I have two comments about the video.
First, it is very well done. It would be a shame if the quality was so shoddy that it was a distraction to the prospective jurors. I am impressed with the quality.
Second, I think any trial lawyer should watch it. It is the first thing the jurors hear. Why would you not want to see what information they are getting? I say this because in my jurisdiction, the attorneys are not in the courtroom when the jurors watch the video.
You can watch the video here.
The Arkansas Supreme Court released new rules for Appellate Briefs. Make sure you comply. Among the changes, the rules allow for an increase in pages allowed (30) and font size is now 14.
Read the new rules in their entirety by clicking here.
BERRYVILLE — Lawyer Cindy Baker, 36, was arrested on charges two counts of delivering methamphetamine Friday night in a raid of her home and office on U. S. Highway 62 in downtown Berryville.
The amount of the drug recovered from her office-home was not made public. Other items seized included “syringes that appear to contain blood,” according to court records.
Sheriff Bob Grudek said Monday that there had been rumors about Baker but “suspicion is not sufficient” and a case had to be made that would stand up in court.
Investigator J. J. Reddick’s affidavit for search and arrest warrants says an informant wired for audio and video surveillance went to Baker’s office-home Oct. 22, and the two went over Baker’s ledger showing what the informant owed Baker for previous methamphetamine purchases.
The two discussed a previous transaction in which Baker supplied the informant with seven grams of methamphetamine and told the informant to keep one gram and sell the rest for Baker, the affidavit says.
The informant also wore a wire in the two transactions that prompted the charges of delivery of methamphetamine, a Class Y felony, which is the most serious level under Arkansas law:
• The sheriff said the confidential informant bought a gram of what is believed to be methamphetamine for $200 from Baker at her office-home Wednesday.
The bills turned up when authorities seized $1,000 in cash from suspected meth supplier Mynor Jimmy Aleman-Gonzalez later the same day, the sheriff said. Jail records show Aleman-Gonzalez, 24, of Green Forest was jailed Wednesday on charges of delivering a controlled substance.
• The same confidential informant bought a half gram of what was believed to be methamphetamine from Baker for $50 Friday, the sheriff said. He said the informant gave Baker a $100 bill and received $50 in change.
Search and arrest warrants were issued, and the $100 bill that the confidential informant gave her for the drug earlier Friday was taken from Baker during her drug arrest, the sheriff said.
The charges include two counts of delivering methamphetamine, a count of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of Berryville High School and First Methodist Church.
Read more here.
This from a a story by Joan McCoy:
Some officials in Jacksonville say it might be time for the city attorney’s position to become full time. But when it comes to city attorneys in Arkansas, part time and full time are just words that have only the weight the city councils decide to give them.
State law says first-class cities with mayor-council governments shall elect city attorneys every four years. But how much those attorneys are paid and their exact duties vary from city to city and appear to be based as much on tradition as law.
Buck Gibson, elected as the city attorney in Searcy in 2002, prepares ordinances and resolutions for the city council, prosecutes in district and circuit court and advises the mayor and council on legal matters.
He is considered a full-time city attorney, but Gibson says his $22,000 take-home pay for the job doesn’t begin to support him in the manner that people mistakenly believe lawyers are accustomed. His real income is from his private practice, he says.
In contrast, Robert Bamburg, Jacksonville’s part-time city attorney, is paid $64,432 for services similar to those Gibson provides. And like Gibson, Bamburg has a private practice.
Read the whole story here.
I am excited about me new website that just went up last week. It has all the relevant info about my practice and how to contact me. The site also contains other helpful information for clients and prospective clients.
Check it out at www.shaunhair.com
The Connecticut Law Tribune recently did a story on the threat of texting.
In its short lifespan, texting has been blamed for all sorts of societal ills — for distracting drivers on roads, students in school and workers who should be minding their jobs.
But now it appears that text messages are moving, at times, from an occasional annoyance to something more sinister. Texting is becoming the latest way for angry people to harass or threaten others, especially estranged spouses or girl- or boyfriends.
I have been concerned as I see this trend grow. I am speaking of the trend of criminalization of speech, i.e. harassment charges, terroristic threatening charges, etc. I do not condone the behavior, but at some point, just saying things should be protected by the Constitution. Being a jackass doesn’t necessarily make you a criminal.
Don’t answer your phone. Don’t read your text. Call the police when actual threats take place such as trespass and assault. Otherwise, know that life is is difficult but those difficulties shouldn’t always end in jail time for the offender.
