So You Want To Be A Prosecutor? 6 Rules to get started.

Posted on May 15, 2012 by Bruce Reilly

I have recently had several conversations with aspiring prosecutors, all of whom have an idealist desire to punish wrong-doers and protect the public.  It became obvious that they had very limited experience with the criminal justice system at all.  I haven’t heard any of them mention corporate criminals and massive fraud.  Outside of highly-policed communities, most knowledge about the criminal justice system comes from fiction, or a 30 second clip on the six o’clock news.  News flash: hardly any will get a made-for-TV movie case, write a book, and get on the speaking circuit.  The real job is very repetetive, threatening to jade and bleed your soul.   And you need to be armed with knowledge.

Here are six rules (of thousands) that people should consider as they enter the field.

Rule 1: If you aren’t willing to be a Whistle Blower, you should not be a prosecutor.

It is generally considered to be a bad thing to tell on one’s co-workers.  In the criminal underworld, “snitches get stitches” (or worse), whether or not the prosecutor rewards the snitch with leniency or immunity from prosecution.  However, in the corporate realm the snitches (or whistleblowers) get blackballed and sued.  In foreign policy, the whistleblowers get called traitors.  In the police force, whistleblowers are deemed betrayers to the Blue Wall of Silence.

This is a primary flaw in our code of justice, when the enforcers are unable to enforce against themselves.  There are dirty cops and dirty prosecutors.  If a District Attorney is not committed to keeping an ethical office, or unable to do so, they lose credibility when trying to hold others accountable.  The law becomes a cruel joke rather than something loftier than human foibles.  There is a lot of pressure to go with the flow, not make waves, and earn a promotion for loyalty.  (Oh, you want to be judge?)

Ironically, criminal entities are often more “ethical” on this issue than government entities.  The general principal amongst gangs and associations is to police one’s own, lest someone else have to do it for you.  And the latter becomes a mess.  What if a young prosecutor caught their superior withholding evidence?  Look the other way when a witness seemed to be a clear liar (yet helped their case)?  Would they keep their mouth shut?  If so, they are engaged in criminal activity and have thrown their initial idealism to the wayside.  A prosecutor needs to enforce the laws equally, particularly when a criminal  in government can have far more detriment on society than an everyday drug dealer.

Rule 2:  The adversarial system is not balanced.

Just to dispel a quick myth: only in the world of corporate law is there a system of two balanced adversaries with a neutral judge as referee.  In criminal law, the millions of dollars invested into each local police force is not done on an impartial “justice-seeking” manner.  The police and prosecutors see themselves on the same team: the Executive Branch that enforces laws.  The accused are not considered by the Executive as innocent until proven guilty; they are like hounds locked onto a scent.  The defense attorneys, meanwhile, are seen as the opposition.  The Public Defender is part of the Executive Branch as well, and they handle a large bulk of ordinary crimes.  They do not have such a cozy partnership with the police.

Defense attorneys must hire their own investigators, who lack the authority of police to arrest and interrogate and flash a badge.  These resources are limited.  Hiring professional experts, or getting scientific testing (such as DNA) is a far different process when the defense is making the request.

The judges in criminal cases are often former prosecutors who made their mark by getting convictions in murder and other sensationalized cases.  They are human, they have a bias.  Furthermore, juries rarely represent the socio-economic background of the defendant.  With police officers often not coming from the communities they monitor, there are multiple stages of bias that a typical defendant travels through along the System.

Rule 3:  Police are human, they don’t always tell the truth.

Anyone who believes that any occupation is infallible, should not be in the business of truth-gathering.  Some religious leaders have, and will, molest children.  Some Wall Street executives have, and will, rob millions and billions of dollars from people- with complex and simple schemes, they have stolen from taxpayers and investors alike.  Some political leaders are liars.  Some cops are dirty.  This should be a sticky note hanging off every noble prosecutor’s computer monitor.

A lot hangs in the balance with one lying police officer.  The lives of a defendant, and their families, have been ruined by one liar.  Some of these officers are protecting their own criminal enterprises.  Some are simply unwilling to admit a mistake, as we all have done, and would rather see someone else pay the consequence for fear of their own paycheck being cut.  And some are unwilling to tell the truth about their co-worker.  The list of cover-ups by cops is long and notorious.  In New Orleans, for instance, the resistance to finding the truth about the Danziger Bridge killings was huge, and included many members of the NOPD and Orleans District Attorney who did not want to know that the police killed innocent and unarmed citizens of the city.

