Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on July 31, 2013, 11:06:56 AM
-
http://www.newser.com/story/171727/court-staffer-fired-for-helping-wrongfully-convicted-man.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=slate&utm_campaign=greatfinds_rss
Sharon Snyder is 70 years old. She's a great grandmother and has been working at a Missouri court for 34 years. In 2011, she gave an imprisoned man trying to overturn a 27-year-old rape conviction a public document to help him seek DNA tests. Last month, those DNA tests helped Robert Nelson go free. And then Snyder was fired. A Jackson County Circuit judge says she violated court rules by helping Nelson and his family—even though they could have obtained the document she provided them with themselves if they'd known what it was and where to get it, the Kansas City Star reports.
"The document you chose was, in effect, your recommendation for a Motion for DNA testing that would likely be successful in this Division," the judge wrote in his dismissal letter. "It was clearly improper and a violation of Canon Seven ... which warns against the risk of offering an opinion or suggested course of action." Snyder was nine months away from retirement when she was fired. "I lent an ear to his sister, and maybe I did wrong," she says. "But if it was my brother, I would go to every resource I could possibly find. I think I might have been the answer to his prayers."
Tar, heat, feathers, judge. Some assembly required.
I MF-ing hate this sort of BS, where the system is set up to snare and screw the unsophisticated or unconnected. It is very sketchy and borderline unethical in the private sphere. It is an unadulterated sign of malevolence and corruption when gov't does it.
-
http://www.newser.com/story/171727/court-staffer-fired-for-helping-wrongfully-convicted-man.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=slate&utm_campaign=greatfinds_rss
Tar, heat, feathers, judge. Some assembly required.
I MF-ing hate this sort of BS, where the system is set up to snare and screw the unsophisticated or unconnected. It is very sketchy and borderline unethical in the private sphere. It is an unadulterated sign of malevolence and corruption when gov't does it.
I'm not a fan of our legal system. While money can't necessarily buy a court decision, it's still well over 80% of the battle in plenty of circumstances.
-
God forbid there be justice for all...
-
God forbid there be justice for all...
We don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. =D
-
This won't blow up in their face. Nope. Not at all.
Brad
-
If the woman was charged with practicing law without a license, I'd be right with you yelling about it being a load of crap.
But the court and its staff cannot do this kind of thing. You start helping one side or the other in any case, and the system becomes worse than you all already think it is. What happens when the clerk thinks a child molester should burn, so she tips the prosecutor about some last minute subpoenas that were filed? Or maybe in a custody case, the clerk thought the dad was a jerk, so she tips mom off that dad didn't file a UCCJEA affidavit with his papers, so if mom objects dad's case will get thrown out? Or maybe the clerk tips off a dad that mom had a DUI arrest in another county last month, so he should go get records to use against her in the custody fight. Same basic thing this woman did, by just pointing out something in the public records.
I think firing her was over the top (assuming she has a good work history). But what she did was wrong.
-
Determining if she violated Canon Seven all depends on just what she was asked and what she replied.
That being said, most of us here engage in the illegal practice of law on a regular basis The problem with that is that the Guild has rigged things so in their favor that they have - at least in the eyes of the law - eliminated all discourse on/about legal matters if done by non-Guild members.
As the state bar association acts as the legislative, investigative, and disciplinary arms when it comes to lawyering (well, actually to attorney-ing) there is a good argument that for all intents and purposes they are in fact, at least in that capacity, an actual arm of the government. When I state my opinion of a law, or my opinion of what that law "means", I am liable to be accused by the bar association of the illegal practice of law. As such, they infringe on the freedom of expression when they do that. The problem with such a line of reasoning is that no Guild member will take my case and mount it in those terms for fear of either being shunned or actually thrown out of the Guild.
The only way I know of to get around that strangle-hold on attorney-ing is to become a prisoner. "Jailhouse lawyers" are officially recognized and sanctioned by the courts. They can get away with everything up to and including not only deciding what forms to use but filling them out on behalf of another prisoner. Outside of prison, if you so much as tell someone wondering how to word a petition or an order for signing about the "form book" at the courthouse law library you have opened yourself up to a charge of the illegal practice of law.
Tarring and featherinng usually did not involve heating the tar, as it raised the risk of actually cooking the object of the exercise. Liberaly apply tar, using such devices as are handy to get it into the creases and folds. The sacrifice of a feather pillow or feather mattress. And what is all too often forgotten -- a rough-sawn timber for the guest of honor to ride upon as they are taken to the edge of town/the county.
stay safe.
-
She didn't interfere with the trial. He easy already convicted. But how can she get a fair trial when she sues? How do you get a change of venue so there is no judge?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
-
If the woman was charged with practicing law without a license, I'd be right with you yelling about it being a load of crap.
But the court and its staff cannot do this kind of thing. You start helping one side or the other in any case, and the system becomes worse than you all already think it is. What happens when the clerk thinks a child molester should burn, so she tips the prosecutor about some last minute subpoenas that were filed? Or maybe in a custody case, the clerk thought the dad was a jerk, so she tips mom off that dad didn't file a UCCJEA affidavit with his papers, so if mom objects dad's case will get thrown out? Or maybe the clerk tips off a dad that mom had a DUI arrest in another county last month, so he should go get records to use against her in the custody fight. Same basic thing this woman did, by just pointing out something in the public records.
I think firing her was over the top (assuming she has a good work history). But what she did was wrong.
There is a huge difference between providing information and education (what it seems this lady did) and showing favoritism to one side over the other (what your scenarion describes).
In 2011, she gave an imprisoned man trying to overturn a 27-year-old rape conviction a public document to help him seek DNA tests. Last month, those DNA tests helped Robert Nelson go free. And then Snyder was fired. A Jackson County Circuit judge says she violated court rules by helping Nelson and his family—even though they could have obtained the document she provided them with themselves if they'd known what it was and where to get it, ...
There is nothing suggesting she filled out the form for Nelson, or told him what to write in the blank spaces of the form. She made him aware of the existence of a standard form and provided him with a blank form so he could fill it in.
Check to see if maintaining a library of official forms and providing the same to the public are elements of her job description. Look to see if she would have been disciplined if a Guild member had asked her about forms to be used in a specific case and all she did was to point at the "form book".
stay safe.
-
http://m.kmbc.com/news/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/15945382/21212530/-/gtt61t/-/index.html
A better article. She overstepped her job as clerk by finding a good example of how to properly file the motion that would be accepted by the court. That was helping beyond giving out a form available to everyone, or even telling them what form they would need.
Wrong? In my opinion, yes. Worth firing? Not even close.
-
Injustice and no mercy.
*expletive deleted*ck your legal system if it penalizes those who actually help the innocent.
-
http://m.kmbc.com/news/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/15945382/21212530/-/gtt61t/-/index.html
A better article. She overstepped her job as clerk by finding a good example of how to properly file the motion that would be accepted by the court. That was helping beyond giving out a form available to everyone, or even telling them what form they would need.
Wrong? In my opinion, yes. Worth firing? Not even close.
That applies even when the person was already convicted and the trial was over?
I would rather the judge spend that energy looking at why the guy was wrongly convicted in the first place.
-
If the woman was charged with practicing law without a license, I'd be right with you yelling about it being a load of crap.
But the court and its staff cannot do this kind of thing. You start helping one side or the other in any case, and the system becomes worse than you all already think it is. What happens when the clerk thinks a child molester should burn, so she tips the prosecutor about some last minute subpoenas that were filed? Or maybe in a custody case, the clerk thought the dad was a jerk, so she tips mom off that dad didn't file a UCCJEA affidavit with his papers, so if mom objects dad's case will get thrown out? Or maybe the clerk tips off a dad that mom had a DUI arrest in another county last month, so he should go get records to use against her in the custody fight. Same basic thing this woman did, by just pointing out something in the public records.
I think firing her was over the top (assuming she has a good work history). But what she did was wrong.
Chris, I usually read your posts very carefully and and usually defer to them even if I don't agree with your position entirely.
You lost me on this one.
Procedures are completely meaningless if the procedures and the gatekeepers of those procedures keep an innocent (1) citizen behind bars or otherwise separate an individual from their life or liberty.
I'm not in the 'tar and feather' crowd, I'm firmly in the 'head on a pike to make an undeniable example of' corner.
(1) The man in prison didn't exactly fit the mold of an 'innocent' or 'upstanding' person.
-
Injustice and no mercy.
*expletive deleted* your legal system if it penalizes those who actually help the innocent.
Yes.
-
http://m.kmbc.com/news/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/15945382/21212530/-/gtt61t/-/index.html
A better article. She overstepped her job as clerk by finding a good example of how to properly file the motion that would be accepted by the court. That was helping beyond giving out a form available to everyone, or even telling them what form they would need.
Wrong? In my opinion, yes. Worth firing? Not even close.
