Book Review: “The Last Lawyer” by John Temple

Published on 24 December 2009 by in Blog

0

Book Title: “The Last Lawyer: The Fight to Save Death Row Inmates”

Author: John Temple

Publisher: University of Mississippi Press

Bickerton-Law Rating: 4/4

Most criminal defense attorneys will attest that defendants can be wrongfully convicted for many reasons.  These reasons can include faulty witness testimony, the failure of the court to recognize the defendant’s mental deficiencies, and ineffective assistance of counsel.  For Levon “Bo” Jones, all three problems were present in his case.

In “The Last Lawyer,” John Temple tells the story of how Kenneth J. Rose and his team of attorneys from the Center for Death Penalty Litigation fought to get  Bo Jones off of death row.  Although many books about death row usually have a clear agenda, Temple gives a fair and politically neutral view of the realities of death row litigation.

While telling the story of Bo Jones and other death row inmates, Temple offers a chillingly accurate depiction of the countless hurdles criminal defense attorneys face while advocating for their clients. From over-zealous prosecutors to budgetary restraints, death row litigators are forced to cope with more than issues of innocence, guilt, and the morality of executing criminals.

Those outside of the criminal justice system are often unaware of the realities of criminal litigation. In “The Last Lawyer,” John Temple shines a light on the inadequacies that exist in the criminal justice system.  Many assume that anyone who has a jury trial has automatically received a “fair trial,” Temple shows that this is often not the case.  While reading the book, the reader is forced to ask himself: If a defendant’s attorney does not investigate the case or interview witnesses, can that attorney truly be an effective advocate?  If the state’s case is supported solely by the words of an unreliable witness, is that truly enough to support a conviction, much less the death penalty?  How accurate does the system need to be before taking a prisoner’s life?  Ultimately, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you are on, it is impossible to come away from this book without questioning whether justice is truly served in death penalty cases.

http://www.upress.state.ms.us/books/1219

Continue Reading

BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Brian Hughes

Published on 17 December 2009 by in Blog

0

Commonwealth v. Brian Hughes 2009 PA Super 240 (12/14/2009)

Topic: Forgery – Grading – Cashier’s Checks

Summary:  The Superior Court concluded that a cashier’s check, unlike a personal check, is not a commercial instrument.  Therefore, forging a cashier’s check is a second-degree felony.

*Note: In his Dissenting Opinion, Judge Fitzgerald concludes that a cashier’s check is not an “issue of money,” but a commercial instrument.

http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Superior/out/s64038_09.pdf

Continue Reading

BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Richard Thomas

Published on 17 December 2009 by in Blog

0

Commonwealth v. Richard Thomas 2009 PA Super 245 (12/16/2009)

Topic: Gun Crimes – Persons Not to Possess a Firearm – Operability of the Firearm

Summary: Under 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 6105, the firearm does not need to be operable for a defendant to be convicted of Persons Not to Possess.

http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Superior/out/a05008_09.pdf

Continue Reading

0

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that Eric Jordan, a former ACORN worker charged with voter fraud in the aftermath of the 2008 elections, was found not guilty of the charges brought against him on Wednesday, December 16, 2009.

For more information, go to:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_658113.html

Continue Reading

In the News: West Mifflin passes gun ordinance

Published on 17 December 2009 by in Blog

1

On December 15, 2009, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania (located near Pittsburgh) passed a new ordinance requiring gun owners to report their weapon stolen within 72 hours of discovering the theft.  If owners fail to comply with the ordinance, they face a possible 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.  Opponents of the ordinance believe that it is an unreasonable burden on law-abiding citizens while doing little to deter criminals.  Other opponents question the overall legality of the law.

For more information, go to:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailynewsmckeesport/s_657999.html

Continue Reading

0

A Pittsburgh man was released from the Allegheny County Jail after he was held in custody for 14 months without being brought to trial.  The Allegheny County District Attorney’s office claims that a computer glitch caused the office to miss the speedy trial deadline.

For more information, go to:

http://kdka.com/local/Wilkinsburg.rape.suspect.2.1346655.html

Continue Reading

BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Au

Published on 01 December 2009 by in Blog

0

Commonwealth v. John Au  2009 PA Super 231 (12/01/2009)

Topic: Suppression of Evidence – Mere Encounter vs. Investigative Detention

Summary: Where an officer approaches a vehicle to see if the occupants are in need of help, the mere encounter is transformed to an investigative detention when the officer persists in asking questions after he has received information showing the occupants are not in need of help.

Illustration: The defendant was in a vehicle in public parking lot hours after the establishment at which he was parked had closed. The officer claimed that he approached the vehicle to determine whether the occupants needed any help.  After approaching the vehicle, the officer asked the occupants what they were doing.  The occupants responded that they were just hanging out.  At that point, the officer asked for identification.  Judge Bender concluded that, while the approach and question about what the occupants were doing was a mere encounter, the incident became an investigative detention when the officer asked for identification.

Judge Bender aptly noted (emphasis added),

While a person in Appellee’s situation may have surmised that the officer initiated the encounter to merely check upon the vehicle and its occupants, the subsequent request for identification from all of the vehicle’s occupants would have signaled to any reasonable person that the officer was unsatisfied with the response that the occupants were just hanging out, and that the officer wanted to investigate further. Knowing that the officer sought to investigate further and that this was no longer a situation where the officer was just checking in to see if the occupants were in need of assistance, no reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the encounter.

http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Superior/out/e03002_09.pdf

Continue Reading

0

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review reports that a new business venture by Tony Ciotti, Mike Conley, and Danielle Danzuso helps people avoid driving under the influence by offering a paid designated driver service.  The business, Pear Transportation Company, is the area’s first and only designated driver service.  When a driver feels that she or he has had too much to drink, they can call Pear Transportation.  The company will send out a driver who use the customer’s own vehicle to drive him home.  The company’s owners hope their service will encourage drivers to act responsibly and avoid DUIs.

For more information about the Pear Transportation Company, go to:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/columns/heyl/s_654074.html

Continue Reading

In the News: Drug warrants issued in Penn Hills

Published on 20 November 2009 by in Blog

0

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that eight Allegheny County law enforcement agencies coordinated to execute 20 arrest and 18 search warrants for various drug charges in the Penn Hills area. While some warrants remained to be issued, at least 9 individuals were arrested.

For more information, go to:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09324/1015063-100.stm?cmpid=latest.xml

Continue Reading

0

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office has arrested individuals alleged to be part of a cocaine-selling drug ring based in Monroeville, Pennsylvania.  Fourteen people face charges related to the drug ring.

For more information, go to:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09320/1013937-100.stm?cmpid=latest.xml

Continue Reading