From Prosecutor To Public Defender?

Elizabeth Allen is a former Nampa City Prosecutor whose job was eliminated when the Canyon County Prosecutor took over the prosecutions for the city. But then:

"I get a call on Tuesday at 11:00, the day the public defenders walked out, from the new law firm taking over the public defender contract. "Can you be in court at Nampa and cover the afternoon?" I was asked. "Sure" - not like I had anything else much to do. I don't know why they called me, a prosecutor, and didn't have a lot of the old public defenders just come on and work for the new firm (again...a political issue?). So this last week I have been thrown in as a public defender. It has been very weird to switch sides and represent defendants. Although I miss the power of the prosecutor, I do like being able to work with people and help them with their cases. However, it sucks to be taking the jobs of those awesome public defenders who I have loved to work with and were amazing at their jobs."

There's more to her story and it's worth reading. Thanks to my friend Skelly for bringing this Blog to my attention: http://elizabethkallen.blogspot.com/2009/08/so-i-think-i-have-jobi-think.html

Also: Elizabeth is expecting and there is a baby name poll on her site. "Benjamin" is one of the finalists, but I favor "Atticus."

Happy Birthday to Me?

In celebration (?), here's an excerpt from The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, by T.S. Eliot (1917):

I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.


Shall I part my hair behind?
Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.


I do not think they will sing to me.


And now an explanation of that poem from The Long Goodbye, by Raymond Chandler (1953):

" 'I grow old... I grow old... I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.' What does that mean, Mr. Marlowe?"

"Not a bloody thing. It just sounds good."

He smiled. "That is from the `Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.`

Here's another one. `In the room women come and go/Talking of Michelangelo.' Does that suggest anything to you, sir?"

"Yeah -- it suggests to me that the guy didn't know very much about women."

"My sentiments exactly, sir. Nonetheless I admire T. S. Eliot very much."

"Did you say, 'nonetheless'?"

Miscellanea

1. Nice work, if you can get it: Here's a link to an article about the federal magistrate judge opening at Yosemite National Park. Visiting judges from around the county have been brought in until the position is filled. Idaho Senior Magistrate Judge Larry Boyle (pictured with his wife, Beverly) did a two week stint and his experience is featured. Judge Boyle is quoted as saying that the park is the Garden of Eden, “[b]ut the law is the same as in San Francisco or Boise or Manhattan.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/us/11yosemite.html

True, but you don't get as many Interstate Transport of Bobcat for Immoral Purposes cases in Manhattan.

2. State v. Hanington decided: In case you've been wondering about the appropriate standard of appellate review of a sentence which was imposed after a probation revocation, rest easy. The COA has finally told us: "When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original judgment."
http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/hanington%20opinion.pdf

And then, at least in my experience, the sentence will be affirmed (like in Mr. Hanington's case).

3. New Link: John Wesley Hall has a nice website on Fourth Amendment Law which updates his Search and Seizure Treatise. http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/. I've also added it to the list of Useful Sites.

Three of the Norfork Four Pardoned

For those who attended the Idaho Federal Defender's annual conference and heard New York Times reporter Alan Berlow speak about his investigation into "What Happened in Norfork," here's an update.

According to the NYT, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, citing "grave doubts" about their guilt, ordered the release of three of the sailors who were convicted in that 1997 murder and rape case. "The three, who with another sailor were known as the Norfork Four, were charged in the rape and murder of the wife of a fellow sailor. But after someone else confessed to the crime and the men remained in prison, their plight attracted a long list of supporters, including former judges, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and even some of the jurors in their cases." The pardon released the sailors from custody, but didn't expunge the convictions. The fourth sailor, who was not charged with murder, was not pardoned as he had already been released after serving eight and a half years.


Today's New York Times Article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/us/07norfolk.html?_r=1&ref=us

Alan Berlow's 2007 story is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/magazine/19Norfolk-t.html

Be sure to attend this year's "Western All Stars" Conference, August 28-29, 2009 at the Grove Hotel in Boise. It's always a great CLE and, if that's not enough for you, IACDL hosts a cocktail party after the Friday session. You can get a registration form here: http://www.fdsidaho.org/documents/brochure2.pdf

On Deck: SCOID August Arguments

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in six criminal law cases this month.

August 19: Paul Rhoades v. State is a post-conviction petition in a capital case where the district court denied petitioner's motion to amend his post-conviction petition with claims of prosecutorial misconduct.

August 21: State v. Michael Clements is a state's appeal from a district court order correcting an illegal sentence. It contends that the court did not have jurisdiction to examine the underlying facts of the case in order to determine whether the weapons enhancements originally imposed were proper.

August 24: Gene Stuart et al. v. State, is a consolidated appeal from six death-sentenced petitioners (Paul Rhoades, Randy McKinney, Gerry Pizzuto, David Card and James Hairston join Gene Stuart). These cases, upon remand from the USSCt present the question of whether Ring v. Arizona (jury must find all facts which made defendant eligible for death sentence) retroactively applies to their cases under Idaho state law even though it does not in federal habeas corpus pursuant to Schriro v. Summerlin.