Tell me again why we have a legal system. Is it a make-work welfare system for lawyers? Maybe it is all an elaborate joke, where those who know the secret handshake can laugh at those who can't find their way out of the maze of law, regulation, and arbitrary procedure?
She showed dude the forms and the expected legal mumbo-jumbo. She did for him what all the CHL instructors in all the states I have had CHLs do for their students: show which forms exist and how to fill them out so the arbitrary SOBs spending my tax $$$ don't reject it for not properly dotting Is and crossing Ts.
It is just this sort of shinola that turns a neutral, necessary system into a force for evil. Make it so complex regular folks have no chance to figure it out.
byzantine
a. Of, relating to, or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious: "a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements" (New York).
b. Highly complicated; intricate and involved: a bill to simplify the byzantine tax structure.
Injustice and no mercy.
*expletive deleted* your legal system if it penalizes those who actually help the innocent.
Yeah, I am getting there. It is an evil system populated with evil people, up & down.
"Hana Arendt to the white courtesy phone..."
I'm not in the 'tar and feather' crowd, I'm firmly in the 'head on a pike to make an undeniable example of' corner.
Well, I am soft-hearted, so I wasn't wiling to suggest such pedagogical methodology.
-
http://m.kmbc.com/news/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/15945382/21212530/-/gtt61t/-/index.html
A better article. She overstepped her job as clerk by finding a good example of how to properly file the motion that would be accepted by the court. That was helping beyond giving out a form available to everyone, or even telling them what form they would need.
Wrong? In my opinion, yes. Worth firing? Not even close.
This causes me to re-evaluate my previous post. I'm still not completely convinced that the mere giving of an exemplar violates the Canon or the law regarding the illegal practice of law.
Chris, I owe you an apology regarding my earlier comments regarding the "helping" issue.
Byrn fired her June 27, telling her she had violated several court rules by providing assistance1 to Nelson and talking about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter2.
The judge's dismissal letter cites numerous recorded phone conversations between Dunnell and Nelson3 in which they discussed Snyder's efforts4, including the document she provided that Nelson used in his successful DNA motion.
"The document you chose was, in effect, your recommendation for a Motion for DNA testing that would likely be successful in this Division5," Byrn wrote. "But it was clearly improper and a violation of Canon Seven ... which warns against the risk of offering an opinion6 or suggested course of action7."
1 - merely providing an exemplar of a motion is not "assistance". Maybe it would have been safer to give them a blank from the "form book" but merely pointing out what one person did is not the same as saying "copy this exactly". Need more information on whether or not Snyderr was looking for a way to get DNA testing done or he was just floundering about wondering if there was any way to get the conviction overturned
2 - dear sweet and fluffy shivering Shiva, this is so wrong for so many reasons and probably deserves not only immediate termination but criminal contempt sanction
3 - ditto
4 - ditto
5 - see #1
6 - saying "this was successful" is not offering an opinion - it is stating a fact. What she then did in #2, #3, and #4 may have been stating opinions
7 - ditto
The sanctity and confidentiality of a court seal is almost sacrosanct. If the seal was placed to prevent the defendnt from finfing exculpatory evidence there are remedies other than the Clerk gossiping with folks whom the information is sealed against. The issue is not that the material was improperly sealed but that the seal was improperly broken. Canon Seven has almost nothing to do with reasons I can see for terminating her. IMHO the breaches of the canon should have merited, at the most, demotion and suspension.
stay safe.
-
I think firing her was over the top (assuming she has a good work history). But what she did was wrong.
It may have been against policy, it may even have been against the law. But, it wasn't wrong.
It saddens me that you don't see that.
Better 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent man hang.
-
This is an example of a disturbing trend that's been developing for quite a while now . . . minor infractions by low level employees bring extremely severe, life-changing penalties, while major misdeeds by high level employees often bring nothing more than a trivial slap on the wrist.
Government seems to be a worse offender in this regard than private industry.
-
"Laws are for the little people."
-
http://m.kmbc.com/news/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/15945382/21212530/-/gtt61t/-/index.html
A better article. She overstepped her job as clerk by finding a good example of how to properly file the motion that would be accepted by the court. That was helping beyond giving out a form available to everyone, or even telling them what form they would need.
Wrong? In my opinion, yes. Worth firing? Not even close.
Wrong is a bit of a toss up. It's a greater wrong that an innocent man was convicted of a crime he did not commit, obviously. But I do see the point of the legal system being impartial and not providing legal advice. Problem is... There's often inadequate legal support for folks without cash. I've met some very good Public Defenders. But they do not have the same level of resources as the police combined with prosecutors.
-
This might be a side subject, but if there was DNA evidence from the crime scene, why weren't all parties involved tested? If not, should that be standard practice?
Also, with as much money as we spend on our judicial system, would it be useful to have a "advocate" office with someone who can help people with stuff like this? Not legal advice, just help with locating forms and such. I am not around that stuff so I don't know if that is really necessary.
-
This might be a side subject, but if there was DNA evidence from the crime scene, why weren't all parties involved tested? If not, should that be standard practice?
Also, with as much money as we spend on our judicial system, would it be useful to have a "advocate" office with someone who can help people with stuff like this? Not legal advice, just help with locating forms and such. I am not around that stuff so I don't know if that is really necessary.
Why do you hate lawyers? They may not have mothers, but they do have spawn to feed!
-
Also, with as much money as we spend on our judicial system, would it be useful to have a "advocate" office with someone who can help people with stuff like this? Not legal advice, just help with locating forms and such. I am not around that stuff so I don't know if that is really necessary.
Lancaster, PA has a "victim services" section that was quite helpful. All they did for me was call to tell me when the court date was, where to go, walked me around the courthouse, etc. I didn't need much assistance, but they were still nice and helpful. Something like that for everyone would be nice.
The public defender in that case did an excellent job, and I was sure to let him know I appreciated him doing an excellent job even if it was for a guy that broke into my car. I'd be furious if the guy was steamrolled even if he was guilty.
-
This might be a side subject, but if there was DNA evidence from the crime scene, why weren't all parties involved tested? If not, should that be standard practice?
Also, with as much money as we spend on our judicial system, would it be useful to have a "advocate" office with someone who can help people with stuff like this? Not legal advice, just help with locating forms and such. I am not around that stuff so I don't know if that is really necessary.
The presence/availability of biological evidence does not always mean DNA testing - especially when going back before 1985. Based on the story posted, the guy was convicted in 1984 - a year before the generally accepted beginning of DNA testing. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1905706,00.html
Back in the day biologics were assayed to determine blood type, which was considered somewhere between probative and conclusive evidence.
What is SOP today was, for quite some time, something between magic and desperation if for no other reason than because while getting an absolute match was the proverbial slam-dunk "beyond a reasonable doubt" there were enough issues of "contamination" that near matches were sometimes accepted as being as conclusive as an absolute match.
stay safe.
-
Chris: so your point is basically that the correct and ethical thing to do is allow a man to rot in prison instead of providing a form to the victim seeking redress? Jesus. And you're one of the better examples of the legal system.
-
Chris: so your point is basically that the correct and ethical thing to do is allow a man to rot in prison instead of providing a form to the victim seeking redress? Jesus. And you're one of the better examples of the legal system.
Chris' point was the legal system should be impartial and not give advice. Providing a form is fine. A clerk giving inside information is generally not. "Psst, file XYZ and you'll win because the other side forgot to do ABC." I do agree with you that the lady was morally in the white. Ethically in the grey. Legally apparently in the black. It's not the best example, and she shouldn't have been fired. It's speculation on whether she was fired for doing a no-no or because she possibly embarrassed someone by helping overturn a false conviction.
But how would most folks here react if legal clerks, as a random example, were illegally giving the Martin family inside information on a civil suite against Mr Zimmerman?
This is a bad example of a generally good idea.
Chris: Question. Do the same rules apply between legal system employees and prosecutors/police?
-
I see nothing to indicate that anything like that happened. She gave them a publicly available form, and an example of how to fill it out properly. This constitutes illegal inside information how again?
-
I see nothing to indicate that anything like that happened. She gave them a publicly available form, and an example of how to fill it out properly. This constitutes illegal inside information how again?
I'll be honest; this stumped me in law school. I can recall my law professor, the acting dean, giving the example of being a judge in a custody hearing where the big evil bad guy husband had a slick lawyer and the poor innocent loving mother had a country bumpkin attorney who neglected to mention a bit of law that would be an automatic win for his side. I forget the particular, so lets say the husband was a convicted felon and the state law says that makes him ineligible. 'What do you do?' Some classmates talked about having a law clerk slip him a note or some other underhanded but good meaning schemes. My saying that as judge I can recognize law on my own right, sua sponte, cause I'm the judge and knowing the law is kinda my job, was deemed incorrect as well. The prof threw up his arms and shouted Chaos!