Many prosecutors have suborned perjury by turning a blind eye to lies.  They refuse to cross-check their witnesses, or don’t bother to reveal the evidence that contradicts the officer.  With no accountability for prosecutors who pretend not to know the Brady Rule (turn over exculpatory evidence), there is no incentive to seek truth and justice other than one’s own internal compass.  Check yourself, and see whose word is taken for granted, and whose is treated with suspicion.

Rule 4:  The most concentrated group of drug users are young White people.

Want to wage the War on Drugs?  Go where the users are: college campuses.  Start a task force and raid dorms and Greek houses based on the smell of marijuana.  This will eliminate a feeling of racial bias in your law enforcement; it will also be the most efficient.  Public housing, for example, is disproportionately elderly people yet gets a great deal of police attention.

Think twice about your drug war strategies when you release a full-blown addict on a drug mission, all because they gave a statement against someone you want to incarcerate.  First, you are taking the word of someone who has been lying to their own family to get drugs.  Second, you are putting them on the street at their most dangerous without even forcing a detox period.  Prosecutors who engage in this behavior are bulking up the unreliable convictions and furthering drug use in the community.  This is common practice.

Rule 5:  If a majority of a community doesn’t trust government, there’s a problem.

The government draws its powers from the consent of the governed.  When the people no longer give that consent, the government will be abolished.  So said the Drafters of the Declaration of Independence, and the sentiment is true today.  Government officials should keep in mind this principle as consent is enforced.  You need to be aware of both reality and perception of reality.

There is a growing sentiment amongst Latino, Muslim, and other people that they are always suspects.  Such people would never call the police for assistance personally or in the community.  They cede protection, as it can be more dangerous than fending for oneself.  Because we all know what happens to suspects.  As prosecutors move forward with enforcement choices, take the time to consider what parents are teaching their children about the police.

6.  Enforce the Laws the People give you.

A common defense raised by police or prosecutors regarding an unjust law, such as marijuana possession, is “I just enforce the laws they give me.”  True- as laws are supposed to be passed by a separate legislature that represents The People.  The problem is that the super-lobbying of Attorney Generals dictates the process. District Attorneys run for election based on increasing laws, increasing punishments, and it becomes very redundant.  If a prosecutor’s boss is going to use their weight to pass laws, a prosecutor should do the same.  Think marijuana use should be legal?  Say something.  Or don’t say anything about any of the laws- the whole occupation should just enforce the laws the People give them.

And after J.P. Morgan, the “ethical” of the banks, told us they schemed the till as well… do you still think petty criminals are the national threat in America?  We spent a trillion dollars trying to keep the banks upright, so they could in turn save us all- or so the story was told.

Related articles
Posted in Commentary, Drug Policy, Innocence, Legislation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Officer: “I Don’t Give a F#@K Ni**er!” (prior to the shooting)

Posted on May 5, 2012 by Bruce Reilly

Following a pattern of racial slurs and racial abuse by members of White Plains Police Department, the Attorney General definitively proved that they cannot indict a ham sandwich (as the old adage goes).  After 68 year old Marine Kenneth Chamberlain told police he was alright, over the course of 15 minutes, they finally broke in his door and killed him immediately.  It is captured on police video.

Is LifeAid liable?  The call began when Chamberlain’s LifeAid alert accidentally went off.  The company chose to contract with local police to intervene.  If prior racial incidents were not enough to put LifeAid on notice of potential for trouble, this incident should cause them to question if they can afford to send the police to respond to a “Good Samaritan” request.  The LifeAid dispatcher, at first, was repeatedly asking Chamberlain to open the door and tell the police he is alright.  After a 15 minute exchange, all captured on audio, clearly the police were not taking “No” for an answer- including the response that “I don’t give a F#@k Ni**er.”

Initially the police said Mr. Chamberlain had a hatchet, and now they say it was a butter knife.  Are we hiring police who are in fear for their lives of grandfathers in their boxer shorts?  Watch for yourself.  If local residents had broken down Chamberlain’s door to save his life, they would not be charged with breaking and entering.  If they broke it down after an exchange like this?  If they shot him, despite their superior force, after breaking down the door?  Mr. Chamberlain would not have been charged if he shot a citizen who broke down his door, especially one who used racial slurs towards him.  This man called the police for help, from the police.