“More than 1,200 driving while intoxicated convictions in Harris County are invalid after a contractor was convicted of faking inspections of alcohol breath testing devices, prosecutors said.
Deetrice Wallace, a Department of Public Safety contractor, told investigators that she had falsified inspections records for the South Houston and Clute police department intoxilyzers.”
This story illustrates that every single aspect of the record keeping and inspections should be targeted during the cross examination of a DWI case.
I am taking notes.
Read the whole story here.
In a story by the Associated Press:
Fiddling with your iPhone behind the wheel can get you fined across much of the nation. But many states are more than happy to tweet you with up-to-the-minute directions on how to steer clear of a traffic jam.
It is a mixed signal that some safety experts and politicians say could be dangerous.
I am not surprised that the State of Arkansas found a way to reconcile the two. “Please check from home,” they say. It is undisputed that twitter targets mobile users so this position seems disingenuous or ignorant.
Secondly, where do law enforcement draw the line? Is it illegal to look at the time on your cell phone? Is it illegal to hit one key to see the time? How many buttons do you have to hit before it becomes a misdemeanor? How does an officer know whether you are looking at the time or texting?
This law seems like a nightmare to enforce but a dream come true for officers looking for probable cause to look for something else.
This story was reported by KOAT out of ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Maria Vaughn works as a translator and advocate for domestic violence victims.
She’s fluent in both English and Spanish and that’s why what happened in court Wednesday is so confusing.
“I was just stunned as to how it played out; it became English as a second language,” Vaughn’s mother-in-law, Lorie Vaughn, said, adding the judge’s decision baffled her and she never communicates with Maria in Spanish.
Maria Vaughn was stopped on Interstate 40 last November because she was suspected of driving drunk and police tried to give her a field sobriety test.
Vaughn’s attorney, Phillip Sapien, said that’s when the language barrier became a problem.
“She does speak English and can converse, but when we’re talking about instruction on a field sobriety test, there’s more technical language used and I think there was a communication issue,” said Sapien.
But in Maria Vaughn’s job as an advocate for domestic violence victims, Action 7 News is told she’s required to speak both English and Spanish.
Vaughn’s lawyer said since his client couldn’t understand the officer’s instructions, the field sobriety test is unreliable.
“She didn’t understand that process,” he said.
A judge agreed and dismissed the case.
All DWI charges against Maria Vaughn were dropped and she only faces a charge of driving without her headlight.
(Reported by www.koat.com)
| By: Associated Press – Texarkana Gazette - | Published: 10/09/2009 |
LITTLE ROCK—The Arkansas Supreme Court listened Thursday as lawyers argued whether a new law fulfills its aim by clarifying the state’s lethal injection procedures or puts death-row inmates at greater risk of suffering unconstitutional harm.
A federal public defender for death-row inmate Frank Williams Jr. claimed the new law puts additional mental stress on all condemned inmates, and public defender Josh Lee claimed it strips away regulations that required the state prison system to use a three-drug cocktail approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Under the new statute, we have no way of knowing what procedure will be used,” Lee said. Without that oversight, he said the risk of botched executions grows. He mentioned a recent Ohio case where an inmate undergoing a failed lethal injection wept as executioners stuck him with needles as many as 18 times.
Nevertheless, the justices’ questioning appeared to give the state an edge.
Justin Allen, the state’s chief deputy attorney general, said there would be no repeat of the Ohio case in Arkansas. Allen said the new law passed by the Legislature this year made public the amount and kind of drugs used by executioners and that the state’s prison director couldn’t use “rat poison” or anything else to execute prisoners, as he would be subject immediately to a federal lawsuit.
“As a practical matter, Larry Norris or any other prison director would be out of his mind not to follow” the law, Allen said.
Justice Robert L. Brown said he agreed with Allen’s point, one of the few moments that indicated what the justices thought.
The justices gave no indication of when they might rule.
Federal public defenders representing Williams filed the lawsuit in 2008, as their client faced a scheduled execution. They argued the state prison system had altered its execution protocols without following a requirement that state agencies offer notifications and hold public hearings when they change administrative rules.
A lower court judge issued an injunction halting Williams’ execution and the case quickly made its way to the state’s highest court. While there, lawmakers passed a law freeing the state prison system from following the public notification and hearing rule when it came to execution
