Criminal defense attorney Richard Jensen awarded AVVO Client's Choice Award for DUI representation

  
    Alabama criminal defense lawyer Richard Jensen has been awarded the Client's Choice Award for 2012 for DUI representation by AVVO, the website which rates the performance of lawyers nationwide.
   "I am very honored by receive the recognition of AVVO for my work as a criminal defense lawyer, and even more gratified that the award is based upon reviews of my work posted on AVVO by my clients," Jensen said. "I work hard to win every case, so this is gratifying."
   Jensen's legal rating with AVVO was recently increased from "Excellent-Rated Attorney" to "Superb-Rated Attorney."
    AVVO rep Calvin Gantt said Jensen's award is "very important because consumers greatly value 3rd party validation of an attorney's standing. "


Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.

Poster gives the public advice on how to assert rights

This poster gives people advice on how to assert their Constitutional rights when stopped by the police. I recommend saving the image and printing it and carrying it with you.

Walmart assumes duty to control the use of alcohol by its customers - Big Brother-style

Today I walked out of Walmart.

I resolved to never again shop at Walmart, because this corporate monolith has not just profit but social control at the forefront of its operating model.

I had put more than $300 worth of groceries on the conveyor belt at the register, and included in that stash of groceries was one six-pack of Michelob Lime-Cactus beer. The cost of that beer was $6.87. I have bought beer with my groceries at Walmart all over the United States without incident.

My wife was with me, as was our daughter. I am 53. My wife is 35. Our daughter is nine years old. The clerk, a very typical blue-collar Walmart employee, proceeded to ask for not only for my ID but my wife’s ID as well.

I looked at the clerk incredulously. “You want both of our IDs?” the cashier insisted that she did. I asked why and she replied, “it’s the law.” I responded to her that it was not the law, the law required only the presentation of one ID and that there was actually no reason to bother customers with the request of two IDs.

The cashier immediately whined, “Look, I’m just doing my job.”

I never vex rank and file employees with such issues, as it's beyond their pay grade and unfair to hassle them with it. I immediately -- and nicely -- asked for a manager, whereupon another cashier walked up and told me that it was indeed the law that they require two IDs.

I asked for a manager again, and said that I didn’t wish to speak to a low-level employee about the issue. I explained that I was a criminal defense lawyer, and that I knew exactly what the law was with respect to the sale of alcohol as I dealt with such cases on a weekly basis.

Understand, for me at this point the issue was no longer about the alcohol. It’s was about the issue of social control and of this corporate oligarchy that is taking over our nation. It used to be you had to just present your ID, and now they want to scan it because it has a barcode and they want to take down your information because they want a database of who is buying their beer. Contrast that with Europe, where there is no drinking age on the books in many countries.

This big brother mentality is a further eroding the freedom that made this country great. First alcohol, what’s going to be next? Are they going want your ID and scan it when you buy meat? Will the do-gooders who are anti-meat push through legislation and the next thing we have is a regulation on who can and can’t buy meat? The city of New York is already attempting to ban the sale of soft drinks. Other states are discussing banning sugared foods. This is nothing more than  a continuous eroding of the simple freedoms that made the United States the beacon of freedom throughout the world.

Quite frankly, I’m pretty much a son of a bitch when it comes to issues like this. It’s not that I want to be an ass about it, but I’m trying to make a point whenever something like this comes up.

So, finally a customer service manager type approached and promptly informed me that it’s not the law but it’s Walmart’s new corporate policy that whenever someone is buying alcohol they have to present ID for each adult present at the sale.

I asked, “So you’re telling me that you’ve taken it upon yourself as corporation to enforce the use of the alcohol that you’re selling?”

The customer service manager informed me that Walmart had adopted the policy because “sometimes people buy alcohol and they give it to people who are under age.”

So there you have it. Walmart has decided that it's their responsibility to make sure not only that they sell you the alcohol properly but that you use it properly. Now, whatever corporate moron thought this up apparently didn’t realize that Walmart was expressly taking on the responsibility for the use of the alcohol by their customers, thereby opening themselves up to the enormous legal liability. But hey, if Walmart wants to do that, let him. I’m sure that my brother lawyers who are in the lawsuit game would be more than happy to sue Walmart since Walmart seems to want to be responsible for the usage of the alcohol that it sells.