August 26: State v. Jerome Korn is an appeal from a conviction for possession of wild or exotic animals and possession of deleterious exotic animals without a permit. As you might imagine, the case has an interesting set of facts, but the issue on appeal seems to be whether copies of orders from the bankruptcy court were admissible at trial even though they were not certified copies.

August 28: State v. Dale Shackelford presents several trial issues, including questions of hearsay, jury instructions on burden of proof and the unanimity requirement, a prosecutorial misconduct claim under Brady v. Maryland, and the right to counsel. In addition, the state has cross-appealed the district court's ruling setting aside the death sentence pursuant to Ring v. Arizona.

Lampien v. State concerns the scope of victim impact statements. In exchange for a plea to a Harboring a Felon, the state agreed to recommend probation and to not oppose a withheld judgment. At sentencing three police officers, who had been injured at a later time by Ms. Lampien's husband, i.e., the felon she was harboring, testified that she should go to prison. The court sentenced above the state's recommendation and imposed five years with three fixed.

SCOIDBlog will report on the opinions as soon as they are issued.

Why Your Mom Told You to Not Assume

From the Idaho Press Tribune:

"County commissioners had fired Wiebe and Fouser from their job as public defenders earlier this year. Their termination was effective Saturday. . . . Commissioners had sent Wiebe and Fouser a letter June 29 asking them to remain public defenders until Sept. 30 to give the new public defender time to prepare to take over the job. The letter stated that if Wiebe and Fouser did not want to do so, to notify the commissioners immediately. Wiebe and Fouser did not respond to the letter."

I really feel bad for them Commissioners, cos' I had something like that happen to me too. See, I got divorced from my wife of ten years. She was real nice and all. Cleaned the house, cooked the dinners, even raised up them brats. But she was spendin' too much of my money and I was in the mood for summin' new. Ya know? Anyways, the divorce become official on December 30th. But before then, I gets engaged to this real sweet little gal who promised she wouldn't cost me as much. So, good deal for me, right? We set the wedding for Valentine's Day 'cos she lived out-of-town and she needed time to pack up and move and all. She thought that was real romantic.

But what was I gonna do in the meantime? A man's got his needs. Then I comes up with this idea. I sends a note to my old wife sayin' that I'd like to go out with her on New Year's Eve and that I'd meet her at the Elks like always unless I heard otherwise. And guess what? I get all dressed up and went over there and that bitch never showed! Pissed me off cos' the other Elks were all laughin' at me. I asked her to respond if she weren't coming! So I just assumed she was gonna be there. And I was gonna pay fer her steak and them Cosmos she likes to drink, so it wasn't like she weren't getting somethin' too. I don't unnerstand what I did wrong and I guess them Commissioners don't either.

No Public Defender in Canyon County (Updated x 2)

Judge Hurlbutt has denied Wiebe & Fouser's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. W&F's contract was terminated by the County Commissioners effective Friday and Mark Mimura is not contracted to start until October. Even though the decision was made on Friday, it was not served on the parties until yesterday. Wiebe and Fouser lawyers stopped working after the decision was received from the court.

The Idaho Press Tribune quotes Canyon County spokesperson Angie Sillonis as saying that
"[t]he commissioners received no notice and are very concerned." She went on to say that: "It appears assigned public defenders are choosing to not meet with their own clients, which puts everyone in an awful position. But the board remains committed to assuring services to the people of Canyon County."

How's that? The Commissioners didn't have any notice that they terminated the contract effective July 31? And the Commissioners didn't know that Mark Mimura isn't supposed to start until October 1? Really? Sad, if true.

Anyway, if the county was really concerned about providing public defender service why did they terminate W&F's contract early so they could get a lower bid? It's fairly obvious that the Commissioners just want to save a buck and don't give a fig about public defense.

Here's the story from the Idaho Press Tribune.
http://www.idahopress.com/?2009-08-04-Judge-Canyon-county-without-public-defender

UPDATE: And for those who enjoy irony, the Press Tribune is also reporting that the Canyon County Prosecutor has asked the Commissioners for more money so he can raise staff salaries! http://www.idahopress.com/?2009-07-31-Prosecutor-sheriff-seek-raises-for-most-staff Doesn't it make more sense for the prosecutors to take a pay cut given the Commissioners have just put the PDs out of business?

SECOND UPDATE: SCOIDBlog has learned that no one from Canyon County has bothered to go over to W&F and retrieve case files. That doesn't show much of a commitment to "assuring services to the people of Canyon County," if you ask me.

Also, the fact that the Commissioners have terminated the PD contract without making adequate provision for new counsel can't be good cause to set trials past the six-month speedy trial time, can it?