Comments on: Poisoned Water

By: Phelps

Phelps — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:25:38 +0000

It should be “monkey with a chainsaw” as well-used during my time in Central Texas. Maybe some regions like machine guns more.

We have a bigger budget here in the Northern District.

By: Dave W.

Dave W. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:29:41 +0000

Kerr will say the officer should be punished, but not criminally, others will either defer, or find the officer justified.

Prodded into speaking on this, Professor Kerr, at The Volokh Conspiracy, agrees with the esteemed Judge Donohoe that there is nothing that can be done to punish the officer unless the defendant waives privilege. The best he can muster is to call the situation a “mess.” Sad commentary on the state of criminal law scholarship in this nation since 9/11, but there you have it.

By: SusanK

SusanK — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:36:08 +0000

To be fair to the defense attorney, she didn’t see everything we did. Plus, it would be rather shocking to have that happen to you. When I watched the video, I was yelling things I’d say, but I probably wouldn’t have used as many f-bombs as I did in my office. She walked the line of protecting herself and her client without pissing off the court.
I told the sheriff’s deputies in my courthouse about it today. They found it outrageous themselves. I figure “warning” them not to do it is a good first line of defense. But it shouldn’t have to be said.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:11:44 +0000

@#11
It should be “monkey with a chainsaw” as well-used during my time in Central Texas. Maybe some regions like machine guns more.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:09:08 +0000

Just another reminder that the state (and agents) will do as they damn please, when they please, to whomever.

It’s cute when the little people complain.

No way that bull saunters over there on his own. This was discussed ahead of time and someone gave him the OK.

By: Ben (the other one)

Ben (the other one) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:29:39 +0000

I’m not sure the judge could see it. From my view of the tape, her view of the deputy was blocked by the defendant, the defense lawyer, and the podium. I am surprised that she didn’t grill the deputy on the spot.

As for the defense lawyer, I’m not going to throw stones. She probably was astonished and outraged, but unsure of how to proceed in an unprecedented situation. That’s totally understandable.

Both of the deputies are morons, and have no business in a courtroom; the one who picked up the document should be fired. I think Greenfield’s overreacting a bit, though.

By: Dave W.

Dave W. — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:25:12 +0000

*ORIN HAD A LITTLE LAMB, LITTLE LAMB, LITTLE LAMB*

By: Phelps

Phelps — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:20:49 +0000

Here in Texas, we have a saying to describe some judges: monkey with a machine gun. Most of the time, there’s nothing to worry about, but sometimes they just cut loose in random directions, so you try not to set them off without a good reason.

This looks like a good reason. If it was a civil case, the lawyers I work with would have moved for mistrial and a change of venue right there.

The worst part is that there’s only one real use I can see to the copy, and it’s utterly craven — it is probably on the bulletin board in the break room right now.

By: ZappaCrappa

ZappaCrappa — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:20:34 +0000

Nothing to see here….just justice being dispensed contrary to the constitution and par for the course…please move along….

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:24:22 +0000

Wow. That guy just waltzed over there, with that “I’m just walking casually, nothing to see here..” walk, saw the document he wanted peeking out of the folder… and took it.

In full view of the judge. There is no way she didn’t see that.

Did he think that document had a gun? No… he was stealing it. Probably to use against the guy after he’s sentenced.

How nice of them to give it back after making a copy.

How the hell do you defend yourself against people like this?

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:37:36 +0000

I’m not surprised that the defense lawyer, Cuccia, didn’t react more strongly. It was probably so out of the ordinary that she may have had trouble even believing it was what it appeared to be. Secondly, I think judges can be intimidating and most lawyers are a little afraid of them. Having a legitimate complaint doesn’t prevent a judge from bringing misery down around your head. It’s not like the legal profession gives a shit.

I think the judge is a moron, but she will do what she wants because she can. I doubt she will even really be personally at risk in a civil case.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:35:51 +0000

Judges, prosecutors and law enforcement are all part of the same team. Why should we be surprised by how this was handled?

By: Nick T

Nick T — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:25:29 +0000

#1 I somewhat agree.

I mean I think she could have been more demanding, I would have at least demanded the court officer explain himself right then on the record, though the court probably would have been required to not do this (or to offer him the opportunity to consult w/ counsel) given the officer’s 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.

But I was impressed with her cool once the judge asked her to calm down. At that point I would have lost it, and hurt my case as well as my client’s. I think the judge was basically baiting her to turn the matter into an issue of her behavior and holding her in contempt or something. At that point she played it smart that the judge was never going to get excited about this issue, and anger and indignation would not get her anyway. Nonetheless, I’m sure Ms. Cuccio is losing sleep over how she might have otherwise reacted.

By: Salvo

Salvo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:08:00 +0000

Yes, absolutely. This is a civil rights violation. That’s under the jurisdiction of the DOJ and indictments could be pursued in federal court.

By: dave smith

dave smith — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:54:35 +0000

I understand why a judge would not want to do much about this…these unprofessional officers protect her, after all.

But Lawyers answer this: Could this and simular incedents be under the jursidiction of a higher or a Federal court? A body that did not have conflicts of interest?

By: hattio

hattio — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:33:26 +0000

Dave W.
Damn, I thought I was the only person who had gotten as cynical. Though, I don’t actually agree with your prediction. Kerr will say the officer should be punished, but not criminally, others will either defer, or find the officer justified.

By: Dave W.

Dave W. — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:29:27 +0000

Will be interesting to see what our prosecutor buddies over at The Volokh Conspiracy will make of this. My predictin is that many fingers over there are entering many earholes, and strains of “Mary Had A Little Lamb,” sung so loud and pretty, are starting up even as I type this message.

By: Salvo

Salvo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:20:06 +0000

Excellent thoughts. I would disagree on one point–on whether the defense attorney was wrong for not objecting more strenously. I would argue that either a)she was in shock or b)felt that it wouldn’t serve her client better. Some judges, all you can do is piss them off, and since this was at sentencing, it might have hurt her client to be found in contempt herself. Sure, you can fight it later, but it doesn’t do you any good now.