This is so moronic it’s not even funny. I go to the liquor store to buy hard liquor and I’m never carded. Why? Because I look like what I am. I’m a 53-year-old man. It’s kind of funny, because as the Walmart manager was insisting to me this was Walmart’s new corporate policy, the little screen on the register had the question, “Is cust over 40?”

So, clearly I was over 40. Because my wife is youthful in appearance, the corporate oligarchs and their minions at Walmart decided to quibble about getting my wife’s ID. I look at the manager and I said, “my nine-year-old is right here, do you want her ID to?”

The CSM said to me, “don’t be ridiculous. She’s a child.”

“So what you’re telling me is you want to take responsibility for whether or not I provide alcohol to someone who’s under age but looks of-age but you’re perfectly okay with me purchasing alcohol with a child with me because you’re making the assumption I’m not going to give it to the child?”

Clearly, logic was lost on these Walmart employees and indeed was lost on the morons at Walmart management to start up the scheme.

I explained to the CSM that if that was Walmart policy that I was leaving my $300 worth of groceries on the conveyor and walking out of the store and never again shopping at Walmart ever again.

I already didn’t like Walmart and I'd already begun phasing out shopping there. I already didn’t like Walmart years ago when they quibbled with you about the content of the film you took there to develop. Walmart used to report people to the police if their film had pictures of naked babies in the bathtub. Kiddie porn!

I already didn’t like Walmart for the way they interrogate you when you try to buy spray paint or other chemicals. I don’t care if other people sniff inhalants. I need to paint my rusty chair!

I already didn’t like the substandard quality of their meat. I already didn’t like the fact that Walmart uses carbon monoxide injected into their packaging to prevent old meet from looking old. I already didn’t like the hothouse produce that they sell. I already didn’t like the fact that Walmart has single-handedly shut down mom-and-pop grocery stores all over the world. And contrary to their marketing, I have found that Walmart is often more expensive then the neighborhood Fresh Market, Target, Publix, and Whole Foods stores. I’ve taken to shopping at these other markets simply because their quality is so much better and often their prices are the same or cheaper.

And my wife and I have found locally owned small grocery stores to shop at. That’s the best of all.

I may be just one person, but I’m not giving one more dime to the oligarchs at Walmart. They can take their social control and stick it up their asses.

Oh, and for the record, I went immediately to Target and bought the same groceries, including the beer. I was carded by a nice young clerk who scanned my card and thanked me without comment. And I spent almost 1/3 less at Target for the same goods.

Alabama death row inmate's case derailed by Alabama, New York co-counsel inaction

