmly compromised into one great bill – for the good of the country. Wouldn't it be a refreshing change to see the toxic cloud of constant disagreement that envelopes Washington lift during this New Year? Years ago when I first began this crime and justice column I used to write passionately about the immigration mess. I remember, literally, hammering the computer keys to try to express my outrage at the massive numbers of immigrants who had so boldly sneaked across our borders, living in our towns and taking our jobs. [caption id="attachment_5985" align="alignright" width="150"] An Emotion That Gets You Nowhere[/caption] I've come to realize outrage gets us nowhere. Accepting reality can get us somewhere – if it is then coupled with a desire to truly find solutions to the country’s biggest problems. To me, the problem of illegal immigrants is sort of like the gun debate currently raging across America. There are too many to wish away (311 million guns as I recently reported) so the only logical thing to do is figure out a way to more safely include them in society. This is not an endorsement of the Obama plan. In fact, from what I’ve heard the president’s proposal might not be comprehensive enough. What’s the process for dealing with illegal aliens arrested for crimes committed on U.S. soil? Will the most violent be deported immediately or tried and imprisoned here first? What is to be done with those who re-enter the country? And most important, what is the plan to secure our still porous borders? No program will work very well if you leave unguarded the northern and southern entry points to the country. There will always be more questions than answers at the beginning of trying to tackle a major problem. But the choice is clear. We either do nothing and let the situation fester further or we take steps to help turn those here illegally become taxpaying citizens. It could be a win-win for all concerned. home

{ 23 comments }

America’s War on Drugs Sputters to an End

by Diane Dimond on November 19, 2012

[caption id="attachment_5790" align="alignleft" width="120"] Marijuana Legalized First - Other Street Drugs Later?[/caption] I’m going to make a bold prediction. America’s War on Drugs is now officially over. Oh, no one in Washington is going to make any sort of announcement to confirm this but take it from me – our four-decades-old drug war strategy is now formally kaput. To be entirely honest, it has been sputtering along for years now accomplishing little and costing us upward of a trillion dollars. Citizens in two states – Washington and Colorado sealed the deal. They voted that marijuana should be legalized, no prescription or medical excuse needed. And not only is recreational pot smoking by adults legal in those two places now, medicinal use of marijuana is already the will of the people in 18 other states and the District of Columbia. Sure looks like a trend to me. [caption id="attachment_5792" align="alignright" width="150"] States Say Medical Pot is Legal - Feds Disagree[/caption] President Obama’s Justice Department still considers marijuana to be an illegal substance and in the past Attorney General Eric Holder has moved to shut down legally mandated medicinal clinics and to penalize those who use marijuana for health care. But in advance of this November’s pro-pot votes A.G. Holder issued none of the usual dire warnings about enforcement. Hmmm, I wonder why not? Perhaps Washington has quietly decided to join with what a majority of Americans think – that marijuana should be legalized. The President is clearly driving this bus. An article this past July in GQ magazine reported that President Obama had a plan for his second term to move away from military wars and to “pivot to the drug war,” here at home. The magazine said ever since his days as a state senator in Illinois, “Obama has considered the Drug War to be a failure.” And during Mr. Obama’s first run at the White House he told an interviewer, “I think the basic concept (of) using medical marijuana in the same way, with the same controls as other drugs prescribed (is) entirely appropriate.” [caption id="attachment_5793" align="alignleft" width="150"] Marijuana Plants For Personal Use - Legal[/caption] As soon as the newly passed laws are certified it will be legal In Colorado for an adult to grow up to six pot plants and smoke it in the comfort of their own home or any other private location. In Washington, consumers will be able to buy marijuana from state-licensed providers. Most important? The new laws to legalize, regulate and tax the weed are expected to either save or generate multiple millions of dollars for these states. Once that happens how long do you think it will take other cash-strapped states to follow this lead? That’s right, probably not long at all. Marijuana money will go a long way toward helping those states pay their  bills. Washington and Colorado will soon see their police officers become unburdened from making picayune pot possession arrests. Their costly jail and prison populations will begin to dwindle. Their courts and prosecutors will finally get out from under the massive numbers of small time drug-bust cases that are so expensive and clog the dockets. Everyone will be freed up to focus on much more serious crime and justice matters. The budget balancing rewards of legalizing recreational pot will simply be too tempting for other states to ignore. [caption id="attachment_5794" align="alignright" width="150"] Regulate It, Tax It, Keep Money From Cartels[/caption] If you doubt the new pot laws will have much of a financial impact consider these facts: * Every 42 seconds police make a marijuana arrest somewhere in America. That’s according to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.), a group of police officers, judges, prosecutors and other criminal justice professionals who advocate the legalization of pot. * A recent FBI report concluded that 750,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana laws last year, almost 90% for mere possession of pot. With that many arrests can you imagine how many more Americans smoke pot and just haven’t been arrested? * The National Geographic Channel reports that at least 15 million U.S. citizens use marijuana at least once a month. Once the positive economic reality of regulating and taxing marijuana becomes evident how long do you think it will be before we start hearing serious talk about legalizing all street drugs? That’s right, not long at all. It is so logical, yet, I can just hear the knee-jerk protest from those spouting tired laments. But teen-agers will get their hands on marijuana! People high on pot will get behind the wheel and drive! Smoking marijuana can kill brain cells and cause other health problems! [caption id="attachment_5795" align="alignleft" width="120"] Regulations on Pot Will Still Exist[/caption] Let’s not kid ourselves. Those things are already happening and we’ve dealt with it. When pot is legalized it doesn’t mean existing laws are tossed out. There will still be statutes against smoking in public, illegal underage sales and use and driving under the influence. As for the health issues marijuana might cause? Well, I don’t think the government should be in the business of regulating personal choice about what someone puts in their body - not sugary drinks and, certainly, not some weed that so many citizens have voted should be legal to smoke. I understand there is still the argument that smoking marijuana leads users to harder drugs like cocaine, meth or heroin. People prone to abuse their bodies with cigarettes and alcohol have been known to turn to other addictive substances. But, the fact is, there are no conclusive scientific studies proving marijuana is a gateway drug. One more point. If America – no, I’ll say when America legalizes marijuana, think of what that will do to the profit margin of the vicious drug cartels. The money made by criminal enterprises in foreign countries could stay right here in America if we just got our playbook straight. What’s lacking is definitive leadership from Washington. That’s a shame because this legalization train is moving down the tracks with or without the politicians. home