LifeAid tried cancelling the call.  Chamberlain’s sister tried to intervene.  Clearly nothing was going to stop the White Plains Police Department from breaking into Kenneth Chamberlain’s home, and based on the video people can make their own determinations if anything could have saved this man from being shot.

The secret grand jury process did not issue an indictment.  After this decision, the police released this audio and video- there is no indication if the grand jury members had access to any of this information.  The Attorney General need not have pursued this process, and the decision need not stand.  Traditionally, new evidence always authorizes a fresh investigation.  Considering as no police officers were ever charged with anything, the protections of Double Jeopardy do not come into play.

Calls have been made for a Federal probe, and they need only expand the current racial abuse probe of these same officers.  Naturally, some will say: “I just don’t see how this thing is about ‘race’!”

Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr. is the face of our American veterans:  Living in public housing, senior citizen, medical alert around his neck, possibly with the mental issues that are common amongst seniors and vets.  If this is not about race, then perhaps it is about how we “Support the Troops.”  Regardless of one’s political ideology, behavior such as this cannot be treated as a “mistake” and continue to pay these people out of the public funds.

Posted in Commentary, Mental Health, Race | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Putting Prison-Based Gerrymandering On The Map… And How We Take It Off.

Posted on May 3, 2012 by Bruce Reilly

How did a man with a PowerPoint presentation turn into a piece of legislation I pushed on my legislators and allies?  With his passion for social justice and intelligence to develop a core issue about democracy.  I’m honoring that dedication by voting for him for the Maria Leavy Tribute Award.

Peter Wagner built the national movement to keep the prison industrial complex from exercising undue influence on the political process.  He exposed an ancient Census Bureau rule that allowed pro-prison legislators to bar people in prison from voting and then claim their political clout.  It’s called prison-based gerrymandering.  It violates the constitutional guarantee of “one-person-one-vote” and resembles the three-fifths clause of the Constitution that gave the South extra representation for their slaves.

Peter demonstrated that the problem was real, and then he changed the frame to build a bipartisan urban and rural movement where almost everyone benefits from ending prison-based gerrymandering.  Today, four states have outlawed the practice of prison-based gerrymandering and the Census Bureau is starting to take notice.

Working for much of the decade without formal funding or institutional support, Peter built the movement from the ground up.  He used his blog on the PrisonersoftheCensus.org website to develop the movement’s consensus around messaging and the necessary federal, state and local solutions.  He seized the imagination of the press, of criminal justice reformers, and good government groups and over a decade built one of the major civil rights victories of the past decade.

Peter deserves credit for having the vision to see how mass incarceration was diluting our right to vote, and for having both the skills and the drive to build a successful movement for change.

Vote for Peter, Here.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Bursting The System: Louisiana Holds a Hearing To Sell State Prisons

Posted on April 11, 2012 by Bruce Reilly

Louisiana’s House Appropriations Committee held a hearing today on HB 850, regarding the sale of Avoyelles Correctional Center, and the authorization to sell every prison built after 1989.  This would follow the direction of Arizona and Florida, and possibly lead to The GEO Group, Inc. having a third prison in the most incarcerated state in the world.  To understand this proposal, it is important to know the players, a bit of history, and a bit of economics.  For an excellently detailed overview of the proposal, see Ryan West’s “Penny Wise, Pound Foolish” at Louisiana Progress.

Today’s hearing was action-packed, to say the least, with nearly 200 people in the room.  Over 50 wore matching t-shirts; but rather than your typical grassroots activists demanding humane treatment for prisoners, the people were prison employees and spouses standing in solidarity.  After all, prisons in America are primarily protected and supported as jobs programs rather than as a societal need.  Avoyelles prison was built because a judge ordered Louisiana to stop overcrowding, and it was unenthusiastically accepted in the parish as a way to employ locals.  Unemployment at that time, according to former Avoyelles Rep. Raymond Laborde, was 12-14%.

I walked in late, due to testifying on behalf of V.O.T.E.’s bill, HB 295, to end licensing discrimination for people with criminal records.  (More on that later.)  But when I did arrive, the grilling of DOC Secretary Jimmy LeBlanc and Governor Jindahl’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Kristy Nichols, was in full swing.  I was wondering if anyone had pointed out that Jindahl received $28,500 from the for-profit prisons over the years.  Rep. James Armes moved that this hearing be presented to the full House, rather than just the Appropriations Committee, as this is the first time the state was authorizing something so serious as selling a multi-million dollar asset.  It was defeated, 11-10 (Voting in favor: Armes, Brossett, Burrell, Geymann, James, Leger, Montoucet, Moreno, Smith, Thierry.)

