Too good to pass up:
One does not ordinarily maintain an area as a lawn with the intention of using it, and allowing others to use it, as a road. See Proulx v. D’Urso, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 701, 704 n. 2 (2004)
Carlson v. Fontanella, No. 07-P-1410. , decided today by the Appeals Court
The best part, I think, is that they needed to cite another case for that proposition.
Posted by AndyCowan on April 29th, 2009 :: Filed under
A Day in the LifeTags ::
civil case,
Things that are funny
We had a presentation today before a good turn out of the Hampden county bar advocates who practice in the Springfield District Court of our very own production, “As the Fifth Turn…” (Written and directed by Lawrence Madden.) It was fun, we got to goof around and mug before our colleagues, presenting a skit on what to do when a fifth amendment case comes along and you’re appointed to represent a witness. And then there was a productive roundtable about the real issues we come across, particularly and most importantly being judges essentially bullying you into either giving up your client’s privilege or browbeating the defendant in the case into pleading before trial.
These are some fairly complicated issues, which I think were quite helpful. The script was peppered with clever jokes (including diabolical laughter from the prosecutor), but I think the lesson was clear: if you find a fifth, your job is to stand the line. Anything between you and the client is confidential, and the court should take your word on your assessment. (A lot of our job it seems is to stand the line…)
I think a little more could’ve been had – and this is no critique of the people who ran the meeting, time was simply just too short – on finding the fifth. There seems to be a lot of dissent on where a fifth exists; I’m of the mind that anything that could be potentially used against your client is a fifth amendment privilege. But others disagree.
But it’ll be interesting to see if the talk will have had an effect.
I was also kind of surprised to hear that many attorneys either didn’t know or didn’t bother counting these appointments as appointments for purposes of their billing. I mean, charity is as charitable does, but some of these issues can be complex and require a heavy time commitment.
I’ve yet to be appointed to represent someone pleading the fifth… but I look forward to that day.
Posted by Alex Ramos on April 29th, 2009 :: Filed under
A Day in the LifeTags ::
appointments,
fifth amendment
“In March, 2007, with Chubbuck’s consent, both cases were filed pending restoration of his [Chubbuck's] competency.”
–Chubbuck v. Commonwealth, SJC-10190, decided 4/28/09
*Posts with the “not my client” tag refer to individuals who neither the authors nor their agency represented on the case being referred to. All information in these posts is gleaned from non-confidential sources.
Posted by AndyCowan on April 29th, 2009 :: Filed under
Judicial Pearls of WisdomTags ::
not my client,
things that don't quite make sense
After a full day trial and 10 minutes of deliberation, guilty as charged on all counts: possession of class C, possession of class E, possession with intent to distribute class D in a school zone.
Not my client, but still sickeningly fast for a 2-year mandatory minimum. The evidence wasn’t that damning!
For those don’t deal with this stuff–I understand the fear of people dealing drugs to schoolkids, but 2 years in jail for being within 1,000 feet of a school is draconian. Most people’s homes are in school zones, and the court has no discretion to consider the gravity of the particular facts, the defendant’s record, or whether there is any evidence that the defendant was selling to children.
You could do a lot worse than sell a bit of weed in your bedroom and walk away with fines or probation.
Posted by AndyCowan on April 23rd, 2009 :: Filed under
A Day in the LifeTags ::
courtwatching,
not my client,
rural courts,
things that are wrong
The Des Moines Register reports today that two Iowans are getting new trials to decide whether they will be committed to a prison hospital–likely for life–for sex offender “treatment.”
These men have already been tried and convicted of sex offenses and served out the sentences in their criminal cases. Under Iowa law, they get a second trial at the end of their sentence to determine whether they will be committed. At the second trial, the government must prove by expert testimony that 1) the person suffers from a mental abnormality, and 2) that the abnormality renders the person sexually dangerous.
And that’s why they’re getting a new trial. The state jumped through all the hoops, got the men committed… And then the State’s expert was fired from his hospital job and sentenced to seven years in the state prison for kiddie porn. Oops.
Footnote: I’m posting this from my iPhone in court. Which I think is really cool that I can do, but it’s not the full WordPress interface. So, I’ll dress this entry up a bit more, and add kinks, when I get back to a real computer.
Posted by AndyCowan on April 23rd, 2009 :: Filed under
In the NewsTags ::
Iowa,
things that are wrong