Much like my belief all prosecutors should have open file sharing, the open law book belief is another foundation. It basically stems from all working within the same paradigm in the court. Same evidence, same law; endless argument from perspective and applicability. Needless jargon and obfuscation lower the general respect for the law and government. While I sometimes get a kick out of folks who think contracts are magic; I think such superstitious belief harmful and we should be looking at our goings ons as matters of honor and consequence.
All that said, I do somewhat ironically hate those internet DIY contracts and think them lawyering by automation. While a fine idea on principle, all states have their own giant list of contract defaults which if not directly addressed in the contract, are nonetheless binding. So... while perfect knowledge does seem ideal, the notion of everyone being a lawyer does seem like a radical dystopia to my ears.
http://youtu.be/wjXmZ8FkOI8
-
I see nothing to indicate that anything like that happened. She gave them a publicly available form, and an example of how to fill it out properly. This constitutes illegal inside information how again?
not even close
bold mine
Byrn fired her June 27, telling her she had violated several court rules by providing assistance to Nelson and talking about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter.
Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-city/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/11664182/21212530/-/xwesmm/-/index.html#ixzz2al4pjP00
-
Sorry. Been busy in court and at home. I'm on my mobile, and will write when I get to a real keyboard.
-
not even close
bold mine
Byrn fired her June 27, telling her she had violated several court rules by providing assistance to Nelson and talking about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter.
Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-city/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/11664182/21212530/-/xwesmm/-/index.html#ixzz2al4pjP00
Could mean anything. "Hey, did X contact you about Y?" "Yes." ZOMG she's giving legal advice!!!!!
Of course, I'm sure the DA who's pissed that an innocent man went free has to be a paragon of virtue and we shouldn't EVER think that he might be twisting events to justify a punative firing.
-
Could mean anything. "Hey, did X contact you about Y?" "Yes." ZOMG she's giving legal advice!!!!!
Of course, I'm sure the DA who's pissed that an innocent man went free has to be a paragon of virtue and we shouldn't EVER think that he might be twisting events to justify a punative firing.
let me try again
under seal
-
Why exactly can't the legal system give legal advise? ??? ??? ???
-
Why exactly can't the legal system give legal advise? ??? ??? ???
this
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4926337167130950&pid=15.1 (http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4926337167130950&pid=15.1)
-
Let's see if I got this straight.
A man was wrongly convicted of a heinous crime and spent decades in jail.
A staffer provides him with a little material support that results in his exoneration.
Staffer is fired from her job for this.
Some of you are OK with this? Seriously?
-
Let's see if I got this straight.
A man was wrongly convicted of a heinous crime and spent decades in jail.
A staffer provides him with a little material support that results in his exoneration.
Staffer is fired from her job for this.
Some of you are OK with this? Seriously?
no
try again
-
no
try again
Please enlighten me. I have very little experience with our "legal system". Since you seem to be an expert please tell me how mitigating a miscarriage of justice somehow justifies this.
-
Please enlighten me. I have very little experience with our "legal system". Since you seem to be an expert please tell me how mitigating a miscarriage of justice somehow justifies this.
he was sentenced for other crimes that woulda kept him in jail till at least 2008.
staffer stepped in it by disclosing under seal
she coulda faced more serious sanctions
-
You get a lot if mileage out of one off the cuff sentence in one news report. I shudder to imagine your indignation if someone did that to a cop.
-
you don't like that fact? i don't blame you. its an awkward fit for your world view
damn phone
-
Okay, I'm at a keyboard now instead of the virtual one on my tablet. Haven't had the time to do much shopping for one for the tablet.
First, when I said this woman was "wrong, I meant that what she did was legally wrong, not morally wrong. That said, if she chose to do the "wrong" thing for "all the right reasons," she still has to live with the consequences. I've made that choice before. Fortunately, it's worked out better for me than it has her.
Now, I've written and rewritten this post three four five six seven times now. No kidding. I'll just write it this way...
The court must be like this, as cold and heartless as it sounds. It can't offer help to either side. I'm not talking about a clerk giving out forms, or even doing so creatively to suggest what forms are the right ones. I'm talking about helping someone on one side with information not normally made available by the clerk to the public. Now this case is a bad example, because we're talking about "the State" vs. an innocent man in prison. But, how would you all feel if this was the case of a young prosecutor working on a case, and a magistrate helped out the prosecutor by giving him an example of a motion to use against a defendant? Or a police officer coming to see a clerk/friend and getting some "under the counter" information from a sealed file to help an investigation? A court and its staff cannot pick and choose who is worthy of helping, or who shouldn't be helped. How could you decide? Where do you draw a line, and still make things fair to everyone?
Gee, I hope that I haven't tarnished my reputation as being a good guy too much... ;)
-
Chris: Question. Do the same rules apply between legal system employees and prosecutors/police?
Absolutely. I could no more offer advice to a prosecutor or a cop than I could to any other person.
-
Chris: so your point is basically that the correct and ethical thing to do is allow a man to rot in prison instead of providing a form to the victim seeking redress? Jesus. And you're one of the better examples of the legal system.
Sorry, just catching up. My posts were about what was legally right, not necessarily morally right. I'me not naive enough to believe that legally right equates morally right. And, I think you and I have a different understanding of what was happening in this case. I read it as being a clerk helping a convicted person by providing him copies of motions from other cases he could use as examples for drafting a motion of his own. If it was mailing him a form to fill in, I'd be with you. In fact, I'm helping develop forms for our court to provide people so they can do things on their own without attorneys.
Can I get my halo back? ;)
-
you don't like that fact? i don't blame you. its an awkward fit for your world view
damn phone
Funny how you're only skeptical of reporters when it discomfits your worldview, but when your bias is being stroked any stray word from their mouth is gospel. Have you ever seen a person victimized by the .gov that you couldn't somehow spin so that it was their fault? Ok, I guess the retarded guy who got beat to death by the Spokane PD cop, but aside from that I'm drawing blanks.
Sorry, just catching up. My posts were about what was legally right, not necessarily morally right. I'me not naive enough to believe that legally right equates morally right. And, I think you and I have a different understanding of what was happening in this case. I read it as being a clerk helping a convicted person by providing him copies of motions from other cases he could use as examples for drafting a motion of his own. If it was mailing him a form to fill in, I'd be with you. In fact, I'm helping develop forms for our court to provide people so they can do things on their own without attorneys.
Can I get my halo back? ;)
If I'm filling out a 4473 and the dude behind the counter sees I don't know what the hell I'm doing, so he shows me a copy of a correctly filled out one: is he illegally assisting me? Is "Here's the form you need, good luck in figuring out how to fill it out sucker." really the only legal thing to do here?
That being said, the law has MASSIVE discretion at every point so saying 'Well it was the right thing to do but it may have violated the letter of the law so screw that bitch" doesn't fly.
Finally, I tend to view this through a self defense lens. It's illegal to shoot someone in the face, unless you can prove it was to stop them from hurting/killing someone. It may (may) be illegal to help someone correctly fill out a form, but when the alternative is letting a man rot in jail for a crime he didn't commit that would seem to be justified.
-
My question is what is this "under seal"? Is it some locking of records to make sure someone can't get information to help themselves in an appeal?
-
Another small point to consider. The DNA evidence showed he didn't commit the rape. Somebody did. That somebody may well still be walking the streets. I wonder if they will expend as much energy looking for the actual perp as they did trying to make sure the other guy didn't get his new day in court.
-
....
It may (may) be illegal to help someone correctly fill out a form, but when the alternative is letting a man rot in jail for a crime he didn't commit that would seem to be justified.
Just how many times does it need to be repeated before it is understood that the issue was not "giving a form to" or even "helping someone correctly fill out a form" - so long as that help is limited to selecting the correct/most appropriate form, making sure all the boxes that need to be checked are checked, and the blanks that need to be filled in are filled in, and the like. This does not extend to telling/suggesting specifically what words to put on the form.
And I say that only because regulating "the practice of law" serves as the basis for being able to seek redress for inadequate/erroneous legal advice.
The issues seem to be that the Clerk discussed the progress of the petition/motion in such a manner as to be providing guidance/direction on how to proceed or how to respond to certain maneuvering by the state, and that the Clerk essentially engaged in gossip about the matter to the extent that she disclosed information that the court, for reasons it saw as needful and/or appropriate, had placed under seal. For those that are not familiar with the concept and process, information that is placed under seal is available to at least the attorneys for both sides Look up the concept of "discovery". It prevents Perry Mason-esque "gotcha!" moments.
There are a limited number of reasons why the court would see fit to withhold certain information from the defendant and/or the general public. Examples would be the home address and telephone number of a witness against Whitey Bulger who was in some sort of witness protection program, and sexually explicit photographs of minor children which constituted the primary evidence against Chester the Molester. Normally any material placed into a court record is considered a "public" record - anybody can go to the courthouse and ask to see it or get copies of it. The court can seal the name and address so that Mr. Bulger's supporters would not have an easy time locating the witness and attempting to persuade them not to testify, or so that the newspapers do not get the names of child victims and to the everlasting embarassment of the child publish them.