   The Wall Street Journal today published an Associated Press story about Corey Maples, an Alabama death row inmate whose appeal of his post-conviction petition was denied “because two lawyers at a venerable New York law firm handling his appeal moved on to other jobs and a court notice was returned to sender, address unknown.”
   The article blames the error on two associates at the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, a huge, blue-blood law firm in New York City.
   Further down in the article is a notation that the “court sent a notice to the lawyers, as well as a local attorney in Alabama, starting a 42-day clock for appealing the order.”
   So, I was intrigued. It appeared to me that blame was being laid at the foot of a high-dollar New York law firm, but the article showed that an Alabama lawyer on the case was notified, too.
   Keep in mind that many large, high-dollar law firms often get involved for free in death penalty cases. They do it supposedly as a public service, but most often these firms do this pro bono work to enhance their image. Painfully aware that they are often seen as money-grubbing firms, they use the pro bono work to bolster their image as compassionate about justice.
   Many lawyer friends of mine who try and appeal death penalty cases have told me these firms send young associates to do this pro bono work and their legal skills are nascent and their knowledge of criminal cases – and the impact of their work – is virtually nil. This is because large firms like Sullivan and Cromwell don’t seriously practice criminal defense. They tinker with it.
   After reading the article, I looked into the case further.
   The case, reported as Ex Parte Cory R. Maples is Case # CR-03-0021 and found at 885 So.2d 845 (2004).
   The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama issued a ruling, authored by Judge McMillan with all judges concurring, that is eye-opening.
   Maples had filed what is called a Rule 32 petition, which a collateral attack on his conviction. Collateral attacks are different from appeals and are a weapon in the arsenal of good appellate lawyers to overturn convictions. They are usually won on the grounds that the trial lawyer was ineffective or on the grounds that new evidence, unknown at the time of the trial, is available and proves the convicted defendant is not guilty.
   This Rule 32 petition was filed in August 2001 by two Sullivan and Cromwell lawyers, Clara Ingen-Housz and Jaasi Munanka, along with local counsel, Huntsville lawyer John G. Butler, Jr. It is interesting to note that the two New York lawyers misspelled the defendant’s first name. Such inattention to detail is troubling. If you can’t get somebody’s name right on a death penalty case, what else will you get wrong?
   Fifteen months later, on May 22, 2003, Judge Glenn Thompson denied the petition. Alabama lawyers will tell you that as of that date Maples had 42 days to appeal Thompson’s order denying his petition. The next day, on May 23, 2003 the circuit clerk mailed copies of Judge Thompson’s order denying the petition to the New York lawyers and to Butler.
   The New York firm sent the clerk’s notification back unopened with a notation “Left Firm.” This is troubling as surely Sullivan and Cromwell had a new attorney on Maples’ case after Ingen-Housz and Munanka left their firm. In fact, they did. Lawyer Marc De Leeuw, with the firm, was assigned the case. Sullivan’s mail room should have forwarded the order to DeLeeuw.
   What is clear is that Huntsville attorney Butler received his copy of the order denying the petition because he later filed an affidavit saying he had.
   Maples filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, asking the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to grant him an out-of-time appeal. The court denied the motion, citing that the failure of Maples to appeal was the fault of all three attorneys, and thus his failure as well.
   “The duty to monitor the status of one’s cases necessarily include the duty to notify the circuit clerk of any change of address. Here, Maples was represented by three attorneys. Because Maples was represented by attorneys, all correspondence from the circuit clerk was directed to the attorneys.”
   “Attorneys Clara Ingen-Housz and Jaasi Munanka, both attorneys licensed by the State of New York, applied and were granted... status to represent Maples... To be admitted..., an out-of-state attorney must associate with a local attorney. Here the local attorney was John Butler. Butler stated in his affidavit that is included... that he was given notice of the dismissal of the Rule 32 petition.”  As a lawyer, I find the word “dismissal” here troubling, as earlier in the appeals courts’ decision it notes the order was denied. Denied and dismissed are two different things.
   The appeals court continued: “The Alabama Supreme Court in Thomas v. Kellett, 489 So.2d 554, 555 (Ala.1986) held that when one attorney has received notification... and co-counsel did not, ‘the ... court’s notification of [one attorney representing a party] and not [the other attorney representing the same party] ... was sufficient to give notice to both in light of their apparent co-counsel status.’”
   Thus, Maples received timely and proper notification by the trial court of the denial (or dismissal) because one of his lawyers had been properly notified. Maples lost the opportunity to appeal because his attorneys failed to react to the court’s notice of the order, and Maples had no idea it was even happening.
   The Maples case is important for one main reason. It shows that any lawyer engaging in any case, most especially criminal defense, must be diligent in the pursuit of justice for his client. In this case, a death penalty case, the standard of care is even higher.
   Clients need to know that when they are represented by counsel that their lawyer could receive an order from the court and that this implies legally that the client received it. Therefore, it is important for lawyers to communicate diligently with their clients.
   To make sure this doesn’t happen, I have a policy at my office is to copy all clients on any mail, court filings or any other document. In short, anything I send out or file with the court, the client gets a copy, same day. Anything I receive, the client gets a copy, same day. That even includes former clients. If I get anything in the mail regarding a client or ex-client, I send a copy on to that person. 
   This policy works for me because I know my clients know what is happening in their case. It keeps me on my toes. It makes sure I am diligent about the important details.
   If that had happened in this case, Maples would have had real-time knowledge of the order of the trial judge denying his petition, and he would have had a chance to contact his lawyers and make sure they did not drop the ball.