Nichols claimed that we have the right of first refusal when the 20 years is up, to buy the prison back, and there is a reversionary clause in case the corporation went bankrupt or performance measures were not met.  I was curious what those performance measures were.  As was pointed out later, none of that language is in the statute and we have no contract to look at; furthermore, Avoyelles Parish District Attorney Charles Riddle later countered Nichols, saying that such a statute won’t overrule a federal bankruptcy court.

If It Ain’t Broke, Why Fix It?

Rep. Roy Burrell elicited the statement from Secretary LeBlanc that our prison system was “not broken.”  He wanted to know why we were trying to fix it, and at the cost of driving all the prison employees into poverty level wages?  His inquiry, along with others, made it clear that the Governor and LeBlanc put little, if any, value on Louisianans earning a living wage.  All of the savings were admittedly coming through shifting union jobs into WalMart level jobs starting at $8 an hour, climbing to $10 after three years.

Where will the money go?  This was Rep. Brett Geymann’s chief concern, and he moved for an amendment that they be mandated into the Budget Stabilization Fund, rather than the Rainy Day Fund which can be spent in a single day.  After an objection by Appropriations Chairman Jim Fannin (who has received at least $4000 from for-profit prisons, and represents the district where CCA operates Winn prison), the vote went forward and lost via tie, 12-12.  The yeas were nearly the same as those supporting the other amendment.  As this bill came up last year, clearly most legislators already have a position.

A long list of malfeasance and criminality was listed at the Allen and Winn prisons, run by GEO and CCA, respectively.  It was a rap sheet that easily could have been lifted from Private Corrections Working Group, known for watchdogging GEO, CCA and others.  Somehow, nobody mentioned similar conduct by homegrown for-profit prison corporation, LCS Corrections Service, run by Michael LeBlanc.  LCS changed their name from Premier Enterprise Services after an ethics scandal, and was founded by the late Patrick LeBlanc.  LCS owns four prisons in Louisiana, a consistent donor, and presumably would also be in position to bid on Avoyelles.

Former U.S. Representative Jimmy Hayes had the line of the day, when referring to the need for the best prison possible: “When released they don’t go to Ex-Con Land, they move next to me and you.”  (Considering that I’m headed for a degree from his alma mater, he may be righter than he thinks.)  It sounded like the politicians were starting to get the larger prison picture, a trend happening throughout the country.  Hayes pushed back on another bit of misinformation by Nichols: this bill applies to the sale of all prisons built after 1989, not only Avoyelles.  I managed to scratch off yet another of my long list of notes.

Convict Lease Labor and Bursting the System

Senator Rick Gallot’s scathing indictment of the entire concept had the entire chamber on edge.  Like the financial gurus of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Gallot also pointed out that the parishes are getting free labor from prisoners across the state.  A point amplified by Alexandria Mayor Jacque Roy, that for GEO or CCA to rent out their prisoners to the highest bidder is a return to “a form of peonage; we haven’t done that in many years.”  He made a valid point about this not saving money, in so many ways it doesn’t, but I couldn’t help rolling my eyes in hearing such a thing, in a state with a prison famously known as “The Farm,” where guards on horseback oversee what looks exactly like a plantation.

“If we’re going to be so tough on crime, there is a price to pay for it,” Gallot said.  I went into the room wanting to say one fundamental thing: the private prison corporations create growth by growing, and bursting, the entire system.  Considerable talk throughout the nation has focused on what influence private industry can have on society by owning the prisons, and owning a profit-motive for more prisoners.  Since 2001, GEO, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), and Cornell Corrections have spent $22 million on lobbying Congress alone.  With the help of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), GEO and CCA have employed nearly 300 lobbyists in seventeen states over the past decade.  These corporations have also given over $10 million to political campaigns over the past decade, including $1.9 million in 2010 alone.  What do they ask for?

GEO Board of Executives

“In particular, the demand for our correctional and detention facilities and services could be adversely affected by changes in existing criminal or immigration laws, crime rates in jurisdictions in which we operate, the relaxation of criminal or immigration enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction, sentencing or deportation practices, and the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal laws or the loosening of immigration laws.  For example, any changes with respect to the decriminalization of drugs and controlled substances could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.  Immigration reform laws which are currently a focus for legislators and politicians at the federal, state and local level also could materially adversely impact us.”  GEO Group, 2007 Annual Report, Financials p.20.