The first issue boils down, as I see it, to the defendant/appellant not being able to seek redress for any incompetence or factual error committed by the Clerk. It's called soverign immunity. The Clerk should not be shielded from the consequences of screwing up if they screw up outside the magesterial acts of their office. The ability to seek redress is supposed to be one of the motivators for attorneys to "get it right" - screw the pooch and feel it in the wallet.
The second issue bolis down, as I see it, to a direct challenge to the concept of the impartiality of the legal process and, coincidentally, a moral/ethical breach. Courts have been admonished repeatedly by higher appellate levels to liberaly construe the efforts of pro se defendants/appellants, while still holding admitted Guild members to an exactingly high standard that the Guild itself has asked for.
The defendant/appellant wanted to have biological evidence DNA typed and matched between the defendant and the victim - something that was not done at trial and had not been done in the intervening years. While there may be an "approved" or "received" form for asking that such testing be done, the court would be obliged to construe in the favor of the defendant as much as possible both the actual request and the type of testing being requested. On the other hand, the trained monkey Guild members would not get a pass for asking for type A as opposed to types B and C DNA testing which would be expected to yield more useful (and possibly more favorable) results for their side. Thus, the defendant/appellant did not need much more than "an" examplar of a motion/order.
stay safe.
-
But, how would you all feel if this was the case of a young prosecutor working on a case, and a magistrate helped out the prosecutor by giving him an example of a motion to use against a defendant? Or a police officer coming to see a clerk/friend and getting some "under the counter" information from a sealed file to help an investigation? A court and its staff cannot pick and choose who is worthy of helping, or who shouldn't be helped. How could you decide? Where do you draw a line, and still make things fair to everyone?
I don't think I would feel bad at all about that. If there is evidence out there that can prove or disprove someones guilt in something, then it should be brought forward.
-
If I'm filling out a 4473 and the dude behind the counter sees I don't know what the hell I'm doing, so he shows me a copy of a correctly filled out one: is he illegally assisting me? Is "Here's the form you need, good luck in figuring out how to fill it out sucker." really the only legal thing to do here?
Honestly, I have no problem with this kind of thing. It really helps the court case load if people were coached through some of the procedure, because I do spend an inordinate amount of time addressing incorrect filings and procedural errors. That said, it is probably debatable as to whether or not that type of action could be construed as a violation.
That being said, the law has MASSIVE discretion at every point so saying 'Well it was the right thing to do but it may have violated the letter of the law so screw that bitch" doesn't fly.
Laws are being put in place that severely curtail the discretion of judges and courts. Take for example the traffic court I handle one day a week in Juvenile Court. I have no discretion at all on a kid who gets any ticket during the first six months he's got a license. Mandatory six month suspension. Doesn't matter if it's speeding, reckless operation, or my personal favorite...improper backing. No discretion. When I tried once to use some common sense (the improper backing case), the bureau of motor vehicles not only suspended the license by administrative action, but also wrote to my judge advising him of my attempts to circumvent the law. Anyways, I digress...
As to to saying "screw the bitch," I don't think I went that far. In fact, my original post was that the action was wrong, but firing her went too far. There are ways to take action short of what this court did. A reprimand in a file would have taken care of the issue, and all would have been done, and this discussion wouldn't be taking place. But, as a strong believer in personal accountability, I believe that if you choose to break the rules, for any reason including "all the right reasons," you need to man up and accept the consequences for the choice you made.
-
My question is what is this "under seal"? Is it some locking of records to make sure someone can't get information to help themselves in an appeal?
Skid's description is good, but I want to add something. Often times, a file is sealed for the protection of a person involved in a case. Not just personal information, like addresses, to protect witnesses from intimidation or retaliation. But in many of the cases I see in probate and juvenile court, files are sealed to protect sensitive information about people, like psychological evaluations or personal information. Many times when I'm working in juvenile court, I have available (under seal) a report from a probation officer that includes what's titled a "social history." This includes detailed family information and history, and also sensitive information about the juvenile's life. All the ugly details about any kind of abuse, physical, sexual, or otherwise. It's the kind of thing that you wouldn't want the general public to see, but is really helpful to a court when making decisions about punishment and treatment for a young person getting into trouble.
If the file the clerk accessed was under seal, that means somehow, a judge made a decision that the information in that file was to be excepted from public records laws for the protection of the individuals involved. For this clerk to copy documents from such a file and hand them out to someone, even "for the right reasons", well I think that's a big deal.
-
Chris, I guess I understand what you are saying about how the system is set up, however, I think our legal system should be set up to make sure we don't convict innocent men. At least I thought that was how our founders viewed it. All your examples were about helping the prosecution. IMO, if the court knows of something that can or should exonerate a person of a crime, the court should be obligated to bring that to light to both sides. I realize there is a lot of legal grey area though. Not sure how to implement that especially when the system has to deal with a lot of lawyers who love to twist the wording.
-
If the file the clerk accessed was under seal, that means somehow, a judge made a decision that the information in that file was to be excepted from public records laws for the protection of the individuals involved. For this clerk to copy documents from such a file and hand them out to someone, even "for the right reasons", well I think that's a big deal.
So is the point here that the wrongly convicted person was trying to get DNA evidence to clear himself but that evidence could not be obtained without information from victim records "under seal" ???
=|
-
What we have here is the classic tension between "justice" and "the law". Entertainingly, this forum has staunch advocates of both extremes as well as the middle.
-
I'll just point out that prosecutors who manufacture or withhold evidence are almost never held accountable or sanctioned in any way for it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/prosecutorial-misconduct-new-orleans-louisiana_n_3529891.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
-
I'll just point out that prosecutors who manufacture or withhold evidence are almost never held accountable or sanctioned in any way for it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/prosecutorial-misconduct-new-orleans-louisiana_n_3529891.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
I read that article yesterday. Interestingly enough, it was sent to me by a woman who was a secretary in the prosecutor's office when I worked there. Long story short, she's got a child out-of-wedlock from a different prosecutor, who was married to someone else at the time and supervising this woman. Talk about ethical issues!
-
In reading through this thread again, I guess I'm seeing it from a different perspective than many of you. Most of you are seeing an innocent man that was trying to get out of an incorrect sentence, and this clerk is being punished for helping that to happen. What I'm seeing is a woman who broke the rules and went into a sealed file to pass on information to a convicted felon. Both are right. Where the difference lies is in the point of view. You all see a man convicted for something he didn't do, and are rightfully upset by that, so the idea of someone being punished for helping an innocent man get out of prison is disgusting to you. I see this as one of the many post-conviction motions that get filed in a court. This case is easy, because we are seeing it from the perspective of people who know (now) that the man was actually innocent. Do we assume every person convicted in a jury trial is innocent? I can guarantee you that in the 18 years I've worked in the system, darned few hear the jury's verdict and nod along agreeing with their conviction. And, even some who plead guilty get to prison, start talking to a jailhouse lawyer, or a public defender reviewing their case, and then even they are innocent and were screwed by the prosecutor. Every post-conviction motion starts with the position that the convict was wrongfully convicted. And every one asks for an order releasing the inmate while the issue is litigated.
No one is right or wrong on this issue. You all are right to be indignant about an innocent man being in prison. But I'm jaded, in that I have seen way too many of these kind of motions.
-
Chris, I guess I understand what you are saying about how the system is set up, however, I think our legal system should be set up to make sure we don't convict innocent men. At least I thought that was how our founders viewed it. All your examples were about helping the prosecution. IMO, if the court knows of something that can or should exonerate a person of a crime, the court should be obligated to bring that to light to both sides. I realize there is a lot of legal grey area though. Not sure how to implement that especially when the system has to deal with a lot of lawyers who love to twist the wording.
The reason I gave all of the examples of helping the prosecution was to point out something. Many people think judges and prosecutors work together to get convictions, which I agree would be morally and legally wrong. Yet, in this situation, the "court" and a convict worked together, and suddenly it's an outrage that the "court" was punished for doing this. You can't have it both ways. You can't be angry if a court helps one side, and also angry that this lady was punished for helping the other side. The only way to protect the integrity of the system is to prohibit the court from helping either side.
-
Laws are being put in place that severely curtail the discretion of judges and courts. Take for example the traffic court I handle one day a week in Juvenile Court. I have no discretion at all on a kid who gets any ticket during the first six months he's got a license. Mandatory six month suspension. Doesn't matter if it's speeding, reckless operation, or my personal favorite...improper backing. No discretion. When I tried once to use some common sense (the improper backing case), the bureau of motor vehicles not only suspended the license by administrative action, but also wrote to my judge advising him of my attempts to circumvent the law. Anyways, I digress...
Actually, I think you do have some discretion -- if the mandatory punishment does not fit the crime, then obviously no crime was committed. "Not guilty" <bangs gavel>
It wouldn't be very good for your career...