(Required by Alabama law: No representation is made that the quality of legal services performed is great than other lawyers.)

Palin biography shows dominionist threat to U.S. Constitution

   The new biography of Sarah Palin by Joe McGinniss is entitled, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin.” It is riveting reading. McGinniss is widely considered one of the best investigative political journalists in the nation and his highly-publicized “stalking” of Palin was fodder for the 24-hour news cycle throughout 2010.
   The reality of McGinniss’ journey is detailed in the book. It paints a damning picture of Palin and, even worse, contains a frightening revelation that Palin is not only an ethically challenged politician, she is an ethically challenged person and a dominionist determined to remake the United States into an evangelical theocracy. No other politician, with the exception of Alabama’s former Chief Justice Roy Moore has ever represented such a dominionist threat to the rights of American citizens.
   The book details Palin’s sordid personal life. Her sexcapades; her penchant for nude flirting (in the name of Jesus!) in the presence of other women; her short-term infatuation with having sex with black men; and her sexual affairs (and husband, Todd’s). The book recounts numerous takes of Palin’s narcissism and her inability to lovingly parent her children except when television cameras are around. One family friend of the Palins who later turned against them told McGinniss that Palin has “neglected her own kids. She’s too narcissistic to care about her kids. It’s always ‘me, me, me,’ and everybodyelse is always wrong. She’s so narcissistic she couldn’t even care for a pet.”
  The book goes on to detail the seamy business dealings the Palins have had over the years; the use by the Palins of veiled threats of violence to control their detractors; the flailing victimology of her psyche which is used to blame those she is attacking; her refusal to read any book, article of document unless it aligns with her dominionist Christian belief ; her fervent belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old – indeed the list is endless.
   What is most chilling about this revelatory book is Palin’s single-minded crusade to obliterate the rights of Americans under the United States Constitution while claiming to support and defend it.
   When she was elected mayor of Wasilla – thanks to an anti-Semitic smear campaign against her opponent – Palin went on what McGinniss calls a “reign of terror.” She had used moderate Republican operatives to get elected, then jettisoned them because they weren’t good enough Christians. Instead, she installed as her cohorts John Birch Society members, operatives of the Alaska Independence Party, a group that advocates Alaska’s secession from the union, and further aligned herself with an extreme sect of the Assembly of God church, the views of which approaches neo-Nazism.
   She then fired anyone who worked for the town of Wasilla who would not swear their personal allegiance to her personally. She actually called each employee in and demanded their oath of allegiance!
   Palin closed the Wasilla Museum and fired its director because she said no one cared about history or culture. She then openly violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and demanded the Wasilla librarian remove a list of books that were offensive to her Christian beliefs, including any text that mentioned established science that her cohorts, the Birchies, the independies and the radical dominionists found contrary to Biblical teaching. When the librarian refused and threatened suit, Palin’s supporters went to the library and checked out the books. Most were never turned back in, others came back with entire passages blacked out with permanent magic marker. Palin further demanded the removal of several books about homosexuality, telling the librarian the gays were evil and perverts.
   Palin was completely unable to run the town’s business, and hired an administrator to do it for her. Against Alaska law, she bought a $50,000 Ford Excursion with city money and treated it as her own. She remodeled her office without approval of the city council. She fired long-time city employees without following the labor laws which govern such occasions. Those who sought legal counsel never got their day in court because the lawyers backed out after receiving threats from the Palin camp. When the city’s attorney cautioned Palin that such acts were illegal, he was put on her hit list.
   Palin pushed through unrestrained development, often spending millions of taxpayer dollars to build “city” buildings on private land owned by her supporters, thus giving free buildings to her faithful. Any building built on any land becomes the property of the land. Talk about kick backs!
   The unrestrained and unregulated development under Palin resulted in massive pollution to Lake Lucille, the lake so fondly featured in Palin’s reality show. What Palin didn’t  mention in her show and McGinniss proves in his book, is Lake Lucille is now a dead lake, too polluted for either fishing or swimming.
   When the Wasilla Frontiersman, the local paper, began to question Palin’s ethics and, indeed her sanity and behavior, she responded time and again by lying to paper and flatly denying her actions, even when those actions were documented. When she was caught in a lie, she went on a tirade about being the victim. Residents looked on in horror as Palin turned Wasilla into her personal kingdom.
   When residents came to city hall for council meetings, they would try to ask questions and Palin would shout, “How dare you question me?” More than one recall was attempted, only to be put down by campaigns of duress and threats of violence by Palin’s minions.