Clearly, all those lobbyists are fighting to stop the decriminalization of marijuana, to lengthen sentences, eliminate Good Time credits, curtail parole, incarcerate immigrants, maintain mandatory minimums, and increase Three Strikes laws.  An incisive report about this “Unholy Alliance,” is worth the read.  This goes against the popular sentiment across the nation, whether for humanitarian or financial reasons, as mass incarceration has had no useful effect on our communities.  As suspected, California has responded to the Supreme Court’s order to reduce their cruel and unusual overcrowding by increasing capacity rather than decreasing prisoners.

The number of prisoners has more than doubled since 1990, when private prisons began to ramp up their game; their number of caged humans went up 1664% between 1990 and 2009.  CCA and GEO are both billion dollar companies, with their CEO’s Damon Hininger and Jay Zoley earning $3.3 and $3.5 million per year, respectively.  The largest shareholder in CCA, Wellington Management, is also the third-largest shareholder in GEO.  Top holders are the likes of Fidelity, Vanguard, and Wells Fargo.  Each of these owners all have their own interest in advancing their investments.  From my perspective as a prison reformer, I always said, “That’s okay, keep locking folks up.  You’ll see.”  In 2002, the National Institute on Money in State Politics tried raising this already problematic issue, with “Contributing Influence: Private Prison Giving In The South”  (But who reads these things?)  GEO and CCA are confounding the Burst The System strategy, however, as it clouds the People from truly recognizing the basic mathematics of this equation.  As Senator Neil Riser (Chairman of the Finance Committee) said, “We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.  This ain’t going away.  Right or wrong, we believe in locking people up in Louisiana.”

This Deal Is A “Stupid” Reverse Mortgage

Senator Eric LaFleur was perhaps the bluntest of the bunch.  As a man with three private prisons in his district, he had to stick up for one of his prime voter constituencies: the Avoyelles prison guards and families.  However, as a public finance attorney, the man checks the fine print.  GEO and CCA may be wishing they had back the $6000 (likely more) they have given him over the years, as he called this deal nothing more than a “Reverse Mortgage.”  He bypassed the jobs argument and focused on the “stupid” concept of us selling a state-owned asset and then paying to use it.  “Why not sell it all?”  Chico State Park, Sycamore Point, Superdome, state police… “Won’t we be better off?”  LaFleur accused them of hiding behind this deal because they aren’t signing the note, and they should all vote “No” because this could happen in their district next for the same wrong reasons.

One thing completely off my radar: securing the mineral rights under Avoyelles’ 1200 acres, in a county where oil leasing has been on the rise.  District Attorney Riddle brought the committee to math class: The proposal does not factor in the cost of financing or overseeing the contract, and the numbers are based on only ONE of the seven Requests For Information (RFI) last year.  The $31.50 per diem that is touted as a savings is only guaranteed for the first three years [there is the fine print I was looking for], and many of the politicians, including Jindahl, will be long gone when the piper comes to collect.  The privatization, unlike health care where patients have a choice, comes with an unheard of guarantee that it is 96% full.  I wanted to shout out one of my other key points: CCA and GEO will screen out the unhealthy prisoners, thereby jacking up costs on the public prisons- just like charter schools do with special education.  But Riddle was rolling, and I didn’t feel like being kicked out on my first day in the legislature.

Riddle exclaimed that the closing of Forcht-Wade drug rehab prison was a “horrible answer” as it reduces recidivism.  Along the same prison growth mantra, former Rep. Laborde sharply criticized the recent moves to increase Avoyelles capacity and to spend $800,000 on new windows, all to impress their potential buyers.  Someone mentioned that the most important part of the attached fiscal note is at the very end: “until the facilities and operations are bid, the potential savings to the state is indeterminable.”  That pretty much took away the bulk of my testimony… except for this nice list of people overtly receiving money from the private prison companies.  Keep in mind that the large party donations can be filtered to whomever they wish, and this does not include the many employees and shareholders of these corporations.

Nationally, GEO and CCA have spent nearly $20 million on lobbying in the past eight years.

