CBS Video on Bullet Evidence

Earlier, I posted an article regarding the discrediting of bullet evidence.  CBS has released a video on the topic.

Hold ‘em or Fold ‘em? That’s The Question.

FROM THE ANB:

A few months ago, Christy Martin started letting the Ultimate Poker League hold poker nights at her club, the Ice House of Bentonville.

The club does not charge people to play, but Martin said poker has been a moneymaker for her business in other ways.

When players are away from the poker table, “they’ll play pool, they’ll eat food,” Martin said. “It brings people in.”

Poker, especially the Texas hold ‘em version featured on ESPN’s “World Series of Poker,” has experienced an unprecedented surge in popularity, and entertainment businesses are cashing in. Midland Bowl in Fort Smith, Billy’s Blues Club in Fayetteville and Zack’s Place in Little Rock are among dozens of Arkansas businesses that lure customers in the door by hosting poker games.

“Pretty much every club here (in Bentonville) has it,” Martin said.

The businesses say they are able to host the games legally, despite Arkansas’ anti-gambling laws and constitutional ban on lotteries, because customers are not really gambling – they pay nothing to play and no betting is allowed.

“We don’t take any money at all. It’s totally free,” said Cindy Carter, a manager at Fox and Hound English Pub & Grille in North Little Rock.

The National Poker Challenge has made similar claims about its poker club in Little Rock, but the club’s future is uncertain following a Nov. 18 raid by Little Rock police.

“The fact that we are most proud of is that it is non-gambling, not a lottery and that no customer ever has a chance to risk money,” the Memphis-based company said in a statement posted on its Web site, explaining how it could operate in Arkansas.

Local authorities see things differently. Four people who worked at the club now face felony charges of maintaining a gambling house.

West Memphis business proprietors being sued for $4.1 million

Bank of America is suing two businessmen who ran a West Memphis company in an attempt to collect $4.1 million.

Theodore M. Jenney of Holley, N.Y., and Stanley J. Chiras of Florida are the principals of Diaz Intermediates Corp., which produced chemicals that were supplied to Tetra Industries and other agriculture and pharmaceutical clients.

In September 2002, the company borrowed $6.5 million and eventually went out of business.

But Jenney and Chiras had each signed guarantees for half of the unpaid principal, plus any interest, court costs and other fees if Diaz defaulted on the loan. In January, the bank notified the two businessmen that the loan was in default. In May, BOA told Jenney and Chiras to pay off the loan, but they didn’t.

The bank has sued in U.S. District Court to collect the money.

Pay Check Loans Constitutional?

Some have wondered if the wildly high interest rates charged for pay check loans violate constitutional usury limitations. Apparently not. Judge Barry Sims found the 1999 law to be constitutional. However, his decision will be appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court…with 400 % interest.

More here.

New Rules

New Appellate Rule 2 (Criminal) — Click here for details.

New Rule regarding late fees for late payment of Arkansas Bar dues — Click here for details.

New Rules governing admission to Arkansas Bar — Click here for details.

Discredited Bullet Evidence May Overturn 1995 Conviction

The Washington Post and 60 Minutes have this story:

Former Baltimore police sergeant James A. Kulbicki stared silently from the defense table as the prosecutor held up his off-duty .38-caliber revolver and assured jurors that science proved the gun had been used to kill Kulbicki’s mistress.

“I wonder what it felt like, Mr. Kulbicki, to have taken this gun, pressed it to the skull of that young woman and pulled the trigger, that cold steel,” the prosecutor said during closing arguments.

Prosecutors had linked the weapon to Kulbicki through forensic science. Maryland’s top firearms expert said that the gun had been cleaned and that its bullets were consistent in size with the one that killed the victim. The state expert could not match the markings on the bullets to Kulbicki’s gun. But an FBI expert took the stand to say that a science that matches bullets by their lead content had linked the fatal bullet to Kulbicki.

The jurors were convinced, and in 1995 Kulbicki was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his 22-year-old girlfriend. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

For a dozen years, Kulbicki sat in state prison, saddled with the image of the calculating killer portrayed in the 1996 made-for-TV movie “Double Jeopardy.”

Then the scientific evidence unraveled.

Earlier this year, the state expert committed suicide, leaving a trail of false credentials, inaccurate testimony and lab notes that conflicted with what he had told jurors. Two years before, the FBI crime lab had discarded the bullet-matching science that it had used to link Kulbicki to the crime.

Now a judge in Baltimore County is weighing whether to overturn Kulbicki’s conviction in a legal challenge that could have ripple effects across Maryland. The case symbolizes growing national concerns about just how far forensic experts are willing to go to help prosecutors secure a conviction.

“If this could happen to my client, who was a cop who worked within this justice system, what does it say about defendants who know far less about the process and may have far fewer resources to uncover evidence of their innocence that may have been withheld by the prosecution or their scientific experts?” said Suzanne K. Drouet, a former Justice Department lawyer who took on Kulbicki’s case as a public defender.

Prosecutors are fighting to uphold Kulbicki’s conviction, arguing that there is still plenty of evidence that proves his guilt.

The entire story is at the Washington Post. (You have to register but it is free.)

Developers Sue City of Harrisburg

Two developers said they are out nearly $1 million after they built homes at the city of Harrisburg’s request, but the city hasn’t installed the water and sewer lines.

Tom Ford and Charles Dunham, who own Ford/Dunham Subdivision, are suing the city of Harrisburg, the mayor and the city council alleging breach of contract, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The developers are seeking nearly $8 million in damages in Poinsett County Circuit Court.

In 2006, city of Harrisburg officials asked Ford to build moderately priced homes in a section of Harrisburg, according to the lawsuit. In exchange, the city would install water and sewer lines to the homes.

After four homes were built, at a cost of $258,000, the city then backed out of supplying the utilities, the lawsuit said.

“The refusal of the Defendants to honor the agreement has made the constructed residence virtually unsellable and uninhabitable,” the lawsuit said.

Read the whole story at Arkansasbusiness.com.

Possible New Federal Sentencing Guidelines

A federal sentencing commission is considering a decision that could lead to the release of 19,500 federal inmates nationwide.

The move is aimed at resolving what is being viewed as unfair federal cocaine laws and sentencing guidelines, which provide a much greater punishment for crack cocaine than for its powder counterpart, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday.

The commission has already adopted reduced penalties for new crack cases brought to court, effective Nov. 1.

The current debate is in regards to its plans to make those changes retroactive to inmates already serving time for crack convictions. If passed, it could trim an average of two years off their sentences.

Read the whole story at the Daily Press.

October 2007 Appellate Update now online

Get it here.

Improper Proof of Prior DWI

The issue has arisen in a DWI 2nd trial where an Arkansas prosecutor attempted to prove the prior DWI with a certified print out from Driver Control showing the first DWI. Is this proper?  While the Supreme Court hasn’t addressed the issue, it presents two problems.

First, the certified print out from Driver Control is not the same as a court record or transcript so it would not be as accurate and would not show everything that happened at court.

Second, the printout, while certified, would not overcome a proper hearsay objection.

Thirdly, the Driver Control document would not show whether the accused had an attorney or had waived counsel at the previous DWI proceeding. Arkansas law requires that for a prior DWI to be admitted as evidence in a subsequent proceeding, the State must prove the accused was represented by counsel or that counsel was waived.