   Palin confounded people when she aligned herself and her dominionist allies with local bar owners and disbanded an Alcohol Task Force that was working to stop the rampant drunk driving on Wasilla’s streets. Palin had tip jars installed at the local bars and the tips all went to her, allegedly campaign donations. She publicly said DUI laws were unconstitutional and stopped the program despite howls of protest from law enforcement and emergency responders. The number of DUI accidents in Wasilla skyrocketed. Bars in Wasilla were allowed to remain open until 5 a.m., while neighboring communities closed their bars at 2 a.m. The result was a wave of drunken drivers heading to Wasilla to get in an extra three hours of revelry. The drunks would then begin driving home just as school buses began their morning runs filled with children. Despite the danger to the public, Palin never waivered in her support for her tip jar allies.
   Palin announced and instituted a ban on abortions at the local hospital, resulting in a federal lawsuit that slapped her down hard. It mattered not to her that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, in her mind Wasilla was hers to command.
   Palin refused to accept any counsel related to local, state and federal law. She sat in meetings as if she were too bored to pay attention and refused to listen to discussions of laws and ordinances. She refused to take advice on compliance by the city with the United States and Alaskan Constitutions, insisting that she would do what she wanted until someone sued her and the Courts told her she couldn’t do it. (This is a tactic called, “Subject to Challenge” that is often used by corrupt politicians to skirt the letter of the law.) Palin, like the former Alabama chief justice, did whatever she wanted and claimed God told her to. When even some supporters asked her to read an economic report, she replied, “I never read anything that might conflict with my beliefs.”
   All the while Palin was running Wasilla as her personal fiefdom, husband Todd was running amok as her enforcer. Todd Palin’s reputation for violence in Wasilla is legendary. When Wasilla got its first-ever black resident, Todd Palin attacked him merely because he was black and did so with the stated purpose of running the young man out of town. McGinnis details where many Wasilla residents state that Todd Palin was and is notorious as a heavy drinker and cocaine user. One named resident of Wasilla calls Todd Palin “emotionally unstable” and recounts numerous acts of violence.
   When McGinniss moved into Wasilla to research and write his book, by chance he rented a house next door to the Palins. Wasilla is a small town and there are few rentals. It turned out the house McGinnis rented had been used as a halfway house for convicts transitioning from prison to freedom and was later used as a meth lab. Wasillans were uncomfortable with the house as both halfway house and meth lab, but the Palins never complained. They complained bitterly when the house was rented to a writer who merely wanted to research a book on their lives. Palin engaged in a smear campaign that was picked up by FOXNews and other media outlets on the right, including nutbar Glenn Beck, who claimed McGinniss was a pedophile who was watching Palin’s daughters through binoculars.
   When McGinniss moved in, many Wasilla residents quietly warned him to buy a gun. They warned McGinniss of Todd Palin’s penchant for violence. McGinniss recounts residents coming to visit him to bring welcome gifts, often bringing along a gun for McGinniss to borrow. It happened repeatedly.
   Still others came to offer alternative living arrangements, fearing for McGinniss’ safety.  One Wasilla resident who grew up among the Palins offered McGinniss an AK 47 and told McGinnis that nothing less would be effective against Todd Palin.
   McGinniss talks about how residents were either quietly afraid of the Palins or subversively acting as their minions. He recounts people making hand gestures as if their index finger was a gun and mimicking shooting him. He recounts incidents where people who were interviewed by McGinnis had their car windows shot out.
   I watched all of Palin’s reality series and did not notice what was missing. After reading McGinniss’ book I realized what it was. The series never featured Palin interacting with Wasilla residents. It was only her and a cadre of close friends. The book makes it clear why.
   McGinniss’ book is not a hit job without attribution. He names names, dates, places and people with clarity. His interviews are documented and have been fact-checked.
   The net effect of McGinniss’ book is that it paints a disturbing picture of a power-hungry politician and her husband who will stop at nothing to obtain power. Their dominionist beliefs – i.e. that they make the rules because God talks to them – is a threat to the United States. Their penchant for claiming to defend the very Constitution they refuse to read is alarming. The Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers as a limiting document, designed to limit the power of government over people and narrowly define the powers and the limits on those powers that government has.
   The Palins are nothing more than old-fashioned small town political thugs who have managed to paint themselves as quaint Alaskans, thanks to the public relations actions of the fervent FOXNews hierarchy.
   Thus, Sarah Palin can only be considered by anyone who is passionate about defending the rights of Americans under the Constitution as a threat to security of America. Hopefully she will fade from the national stage and there will be no further presidential aspirations on her part.
   The McGinniss book gives us a glimpse of how close America came to having a dominionist of dubious repute in the White House.