-
Actually, I think you do have some discretion -- if the mandatory punishment does not fit the crime, then obviously no crime was committed. "Not guilty" <bangs gavel>
It wouldn't be very good for your career...
Thanks. I needed a laugh. :lol:
-
Chris,
I think what you are seeing is that an increasing number of honest solid citizens think the "system" is corrupt to it's core. Every time a thread like this comes up, in numerous forums, I am astounded to see how many previously pro-cop, pro legal system people (in particular the shooters, constitutional conservatives, etc,) state they have no faith in the "system". It is not that they have no belief in the rule of law, they just think there IS no rule of law anymore.
THAT , IMO, is the real story here.
-
Chris,
I think what you are seeing is that an increasing number of honest solid citizens think the "system" is corrupt to it's core. Every time a thread like this comes up, in numerous forums, I am astounded to see how many previously pro-cop, pro legal system people (in particular the shooters, constitutional conservatives, etc,) state they have no faith in the "system". It is not that they have no belief in the rule of law, they just think there IS no rule of law anymore.
THAT , IMO, is the real story here.
I'm afraid you may be right. Personally, I wonder where my share of the bribe money is going, because I'm driving a 1999 Chrysler and still paying off student loans 18 years later. I must suck at being corrupt! :lol:
-
Many people think judges and prosecutors work together to get convictions, which I agree would be morally and legally wrong. Yet, in this situation, the "court" and a convict worked together, and suddenly it's an outrage that the "court" was punished for doing this.
The difference is one is working to punish, the other is working to free.
To quote Sir William Blackstone, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
While I agree that since it is illegal for the person to of have done that, I believe it shouldn't of been.
-
I'm not surprised at all but I am disappointed to see so many in a forum about liberty who believe in law over justice or right. Or, even worse, that following the law is always right and breaking the law is always wrong. The Founders of our nation were all law breakers. Nothing in our national heritage implies we should blindly obey the law.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
-
I'm not surprised at all but I am disappointed to see so many in a forum about liberty who believe in law over justice or right. Or, even worse, that following the law is always right and breaking the law is always wrong. The Founders of our nation were all law breakers. Nothing in our national heritage implies we should blindly obey the law.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
A preface to this post - my sciatica is acting up. Extreme pain and extreme pain releivers both at work, so I might just seem to be a bit more cranky than usual. If toes that get stepped on should not have been stepped on, or should not have been stepped on so hard, I apologize in advance.
I really do not see anybody, including the judge disciplining the clerk, saying that giving the guy a copy of the motion was, in and of itself, wrong or worthy of discipline. It is all the other stuff the clerk did that was "wrong", unethical, and deserving of discipline. Discussing details of a case with attorneys who are not parties to the case is bad enough, but revealing information sealed by the court is precisely the same as a priest going into a bar and gossiping about things they have heard in in confession. It is in fact the difference between contempt of court (I share with the judge my opinion of him, his ancestors and progeny, his intellectual capabilities, and the failings of his personal hygiene) and criminal contempt of court (doing - or failing to do - things that are impede/prevent the court's ability to administer justice).
To beat the deceased equine one more time - the guy was not convicted because DNA evidence was false or intentionally withheld - his trial was a year before DNA testing was generally accepted by the courts as being scientifically reliable and trustworthy. Now, 27 years later, the guy wants to overturn his conviction because there is a technology that can demonstrate, to within the scientific standard established by the courts, that he was not the guilty party. Why he waited so long has not been addressed such that we could discuss the issue meaningfully.
Let me suppose and propose a course of actions. The clerk hears that the guy/his family are trying to figure out if DNA testing to prove his innocence can be done this late after conviction and if so, would the court accept the evidence. The clerk shows a family member a motion that someone else, in a somewhat similar cas, filed and mentions that in that case the conviction was overturned. That's providing basic information and stating a fact. No problem.
The motion for DNA testing is filed, a case opened, and certain material is sealed. Pretty much standard.
The clerk discusses the case with attorneys that are not involved in the case (gossips) and reveals material that the court had ordered sealed (see the comment above on the sanctity of the confession). Bad and double-plus bad.
The clerk discusses the case (specifically the progress of the case) with the petitioner and the guy who had already sucessfully used DNA testing to overcome his conviction - outside of the necessaty business of the court and not in the presence of the guy's attorney and the prosecutor. Extra-especially very bad, and illegal to boot. In doing so, the clerk suggested to the guy hoping to get his conviction overturned several legal maneuvers to perform - actions clearly outside her scope of work and most likely trampling the prohibition against the illegal practice of law into a gory mess.
So, although the judge mentions giving the guy a copy of a sucessful motion for DNA testing, that act in and of itself was, at least comparatively, of so little consequence as to be meaningless except as the act which put everything else into motion.
That so many do not see that makes my head hurt almost as badly as my hip/leg. I can take meds to ring the hip/leg pain down to tolerable levels. There is nothing that seems capable of stopping my head from hurting until/unless folks get their head moved from its current location.
stay safe.
-
The reason, again, that people can't see something wrong is that they NO LONGER CARE. It has been shown the powers that be can get away with ANYTHING. So explain again whypeople should care about some law clerk breaking the law to help get some guy freed?
Would this clerk ever have received disciplinary action if they had been helping Jamie Dimon?
Or one of our New Royal Family? Or some other favored person? NFW.
I don't hang in cites, I don't hang with lawyers or judges much, but I can tell you out here in the sticks the idea that there is equal protection under the law is laughable. And if they can't prove you guilty they will destroy your life with "process".
-
Would this clerk ever have received disciplinary action if they had been helping Jamie Dimon?
Or one of our New Royal Family? Or some other favored person? NFW.
I don't hang in cites, I don't hang with lawyers or judges much, but I can tell you out here in the sticks the idea that there is equal protection under the law is laughable. And if they can't prove you guilty they will destroy your life with "process".
Chris,
I think what you are seeing is that an increasing number of honest solid citizens think the "system" is corrupt to it's core. Every time a thread like this comes up, in numerous forums, I am astounded to see how many previously pro-cop, pro legal system people (in particular the shooters, constitutional conservatives, etc,) state they have no faith in the "system". It is not that they have no belief in the rule of law, they just think there IS no rule of law anymore.
THAT , IMO, is the real story here.
What tokugawa wrote, in spades.
No rule of law, supposedly neutral judiciary/LEOs aligned against the citizenry, special classes, process as punishment, and intentionally opaque laws & regs requiring a native guide (lawyer welfare) pretty much sum it up for me.
Other than some federally-subsidized insanity and outrageous behavior (AKA, "an enlistment in the US Army") I have been a straight arrow. Then, I met my wife and realized SHE was the straight arrow. Toss in some years' interaction with the civil law and some observation of the criminal side and neither of us think there is such a thing as rule of law or integrity in the law enforcement (LEOs, prosecutors, judiciary) functions of government. The only saving grace is that most of those caught up in the system are actual bad guys. Stupid bad folks are just easier to find grist for the mill, I suppose.
Lord help any actually innocent person caught up in a civil or criminal law bind. First, they are going to lose, the only question is if they lose small or lose big. If they "win" they lose small, being punished by the process. They may still have their lives ruined. If they "lose," they are well and truly screwed, screwed, screwed. The chances of "winning" are mostly a crap shoot independent of guilt/liability and can only be adjusted by the lavish expenditure of money.
FTR, I a one of those "solid citizen" types and have the papers to prove it.
-
A preface to this post - my sciatica is acting up. Extreme pain and extreme pain releivers both at work, so I might just seem to be a bit more cranky than usual. If toes that get stepped on should not have been stepped on, or should not have been stepped on so hard, I apologize in advance.
I really do not see anybody, including the judge disciplining the clerk, saying that giving the guy a copy of the motion was, in and of itself, wrong or worthy of discipline. It is all the other stuff the clerk did that was "wrong", unethical, and deserving of discipline. Discussing details of a case with attorneys who are not parties to the case is bad enough, but revealing information sealed by the court is precisely the same as a priest going into a bar and gossiping about things they have heard in in confession. It is in fact the difference between contempt of court (I share with the judge my opinion of him, his ancestors and progeny, his intellectual capabilities, and the failings of his personal hygiene) and criminal contempt of court (doing - or failing to do - things that are impede/prevent the court's ability to administer justice).
To beat the deceased equine one more time - the guy was not convicted because DNA evidence was false or intentionally withheld - his trial was a year before DNA testing was generally accepted by the courts as being scientifically reliable and trustworthy. Now, 27 years later, the guy wants to overturn his conviction because there is a technology that can demonstrate, to within the scientific standard established by the courts, that he was not the guilty party. Why he waited so long has not been addressed such that we could discuss the issue meaningfully.