REGISTERED LOBBYISTS IN LOUISIANA- 2011

Randy Haynie, Corrections Corp. of America

Duane Cowart, The GEO Group

Linda, Mathew, & Thomas Spradley, The GEO Group

Jack Whitehead, The GEO Group

*American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) (See: Composition of ALEC Committees)

Campaign Contributions

CCA, GEO, and LCS have given over $295,500 to Louisiana politicians since 1990.  (Data for GEO dates to 1999.  LCS was formerly known as Premier Enterprise Services, until a Texas ethics scandal.)
  • Ø In 2010, over $2.4 million was spent on state politics by GEO and CCA, nationwide.
  • Ø Private Prisons benefit by bursting the state system.

CAMPAIGN DONATIONS: For-Profit Prison Corporations (1990-2011, Partial Listing)
DOLLARS RECIPIENT SELECT POSITIONS

$49,500

 LOUISIANA REPUBLICAN PARTY

28500

 Bobby Jindal (R) Governor

22500

 SENATE DEM. CAMPAIGN CMTE LA

15750

 David Vitter (R) U.S. Senate

14000

 REPUB. LEG. DELEG. CMPGN CMTE LA

13400

 Mary L Landrieu (D) U.S. Senate

19000

 BLANCO, KATHLEEN BABINEAUX Former Governor

11750

 Rodney Alexander (R) U.S. House D-5, District of-Winn, LaSalle, Pine Prairie, Caldwell Parish, J.B. Evans, Avoyelles Prisons

8000

 CAIN, JAMES DAVID Ret. Senate

7500

 TUCKER, JIM Frmr. Speaker of House

6000

 HOUSE DEM. CMPGN CMTE OF LA

6000

 LAFLEUR, ERIC S Jud. B / Finance, D-Allen, Pine Prairie, South Louisiana, Avoyelles Prisons

5500

 MARTINY, DANIEL R (DANNY) S Parliamentarian / Judiciary A

4000

 FANNIN, JIM H Appropriations (Chair), D-Winn Prison

3500

 HILL, DOROTHY SUE D- Allen Prison

3500

 IEYOUB, RICHARD Fmr. A.G. of LA

3000

 CHANDLER, BILLY

3000

 Townsend, T Taylor

3000

 LONG, GERALD S Finance D- Winn Prison

2500

 HILL, HERMAN RAY

2500

 Smith, Kenneth Mike

2500

 MICHOT, MIKE

2500

 FIELDS, WILSON

2000

 ALARIO JR, JOHN A Senate President

2000

 ELLINGTON, NOBLE E

2000

 MARIONNEAUX, ROBERT (ROB)

2000

 MURRAY, EDWIN S Judiciary A / Finance

2000

 RISER, NEIL S Revenue (Chair) / Homeland Security, D- LaSalle/Caldwell Parish Prisons

2000

 KENNEDY, JOHN N

2000

 MELANCON, CHARLES U.S. House, fmr.

2000

 DUNCAN, KEN

1700

 FOTI JR, CHARLES Fmr. A.G. of LA

1500

 Nowlin, Rick

1500

 DONAHUE, JACK S Judiciary A / Finance (Chair)

1500

 Cravins, Donald

1500

 Hines, Donald

1500

 DECUIR, JASON M

1250

 LAMBERT, EDDIE J H Homeland Security

1250

 MORRIS, JAMES H (JIM) H Appropriations

1250

 ROBIDEAUX, JOEL C H Ways and Means (Chair)

1000

 CALDWELL, BUDDY Attorney General

1000

 CORTEZ, PAGE

1000

 CROWE, A G S Labor (Chair)

1000

 Kostelka, Robert W (Bob) S Judiciary C (Chair)

1000

 DUPLESSIS, ANN

1000

 HEITMEIER, DAVID S Health & Welfare (Chair)

1000

 Terrell, Suzanne

1000

 John Fleming (R) U.S. House D-4, D- Allen Prison

1000

 MCPHERSON, JOE (PSC)

1000

 PINAC, GIL

1000

 SCALISE, STEPHEN J U.S. House D-1

1000

 THOMPSON, FRANCIS S Finance, D- J.B. Evans Prison

1000

 LeBlanc, Jerry

750

 CONNICK, PATRICK H Appropriations / Judiciary

750

 HARRISON, JOSEPH (JOE) H Appropriations / Judiciary

750

 LABRUZZO, JOHN

550

 LOUISIANA DEMOCRATIC PARTY

500

 Adley, Robert S Judiciary C

500

 Armes III, James K H Appropriations

500

 Buffington, Sherri Smith S Homeland Security (Chair) / Finance

500

 Downs, Hollis

500

 Jackson, Lydia

500

 Katz, Kay

500

 McVea Thomas

500

 Ritchie, Harold

500

 Salter, Joe

500

 Tucker, Jim

500

 Walsworth, Mike S Finance

500

 St. Germain, Karen H Transportation, Public Works(Chair)