(Required by Alabama law: No representation is made that the services to be performed is greater  than other lawyers.)

A good criminal defense lawyer doesn't fear the trial penalty

     The September 6, 2011 New York Times contained an article entitled "Sentencing Shift Gives New Leverage to Prosecutor" by Richard A. Oppel.
     The well-researched and well-written article contains an examination of the new trends in criminal law that are having a chilling effect on criminal cases. Prosecutors are now illegally punishing people accused of crimes by penalizing the accused if he doesn't accept a plea bargain. The article notes that the number of criminal cases which go to trial has dropped to 1 in 40.
     The prevailing wisdom is that prosecutors now hold the threat of stiffer punishment over an accused who refuses to plead. In short, a prosecutor offers 2 years probation on a felony if the accused enters a plea, but if the accused insists on a trial because he believes he is innocent, the prosecutor will push for a maximum sentence of ten years in prison if the accused is found guilty by a jury.
     This is an old tactic. It's not new. Prosecutors have been doing it for years. It works especially well when an accused is sitting in jail and can't get out on bond and the only ticket to freedom is to accept a plead bargain for probation. In such a case, it's no wonder the accused takes the deal. He wants out of jail. Period. Who can blame him?
     The New York Times articles implies that the reason this works is because a great many people opt for the lighter sentence rather than risk trial and a heavier punishment. Keep in mind that the heavier punishment for exercising your constitutional right is called a "trial penalty." It's illegal.
     Here's how prosecutors and judges get away with the trial penalty game:
     Many criminal defense lawyer won't fight it. Period.
     A criminal defense lawyer who flinches when a prosecutor offers the carrot and stick of a light sentence plea bargain or a stiff prison sentence is a criminal defense lawyer who is unsure of his trial skills. Many lawyers will say, "But they had an open and shut case!" Or "This is ___ County, and it's different here!" Others say, "There was nothing I can do!" I can't tell you the number of times I've had clients tell me that their prior lawyer said these things to them.
     This is disturbing on so many levels. A good criminal defense lawyer knows that taking a case to trial is never a bad option. Some of the worst "open and shut" cases I have tried in 16 years of criminal defense were the ones that were the fastest not guilty verdicts in my career. The secret is the criminal defense lawyer must try his case with passion and do so aggressively. If the criminal defense lawyer assumes that his client is guilty, or assumes the evidence presented by the state will be admitted, then the case is lost. The criminal defense attorney has to object to everything, fight like hell to prevent the state from presenting evidence, challenge the admissibility of evidence, challenge the veracity of witnesses, fight like hell on the technicalities.
     This shift from taking cases to trial and towards accepting plea bargains is driven completely by the prosecution being better poker players. They make the defense lawyers flinch.
     Economics is also a factor. Many people accused of crimes can't afford a top-flight defense. Many have to rely on appointed lawyers and many appointed lawyers don't have the nerve, the skill or the willingness to fight hard simply because there's not enough money in it for them.
     A criminal defense lawyer who fights like hell on a criminal case can win in the trial penalty game. Prosecutors are not afraid of criminal defense lawyers who cave. They call them "pleaders." The accused who hires a pleader will be plead guilty. Prosecutors know that there are certain lawyers who will not plead their cases out of fear of losing. The criminal defense lawyer who makes the prosecutor flinch gets a far better outcome for his client. When the prosecutor is afraid of losing, that's when charges get dismissed. When the prosecutor is afraid of losing, that's when pretrial diversions and other beneficial resolutions are offered. No prosecutor drops a charge out of the goodness of his heart. He drops a charge because he knows that the charge is not legally correct, i.e. a case filed by a cop that simply won't stand up to legal scrutiny. Further, the prosecutor will drop a charge because he's going to lose the case.
     A good criminal defense lawyer is a good poker player. A good criminal defense lawyer turns the trial penalty argument on its head by telling the prosecutor that he's going to take it to trial -- a trial most states can't afford due to huge cuts in judicial budgets -- and if he loses he's going to appeal the case all the way. A good criminal defense lawyer knows most prosecutions can't afford this.
     Further, a good criminal defense lawyer knows that the trial penalty dodge won't work if he keeps his client out on bail throughout the process. What the accused doesn't want is to be stuck in jail the entire time.
    Also, the trial penalty dodge would disappear if the criminal defense lawyer would simply put into the court record that the prosecutor asserted the trial penalty. Then the criminal defense lawyer should appeal that issue. Eventually the courts will weigh in on the tactic and it will be curtailed.
   