Let me suppose and propose a course of actions. The clerk hears that the guy/his family are trying to figure out if DNA testing to prove his innocence can be done this late after conviction and if so, would the court accept the evidence. The clerk shows a family member a motion that someone else, in a somewhat similar cas, filed and mentions that in that case the conviction was overturned. That's providing basic information and stating a fact. No problem.
The motion for DNA testing is filed, a case opened, and certain material is sealed. Pretty much standard.
The clerk discusses the case with attorneys that are not involved in the case (gossips) and reveals material that the court had ordered sealed (see the comment above on the sanctity of the confession). Bad and double-plus bad.
The clerk discusses the case (specifically the progress of the case) with the petitioner and the guy who had already sucessfully used DNA testing to overcome his conviction - outside of the necessaty business of the court and not in the presence of the guy's attorney and the prosecutor. Extra-especially very bad, and illegal to boot. In doing so, the clerk suggested to the guy hoping to get his conviction overturned several legal maneuvers to perform - actions clearly outside her scope of work and most likely trampling the prohibition against the illegal practice of law into a gory mess.
So, although the judge mentions giving the guy a copy of a sucessful motion for DNA testing, that act in and of itself was, at least comparatively, of so little consequence as to be meaningless except as the act which put everything else into motion.
That so many do not see that makes my head hurt almost as badly as my hip/leg. I can take meds to ring the hip/leg pain down to tolerable levels. There is nothing that seems capable of stopping my head from hurting until/unless folks get their head moved from its current location.
stay safe.
It can take 27 years to get a hearing on DNA. There are many examples of just how many times convicts are refused and appeal and are refused again. The DNA proved his innocence. That eliminates any trickery on his part in waiting 27 days or 27 years. He wasn't the guy. Of that, there is no doubt.
As for whatever else the judge may have fired the clerk for, his statement was giving the form. Even considering the later embellishments, the result of the clerk's actions was that an innocent man was set free. There is no promise under the sun that I might ever make that outweighs the right of the innocent to be freed. If I knew information that would free someone falsely imprisoned, I would always be obligated to share it. The clerk helped free an innocent man. End of story. Justice over law or protocols.
-
It can take 27 years to get a hearing on DNA. There are many examples of just how many times convicts are refused and appeal and are refused again. The DNA proved his innocence. That eliminates any trickery on his part in waiting 27 days or 27 years. He wasn't the guy. Of that, there is no doubt.
As for whatever else the judge may have fired the clerk for, his statement was giving the form. Even considering the later embellishments, the result of the clerk's actions was that an innocent man was set free. There is no promise under the sun that I might ever make that outweighs the right of the innocent to be freed. If I knew information that would free someone falsely imprisoned, I would always be obligated to share it. The clerk helped free an innocent man. End of story. Justice over law or protocols.
hyperbole much?
damn phone
-
So is the point here that the wrongly convicted person was trying to get DNA evidence to clear himself but that evidence could not be obtained without information from victim records "under seal" ???
=|
I'm trying not to sound snarky, because I certainly do not feel that way. But wouyld you please explain to me how you arrived at that conclusion?
http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-city/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/11664182/21212530/-/xwesmm/-/index.html
.... A Jackson County Circuit judge considers the 34-year court employee an insubordinate for offering legal advice and being too chatty about courthouse matters.
What the judge considered offering legal advice - and a rough time line of when the convicted man started seeking DNA testing:
Robert Nelson, 49, was convicted in 1984 of a Kansas City rape that he insisted he didn't commit and sentenced to 50 years for forcible rape, five years for forcible sodomy and 15 years for first-degree robbery. The judge ordered the sentence to start after he finished serving time for robbery convictions in two unrelated cases prior to the rape conviction.
Those sentences ended in 2006.
In August 2009, Nelson filed a motion seeking DNA testing that had not been available at his trial 25 years earlier, but Jackson County Circuit Judge David Byrn denied the request. Two years later Nelson asked the judge to reconsider, but again Byrn rejected the motion because it fell short of what was required under the statute Nelson had cited.
After the second motion failed in late October 2011, Snyder gave Nelson's sister, Sea Dunnell, a copy of a motion filed in a different case in which the judge sustained a DNA request.
Regarding the availability of the motion and whether it was under seal or not:
Nelson used that motion - a public document Dunnell could have gotten if she had known its significance and where to find it ....
About discussing information under court seal, and who she discussed it with:
Byrn fired her June 27, telling her she had violated several court rules by providing assistance to Nelson and talking about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter.
To state it bluntly - she gossipped about the case with attorneys who had no involvement with the case, and more specifically she gossipped about information that the judge had determined should not be made available to the public when they came to the courthouse to look at/read/copy the cae file (I keep using the analogy of the material under seal being confidential in the same manner as the what a person tell a priest in the confessional.)
The judge's dismissal letter cites numerous recorded phone conversations between Dunnell and Nelson in which they discussed Snyder's efforts, including the document she provided that Nelson used in his successful DNA motion.
The clerk went beyond providing basic information and education. While it does not explicitly say so, a logical inference could be made that the clerk did not confine her conversation to the exchange of pleasantries and the weather.
The clerk's behavior makes it difficult (to say it nicely) for the public to trust the judicial system to be impartial.
stay safe.
-
I'm trying not to sound snarky, because I certainly do not feel that way. But wouyld you please explain to me how you arrived at that conclusion?
I aksed a question. I don't have time to read every linked article.
-
The clerk's behavior makes it difficult (to say it nicely) for the public to trust the judicial system to be impartial.
stay safe.
Actually, it's exactly opposite. Judges who go to extremes to prevent the accused from discovering how to defend themselves makes people not trust the judicial system. By the way, it shouldn't be impartial. It should presume innocence.
On the other side of the coin, when a government worker sticks their neck out to save an innocent person that gives the public hope. Courts aren't funded to provide that level of service to everyone but if they do it once in a while then people learn how to help themselves.
The clerk's behavior is an example of government truly at its finest.
-
Yes, really, I do derive pleasure from beating my head against this brick wall. So, here I go with one more attempt.
Telling the family about how to file a request forDNA evidence = Good.
Discussing the details of the case with members of the defendant/petitioner/appelant's family = IDK, because there is not enough info on what was discussed. Jusge seems to think it was "advice" on how the case ought to be handled, ehat strategic move(s) to be made next, etc.
Gossipping with attorneys who have/had no relationship or connection to the case about information in the court file that the court saw fit (for whatever reason) to place under seal = Very Bad.
Is anybody besides me willing to concentrate on that last issue all by itself? Why not?
stay safe.
-
Yes, really, I do derive pleasure from beating my head against this brick wall. So, here I go with one more attempt.
Telling the family about how to file a request forDNA evidence = Good.
Discussing the details of the case with members of the defendant/petitioner/appelant's family = IDK, because there is not enough info on what was discussed. Jusge seems to think it was "advice" on how the case ought to be handled, ehat strategic move(s) to be made next, etc.
Gossipping with attorneys who have/had no relationship or connection to the case about information in the court file that the court saw fit (for whatever reason) to place under seal = Very Bad.
Is anybody besides me willing to concentrate on that last issue all by itself? Why not?
stay safe.
I'm 100 per cent willing to concentrate on the last issue all by itself. Please state any facts you have such as the names of attorneys with whom Mrs. Snyder spoke and what sealed documents she spoke about. I've looked at at least a dozen different variations on this story in the news and not a single one mentioned any specifics. And why would both the prosecutor and "attorney" have problems with her actions? Did neither care about justice? Were both more concerned about earned votes in the one case and billable hours on the other?
Were the other lawyers she spoke with those from the Innocence Project? Was she trying to undo a criminal conspiracy to prevent an innocent man from getting justice?
Please provide any facts you can find about what was sealed and what she did and why she should not have done what she did anyway.
-
Luckily, it appears she's going to get her pension.
Snyder is still set to receive her full pension.
"At first I didn't know if my pension was going to be intact, and all I could do was curl up in a fetal position and cry," Snyder said.
Snyder said she thinks she may have answered Nelson’s prayers.
"I lent an ear to his sister, and maybe I did wrong," she said. "But if it was my brother, I would go to every resource I could possibly find."
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/kansas-court-employee-fired-helping-prove-mans-innocence#
-
I'm 100 per cent willing to concentrate on the last issue all by itself. Please state any facts you have such as the names of attorneys with whom Mrs. Snyder spoke and what sealed documents she spoke about. I've looked at at least a dozen different variations on this story in the news and not a single one mentioned any specifics. And why would both the prosecutor and "attorney" have problems with her actions? Did neither care about justice? Were both more concerned about earned votes in the one case and billable hours on the other?
Were the other lawyers she spoke with those from the Innocence Project? Was she trying to undo a criminal conspiracy to prevent an innocent man from getting justice?
Please provide any facts you can find about what was sealed and what she did and why she should not have done what she did anyway.
Repeating myself -
http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-city/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/11664182/21212530/-/xwesmm/-/index.html
Byrn fired her June 27, telling her she had violated several court rules by providing assistance to Nelson and talking about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter.