500

 Montgomery, Billy Wayne

500

 Heitmeir, Francis

500

 WOOTON, ERNEST DURHAM

500

 CARTER, STEVE

500

 DARDENNE, JAY

500

 HUDSON, CHARLES

500

 LANDRY, JEFF

400

 ODOM, BOB

300

 NUNGESSER, BILLY

250

 GEYMANN, BRETT H Appropriations

250

 GUILLORY, MICKEY J H Criminal Justice, D- S. Louisiana Prison

250

 HAZEL, CHRIS H Criminal Justice

250

 LEBAS, H BERNARD D- Pine Prairie Prison

250

 LEGER III, WALT H Speaker Pro Tempore

250

 LIGI, ANTHONY V (TONY) H Appropriations

250

 PEARSON, KEVIN

250

 SCHRODER, JOHN M H Appropriations

250

 SMITH JR, GARY L S Judiciary B

250

 SMITH, PATRICIA H H Appropriations

250

 WHITE JR, MACK (BODI) S Judiciary C / Finance

200

 HOLDEN, MELVIN L (KIP)

200

 JOHNSON, TIM
TOTAL

$295,500

Source: Open Secrets.org, FollowTheMoney.org, DataInfluenceExplorer.com
Related articles
Posted in Legislation, prison economics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

“Racism” returns to America. Where Did It Go?

Posted on March 30, 2012 by Bruce Reilly
Trayvon Martin Protest - Sanford

Trayvon Martin Protest - Sanford (Photo credit: werthmedia)

If the public issues of racism are back, and surprisingly to some, then this means racism must have gone somewhere, right?  It is important to remember that many of us are very segregated in our lives, particularly by class.  Racism over the past few decades has not been as prevalent amongst the upper classes, which includes civil rights attorneys and Ivy League professors who may be exposed to the public cases yet not the private indignities.

The Upper Class holds the microphones.  When 1000, or 100,000, people take to the streets and say “We’re sick and tired,” many have responded: Sick and tired of what?  The bottom line is that racism has been hiding in the framework of Law and Order and Crime and Punishment.  With the number of police in America, particularly concentrated in Communities of Color (including almost every school), there is a sense that “they” are being kept under control.  The police are vigilant at pursuing drug use amongst poor people, amongst Black and Latino people, yet not amongst the wealthy.  The police will stop and frisk people in certain neighborhoods, and yet it would be unthinkable amongst the wealthy; amongst the people with the microphones.  When Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates was treated like “just another Black suspect” a few years ago, he was exposed to the daily indignities that “they” are sick and tired of.  We see Obama, Holder, Sotomayor, Thomas, Rice, and others among the elites, and want history to be under control.  Yet the control of certain communities comes with a cost.

Poor people don’t need statistics on the criminal justice system to understand how their community is being impacted.  In highly-policed communities, everyone is either directly impacted or one degree removed.  Between arrest rates, sentencing, parole decisions, and post-incarceration damages… a large but publicly voiceless community knows the score.  Like Frantz Fanon wrote in the Wretched of the Earth, “The peasant doesn’t need to talk about the truth.  The peasant is the truth.”

As the Trayvon Martin troubles come to a boil, we have a population in New Orleans who are sick and tired after the police killed two young Black men in a week.  The people of New York found out that an accidental health alert resulted in the police kicking in the door, tasering, and killing an elderly Black veteran.  On tape one of the police used the “N” word.  The people are sick and tired.  They are tired in St. Louis when a few days ago an anonymous tip revealed that a Black woman was hauled away from the emergency room, where her calls for help were interpreted as a drug addict seeking drugs.  She claimed to be in too much pain to walk, so she was cuffed and carried to the police station, where she died from a blood clot.  No drugs were anywhere in her body.

In a country that is only 12% Black and over two-thirds White, it may seem curious how such stories are commonplace- and the victims are overwhelmingly Black.  We have been numb.  Race-based tendencies are stoked.  Whenever the police are involved, there is a presumption of “they must have deserved it,” and some people with microphones brush race-based statements under the rug.  Some like to say the Trayvon Martin case is not about race.  It is a difficult assertion to take seriously when his killer is heard on the phone telling the police, casually, he is sick of these Fu**ing C**ns.”