(Required by Alabama law: No representation is made that the quality of legal services is greater than other lawyers.)
    

Small town Bay Minette Alabama to sentence convicts to church

Once again, an Alabama court process has made national headlines this week as the town of Bay Minette, Alabama announced plans to sentence offenders to church.
     The plan has, of course, drawn howls of protest from the American Civil Liberties Union, which has correctly claimed that sentencing a convict to church is against the United States Constitution.
     Many people engage in knee-jerk hatred of the ACLU because of the constant smear campaign against the organization. In actuality, the ACLU does tremendous work protecting the rights of individuals against the machine of government. I believe that the very politicians who decry the ACLU don't understand that it is fighting to preserve human liberty.
      The Bay Minette alternative sentencing program does something that is illegal: It offers people the option of going to church to avoid going to jail. This is legally wrong on many levels. In Alabama, a judge has the power to sentence a convicted offender to jail, to suspend that sentence and put the person on probation, and/or order that a fine and court costs be paid. Nowhere in the United States of Alabama Constitution is there a provision that gives a judge the power to send someone to church as part of the sentence. Also, the courts have held that it is unconstitutional to order a probationer to go to church as it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A person simply can't be made to go to church by any branch of government.
     The State of Alabama loves to interject evangelism into its governmental processes. Each time the attempt is made, there is a legal challenge costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Each time the State of Alabama loses. The most famous incident involved putting a giant granite Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court building -- a move which caused a tremendously expensive legal fight that ended up in the Ten Commandments being removed and the judge who ordered it stripped of his judgeship and disbarred from practicing law.
     Having practiced law in Alabama for 16 years, and having tried hundreds of cases in state and municipal court in Bay Minette (which is the county seat of the 28th Judicial Circuit in Alabama), I know that religion is a big part of the politics of that circuit. One circuit judge there has tried for years to sentence probationers to church, and succeeded whenever the probationer's lawyer didn't put up a fight.
     No criminal defendant can be made to attend church by any judge. Neither can a judge give a defendant the option of jail or church. It's unconstitutional. The City of Bay Minette, Alabama will learn this, and it will cost the city more money than the city can even fathom to learn the lesson.

(Required by Alabama law: No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than other lawyers.)