I have absolutely no idea what material was under seal. That's sort of the whole point of it being sealed, isn't it? To keep it out of the public record.
I have no idea why she talked "about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter." All I have to go on is the judge saying there were recordings of her doing so. He gets to make the decision if thatis factual as opposed to a hallucination.
If tyhe attorneys she spoke with were connected with te Innocence Project they would have been involved in the case. The judge said that wjoever it was she talked with was not involved in the case. The onus is actually on you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were in fact involved in the case.
Why does it matter what the judge sealed, or why he sealed it? The guy and his attorney had the oppoetunity at the time it was placed under seal, and at every point of contact with the court following that, to appeal the ruling sealing the material. As there is no information saying they did that, the inference must be that they in fact did not challenge the sealing of the material, whatever it was.
If someone ( attorney, reporter. busybody, curious onlooker) who was/is not directly connected to the case wanted to challenge the sealinmg of the material there are procedures for doing that. Because there was no mention of anybody having filed a challenge the inference musat be that nobody in fact challenged the sealing of the material.
Whatever was sealed was never withheld from the prosecutor, the defense attorney(s) or the defendant/appellant. They were, as a matter of fact, the only ones besides the judge and the clerk, who were entitled to look at, handle, read, and even copy (so long as the copied material was protected from disclosure the same as the original sealed material) whatever was placed under seal. So what's the big deal you are trying to create about material being placed under seal?
Where the heck does "[w]as she trying to undo a criminal conspiracy to prevent an innocent man from getting justice"" come from? What can/do you offer, except an overactive imagination and perhaps an untreated case of paranoia, to even suggest that conspiracy? The judge even said that if he/his relatives, friends, or attorneys requesyed a copy of the motion from the other court file they would have been entitled to it as a matter of law. Which is one of the reasons why I eliminated that whole issue from the discussion.
As for "[a]nd why would both the prosecutor and "attorney" have problems with her actions? Did neither care about justice? Were both more concerned about earned votes in the one case and billable hours on the other?" - let's start with the presentation above about how the right to challenge the sealing of material can be challenged, by whom it can be challenged, and that there is nothing showing that anybody ever challenged the sealing of the material that was in fact placed under seal. Then we can go to the fact that once the material is placed under seal it becomes both an ethical and criminal violation to breach the seal. If someone feels the material under seal ought to be made part of the public record they can follow the established process for seeking to overturn the order sealing the material. (Admittedly it might be a bit more difficult if the person challenging the sealing had absolutely no idea whatsoever what was under seal, but there are established procedures for getting at least a hint about what is under seal.)
I will grant that there are certain laws that ought not to be followed - but I will insist that before we willy-nilly go ignoring one of those laws we try to get it overturned/repealed. The guy was convicted 27 years ago, presumably at least on part based on some sort of body fluid analysis - but not DNA analysis because it was not until a year after his conviction that DNA analysis was deemed to be scientifically reliable. So he had roughly 26 years to apply for DNA analysis of whatever bofy fluids were in evidence I do not think it is material at all to bother asking why he waited until "now" to ask for it to be done. As a matter of fszct there is some indication that he might in fact have submitted a previous motion that was turned down. Even first-year law students can be trained to "shepardize" a case to see if someone previously had been successful in petitioning for DNA analysis, and then hunt down that motion to use as an example of how his should be worded. I'll go so far as to say that if the Innocence Project was involved and they did not find that motion it would be grounds for an appeal based on ineffective legal counsel.
A clerk wjo is within months of retirement ought to know what the sealing of a portion of a record means, and what the probable consequences of breaching that seal would be. So I cannot put her gossiping about material under seal with attorneys not involved in the case down to an "innocent" error by someone who did not know any better.
Do you see any difference between breacing the seal of confidentiality in this case and a prirst breaking the seal of confidentiality of the confessional? If so, what is that difference, and why is it different?
stay safe.
-
VA, no doubt you are correct- absolutely correct in your analysis- but- you are discussing the trees, I am talking about the forest.
This country cannot throw out the rule of law for the connected, throw out the rule of law for "designated victims" (GZ, for example) and expect everyone else to dutifully follow along.
When the rule of law is gone, it is gone for all. That is the cumulative damage done by by willful failures to follow the law by the system-eventually EVERYONE realizes it is a suckers game.
The sea change here is the solid middle class who have largely been on the periphery of law enforcement and criminal matters generally, are starting to have the same mindset concerning the "system" that ghetto dwellers have had for decades. They don't trust them, they don't want to have any interaction with them, and they believe their own interests are diametrically opposed to the systems. Ask a cop for help? Are you kidding me? He will search your car, give you a breath test and lock you up for some "offense" you did not even know existed
Sure, the above is an exaggeration-somewhat, maybe, possibly-- the point is it only has to be true enough times that the public confidence is lost.
-
Of course I'm less wrong than the rest of you. It's a curse that I must learn to live with.
As for the trees vs forest thing - I'm still trying to see where a forest exists. It's been repeatedly suggested that there was some sort of conspiracy to keep this guy from getting his rape conviction overturned by denying him DNA analysis. That would hold up exept for a few minor points - like he did get the DNA analyzed and it did show that he could not have committed the crime and he was exonerated.
Oh, yeah - and that I have expressed absolutely no concern with the clerk giving his family that copy of a motion for DNA testing that was successful for someone else. As a matter of fact I have stated that I consider that within the duties of the court clerk to provide education to the public. The judge got his psnties all wadded up about that being the illegal practice of law; I said I had no problem with what she did.
I even pretty much gave a pass to the clerk discussing specifics of the case with the guy's family.
I drew a line at the clerk discussing sealed information with people who had nothing to do with the case (except that they were probably very curious gossips).
I'm just not seeing the forest you talk about. There's no need to pretend I'm as thick as two bricks - it's obvious I am. But for the sake of all that is holy and proper, would someone please show me/put my hands on/rub my nose in this forest that I am not seeing? Please.
stay safe.
-
First, I don't think the middle class is just waking up or anything. People have known the law can be arbitrary for some time especially when it comes to civil matters. The difference is more and more people are on the internet seeing and discussing these articles and stating their opinion. I remember all the talk in the 70's and early 80's about crime, lack of punishment, and revolving door prisons and normal people getting the book thrown at them while career criminals get a slap on wrist. That was why Dirty Harry and the Death Wish movies were so popular. I can't imagine what the internet would have been like back then.
On the DNA testing, I was just curious why it wasn't done in the original trial. I didn't know how long ago that was or what the circumstances were. Not trying to make accusations, just information I would be curious to know if it was available. If it was a 20 year old case, I understand. If it was 3 years old, then I am really curious.
-
That reminds of a scifi book series I read where they have these DNA sniffers that can sniff or scan through an area and tell you who has been in an area almost instantaneously. It was pretty cool. I guess we are still a long way away from instantaneous DNA tests.
-
That reminds of a scifi book series I read where they have these DNA sniffers that can sniff or scan through an area and tell you who has been in an area almost instantaneously. It was pretty cool. I guess we are still a long way away from instantaneous DNA tests.
An electronic hound dawg? :lol:
-
....
On the DNA testing, I was just curious why it wasn't done in the original trial. I didn't know how long ago that was or what the circumstances were. Not trying to make accusations, just information I would be curious to know if it was available. If it was a 20 year old case, I understand. If it was 3 years old, then I am really curious.
The guy was convicted one year before DNA analysis was "ruled" to be scientifically reliable and thus admissable as evidence (SCOTUS settled a dispute between Circuits by deciding in favor of allowing DNA analysis). Of course it had been used before then, but there was a hodge-podge of decisions on whether or not is was reliable, repeatable, accurate, and could be accepted as evidence at the same level as, for example, blood type matching. In the years intervening the defendant/appellant had tried iirc three times to get DNA analysis of biologic samples from the crime scene, and his requests had been shot down for technical deficiencies in the motions submitted.
The clerk found a motion submitted by someone whose case was closely similar to this guy's - with the exception that his motion for analysis had been granted. the clerk passed on a copy of the succesful motion to the guy's family, who got the current attorney to massage it to reflect his particulars and submitted it In spite of the judge's ire at the clerk having done the legal research for the family he approved the motion and ordered DNA analysis. (And it is not clear if he was irked before or after the motion was granted.)
Part of the judge's ire seems to be that a first year law student could have Shepardized* the case and come up with that very motion and had it massaged without the court clerk needing to be involved in locating the motion, getting it to the defendant/his family to give to his lawyer(s), or appearing to be offering lregal advice or strategy. One of the procedural problems with a judge being irked in that way/about that subject is that they cannot sua sponte bring up the issue of ineffective provision of counsel. So the judge has to take his ire out on somebody, and the clerk is the only one available.
stay safe.