{ 43 comments }

Sniffing Out Justice – But is it Legal?

by Diane Dimond on November 12, 2012

[caption id="attachment_5776" align="alignleft" width="120"] Can a Sniff Be Unconstitutional?[/caption] Can a dog violate your constitutional rights? That’s right – I said a dog. No, this is not a trick question. It is borne of a law enforcement situation so serious that the state of Florida has been joined by more than 20 other states in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to render a decision on the matter. Here’s the deal. The high court recently agreed to hear two separate cases from Florida in which police dogs, trained to sniff out illegal drugs, alerted their human handlers to the presence of drugs. The question currently pending before the court is: were these drug busts conducted legally? One instance occurred outside a private home near Miami. Officers had gotten a tip that marijuana was being grown inside the home of Joelis [caption id="attachment_5777" align="alignright" width="112"] Jardines Case Goes All the Way to the SCOTUS[/caption] Jardine. After a K-9 unit Labrador retriever named Franky alerted at the front door one officer waited with the dog while the other went to get a search warrant. Inside, police found multiple pot plants. Jardines was arrested for possessing more than 25 pounds of marijuana and for illegally diverting the electricity needed to grow the plants under special lights. His lawyer argued that Jardines’s constitutional rights were violated by an illegal search and seizure. The Florida Supreme Court agreed. The second case involved a seemingly routine traffic stop in Bristol, Florida during which the police officer thought Clayton Harris seemed awfully sweaty and nervous. The police dog at this scene, a German Shepard named Aldo, did what is called “a free air sniff” around the outside of the truck and zeroed in on the driver’s side door handle. Inside the vehicle the officer found a couple hundred pseudoephedrine pills and 8,000 matches - ingredients for making methamphetamine. Harris, pleaded no contest but, ultimately the Florida Supreme Court ruled against the legality of the police search saying the state had failed to prove that Aldo the dog was a reliable drug detector or that his handler had enough experience with a K-9 partner. [caption id="attachment_5778" align="alignleft" width="120"] Harris Caught With Meth Ingredients[/caption] That wasn’t an issue with Franky’s situation at the house in Miami. That K-9 sleuth already had almost 400 positive alerts under his collar and had helped seize about a ton of marijuana and 34 pounds of cocaine and heroin. Good boy! (Although as regular readers know I advocate the legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana.) The Florida Supreme Court found a completely different problem with Franky’s actions at the Jardines house. The state court ruled it wasn’t legal for a canine to sniff outside a home without his human getting a search warrant ahead of time. In other words, the Florida judges ruled, Franky’s very first sniff constituted a violation of the U.S. Constitution and Jardines’ fourth amendment rights governing search and seizure. They called it an, "unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home." So the two questions now before the United States Supreme Court in Washington: How qualified must a dog be to do a legitimate sniff and is a trained police dog allowed to sniff outside a home without a warrant? [caption id="attachment_5779" align="alignright" width="150"] SCOTUS Deems Dogs at Airports Are Legal[/caption] You might think these questions are somehow strange for our highest court in the land. They are not. In fact, the U.S. Supremes have already ruled on doggie-search-issues. They previously decided it is legal for dogs to sniff luggage at airports or open containers on street corners. But right outside someone’s private home? That may turn out to be completely different in their eyes. During the recent arguments on Franky and Aldo’s searches Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia had very pointed questions about home searches. Ginsburg asked Florida’s lawyer, Gregory Garre, what the next logical step might be if such police actions were allowed to continue. What would stop officers from taking their drug sniffing dogs into neighborhoods with drug problems and then going door to door to door to try to find illegal drugs? Justice Scalia reminded the lawyers about the rule that police are not supposed to come within the area immediately surrounding a home in order to get a better look inside, say, with a pair of binoculars. Why, he asked, was using a dog any different? Attorney Garre answered that the law allows a police officer to walk right up to the front door of a home, knock and talk to whoever is inside in an effort to uncover evidence of a crime. Why, he asked, is it any different if the officer has a dog come along? [caption id="attachment_5780" align="alignleft" width="120"] Give 'Em Kibble and They're Ready to Go[/caption] There’s no telling when the high court will make its final decision on these cases. In the meantime, it is safe to say the Attorneys General in more than 20 states are anxiously awaiting the final decision because with budget and staffing cutbacks K-9 units have become a necessary norm in police departments nationwide. I dare say, you would be hard pressed to find an officer who didn’t see these animals as full-fledged law enforcement partners and necessary tools in fighting crime. Dogs also cost a whole lot less to train and employ than human beings. Wonder if the court will take that into account when making their final decision? I’m no lawyer but I doubt there’s room in the legal discussion for any real-world considerations. home  

{ 18 comments }