* - http://library.law.unh.edu/Shepardize
-
The forest is the the giant swell of criminal activity coming from the ruling class that is not prosecuted.
"laws are for the little people" -that is the forest. An avalanche has wiped out the mountainside, and we are to be concerned about the guy sawing limbs for firewood.
To be honest, I have no desire to try to run through 5000 examples. Just for starters, try the JD dropping the Black Panther voter intimidation case. Or Fast and Furious. Or the banks laundering drug cartel money.
Or the prez refusing to enforce laws he does not agree with. Or all the whistleblowers who immediately get fired. Seriously, the list is huge. Or a county Prosecutor persecuting my gun club xo for 13 years, and four dismissals,only to have the PROSECUTION request a dismissal at the end- whereupon he asked for it to be with prejudice. All on a victimless crime.
The forest is , the rule of law no longer exists. The law is being used as a club to bash selected victims. I am not saying that reporter did not do something wrong. I know nothing of the law and will happily accept your analysis. I am saying the reason people don't care, or even applaude her actions, is there is NO TRUST LEFT-that is the forest.
-
vaskidmark's post sort of brings up another question: What caliber of technical deficiences would get a motion thrown out? Is it referencing the wrong statute for precendent? Using an "x" when it is supposed to be checked? Is is misspelling the Judge's name? Maybe Chris or others can speak to that.
1. What sort of deficiencies get the motion thrown out? Does the Judge typically say why the motion is denied?
2. Is this sort of "deficiency" common from court to court, judge to judge?
3. Why aren't examples of good motions printed in every law textbook around? Why couldn't the lawyer get it right the first time? You would think there would be a "Motions for Dummies" book to look up.
-
The judge didn't get mad until the prosecutor AND attorney got mad. Those two got their feelings hurt and got the lady fired. Even the appointed defense attorney didn't want the guy freed unless the attorney got him freed. They all cared for their pocketbooks over justice.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
-
1. What sort of deficiencies get the motion thrown out? Does the Judge typically say why the motion is denied?
2. Is this sort of "deficiency" common from court to court, judge to judge?
3. Why aren't examples of good motions printed in every law textbook around? Why couldn't the lawyer get it right the first time? You would think there would be a "Motions for Dummies" book to look up.
I'll try. Usually, a motion is denied on the merits. It is pretty rare that a motion gets thrown out for form or procedure . A few examples come to mind, like failing to serve a copy on all parties to the case. In my experience, it is rare that a judge will throw out a motion without putting something on record as to why. CYA withbthe appellate courts. These kinds of procedural deficiencies would, or at least should, be treated the same from court to court. I know some judges and magistrates that will bend the rules a bit to help a pro se litigant. For example, Ohio rules require that a motion site to the authority it's based on, but we routinely accept motions from pro se parties, as long as we can understand what they are asking for. I can look upnthe law if I need to readnit.
As to forms, there are tons of resources available in print or online where you can find example motions. In my experience, attorneys will give young or inexperienced lawyers examples to work from.
To be honest, I cannot think of any procedural issue on an issue like DNA testing that would get a motion tossed, absent incompetent counsel. The merits should be well known to the members of the bar. Can't for the life of me figure out why an attorney would need a motion from a sealed file to know what to do.
-
That reminds of a scifi book series I read where they have these DNA sniffers that can sniff or scan through an area and tell you who has been in an area almost instantaneously. It was pretty cool. I guess we are still a long way away from instantaneous DNA tests.
Fahrenheit 451
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
..... Can't for the life of me figure out why an attorney would need a motion from a sealed file to know what to do.
The motion was not from the sealed portion of any file - the defendant/appellant's or anybody else's. (It all goes back to the judge's comment that te lawyer would have eventuially found the motion on their own efforts, thus the ire at the clerk for "suggesting legal strategy" when she gave them a copy of the other guy's motion.)
What was sealed was a portion of the defendant/appellant's file, and the clerk gossipped about what was under seal with attorneys who were not involved i the case except as curious bystanders.
And like you I am contiuing to have difficulty understanding why any attorney would need to copy a motion for DNA analysis from a closed case file, as opposed to using any of the myriad of forms and examplars already out there in copybooks and formbooks. Why the family needed the clerk to pull a copy of a successful motion, as opposed to the attorney finding that motion and several like it via Shepardizing the case, also eludes me. The continuing reference to "neffective counsel" is also, at this point, strange since the guy did in fact get the DNA analysis and it did prove he was not the guikty party and he was exonerated on that charge.
stay safe.
-
The forest is the the giant swell of criminal activity coming from the ruling class that is not prosecuted.
"laws are for the little people" -that is the forest. An avalanche has wiped out the mountainside, and we are to be concerned about the guy sawing limbs for firewood.
To be honest, I have no desire to try to run through 5000 examples. Just for starters, try the JD dropping the Black Panther voter intimidation case. Or Fast and Furious. Or the banks laundering drug cartel money.
Or the prez refusing to enforce laws he does not agree with. Or all the whistleblowers who immediately get fired. Seriously, the list is huge. Or a county Prosecutor persecuting my gun club xo for 13 years, and four dismissals,only to have the PROSECUTION request a dismissal at the end- whereupon he asked for it to be with prejudice. All on a victimless crime.
The forest is , the rule of law no longer exists. The law is being used as a club to bash selected victims. I am not saying that reporter did not do something wrong. I know nothing of the law and will happily accept your analysis. I am saying the reason people don't care, or even applaude her actions, is there is NO TRUST LEFT-that is the forest.
I recognize, admit and aver that the condition you point to does exist, and that it is disgusting that it exists and persists and is in fact growing.
However, it is an apple to the orange of what I have been trying to get focus on.
Were we to use your line of resoning, no crmes would be prosecuted because somewhere someone got off without being prosecuted. Instead, look at this as the "broken window in a vacant building" theory of community policing. Sure it is starting at the "little" end of the problem, but then in order to eat the elephant you have to take that first bite somewhere. Is it not better to begin where there is a greater liklihood of both getting that first bite down and convincing the diner to take the second one? That does not, by any means, suiggest that the NBP, or bankers, or BATFE, or your local persucutor [sic] get a pass on their egregiousness. But while you are going after them (possibly a lifetime's endeavor) why not set up a base, a foundation, upon which to build?
Fiurther, I thought we had agreed to focus on the clerk gossipping about the material under court seal and not return to getting bogged down on what, at least for the defendant/appellant, is a moot issue.
stay safe.
-
Fahrenheit 451
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I was thinking of one of the Honor Harrington books. I haven't read 451 in decades.
-
I'll try. Usually, a motion is denied on the merits. It is pretty rare that a motion gets thrown out for form or procedure . A few examples come to mind, like failing to serve a copy on all parties to the case. In my experience, it is rare that a judge will throw out a motion without putting something on record as to why. CYA withbthe appellate courts. These kinds of procedural deficiencies would, or at least should, be treated the same from court to court. I know some judges and magistrates that will bend the rules a bit to help a pro se litigant. For example, Ohio rules require that a motion site to the authority it's based on, but we routinely accept motions from pro se parties, as long as we can understand what they are asking for. I can look upnthe law if I need to readnit.
As to forms, there are tons of resources available in print or online where you can find example motions. In my experience, attorneys will give young or inexperienced lawyers examples to work from.
To be honest, I cannot think of any procedural issue on an issue like DNA testing that would get a motion tossed, absent incompetent counsel. The merits should be well known to the members of the bar. Can't for the life of me figure out why an attorney would need a motion from a sealed file to know what to do.
Thanks Chris. I think that answers my questions. Makes me want to interview their lawyer.
-
I recognize, admit and aver that the condition you point to does exist, and that it is disgusting that it exists and persists and is in fact growing.
However, it is an apple to the orange of what I have been trying to get focus on.
Were we to use your line of resoning, no crmes would be prosecuted because somewhere someone got off without being prosecuted. Instead, look at this as the "broken window in a vacant building" theory of community policing. Sure it is starting at the "little" end of the problem, but then in order to eat the elephant you have to take that first bite somewhere. Is it not better to begin where there is a greater liklihood of both getting that first bite down and convincing the diner to take the second one? That does not, by any means, suiggest that the NBP, or bankers, or BATFE, or your local persucutor [sic] get a pass on their egregiousness. But while you are going after them (possibly a lifetime's endeavor) why not set up a base, a foundation, upon which to build?
Fiurther, I thought we had agreed to focus on the clerk gossipping about the material under court seal and not return to getting bogged down on what, at least for the defendant/appellant, is a moot issue.
stay safe.
My response was a reply to your question about why people think the way they do about this stuff. Admittedly it is is tangential to the specific question. I appreciate the broken window policing metaphor but again, I believe it will have no influence unless it starts at the top. We need to convict a few big boys for the populace to start regaining trust. Otherwise it is the same old story-laws are for little people.
-
I'm not sure the first step to holding institutional corruption to account is prsecuting people who try to get around that institutional corruption.