When people come to this country, no matter their color or nationality, they often have something in common: America the place is not the same as America the television show.  Americans need to reach the same conclusion.  If our awareness were based on direct experience amongst the majority of Black and Latino Americans (not just the small percentage who excel in higher education), we would not be stunned as to where the “Race Card” is coming from.  We can all question about how to play the cards, or even how to get folks to the table, but we are being irresponsible to think that “race” needs to stay under the table.

Nobody in their right mind can honestly suggest that if a White teenager were shot in Sanford, Florida, that his killer would have walked freely for a month… as if the police don’t know what to do.  As if the district attorney has never been presented with a homicide before.  Despite Martin having his cell phone on him, and likely having identification on him, his parents did not know he was dead until filing a Missing Persons report the next day.  The killer’s parents were both courthouse personnel, and the killer desperately wanted to be involved with law enforcement.  Is the true problem that the police and district attorney don’t know what to do when one of their own commits a crime?  Whatever the answer, millions of Americans are sick and tired of the banality of racism.  It is time to take the microphone form those who wield it without speaking truth.

Posted in Commentary, Race | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Can We Take The Civil RIghts Era OFF The Postage Stamps?

Posted on March 28, 2012 by Bruce Reilly

Stamps are reserved for history, for settled matters.  You know Malcolm X has been officially stationed when he appeared on your stationary.  But that troubled era appears more revisited with every passing day.  Millions of people waited in prayers and horror as Troy Davis was executed last fall.  Most were not convinced of his guilt while many were convinced of his innocence.  Now millions more, including the Miami Heat and New York legislators, don hoodies as a man whom most are convinced is guilty walks the streets of Florida.

Leftists, Liberals, Anti-Racists and criminal justice reformers call for “Justice” for Trayvon Martin.  Justice, in America, typically means a prosecution to the full extent of the law.  The term is often invoked for the death penalty, something that Trayvon’s killer might conceivably face in the state of Florida.  We have now heard a great deal of commentary on Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, including the fact that it likely does not cover George Zimmerman who was explicitly told by a police dispatcher to not follow or approach Trayvon.  But this is not about proper punishments for crime, it is about something much bigger: racism.

“They killed my son, and now they are trying to destroy his reputation,” Mrs. Martin said in a press conference.  “They” are more than Zimmerman, of course.  They are those who further the culture of racism, who post false pictures of Trayvon in attempts to make him look “thuggish.”  They are those who write blogs mitigating Zimmerman’s behavior or attempting to frame a young boy as dangerous.  They are those who believe Black characters in the “Hunger Games” ruined the movie, and those who applauded the near-death of English footballer Fabrice Muamba.

As a nation, we are far from stopping the paranoid racism that fuels violence of those such as Zimmerman, however, we should be able to regulate the racism of our public employees.  If, for example, Zimmerman had been immediately arrested and charged, even if he were ultimately found innocent under self-defense, there would not be the national outcry of disgust and outrage.  What the Sanford Police Department and Seminole County State Attorney’s Office have done is fuel the fires of racism in America.  Police Chief Bill Lee claimed he was prohibited by statute from arresting Zimmerman, meanwhile it seems his department applied for an arrest warrant from the A.G. early on.  None was issued.  Nobody is under any illusions that if a Black man admitted to shooting an unarmed White teenager, there is no statement he could make in his defense that wouldn’t end up in a courtroom.

When Black men are arrested for homicide in America, Geraldo Rivera and others do not go out of their way to try and make this understandable.  Half a world away, a U.S. soldier killed 17 people in the middle of the night.  There has been a great deal of media about the stresses Robert Bales was under, the multiple deployments, his friends who have died in combat, and the anti-malarial drugs that may have psychotic effects.  Some, or all, of these things may indeed play a role in acts of extreme violence, yet see how far a PTSD defense gets a kid growing up in Oakland or St. Louis.

A few weeks ago, New Orleans police officer Jason Giroir pulled over Justin Sipp’s car, allegedly, for a broken tail light.  The facts are unclear except that a shootout left Sipp dead.  A few days ago, Giroir posted on a blog, regarding Trayvon Martin, “Act like a Thug Die like one!”  He even invited another blog-poster to come to his town with a hoodie and “die like Martin.”  Giroir is now suspended while he awaits the results of his shooting investigation.  Naturally, the Mayor of New Orleans deemed the officers in that shooting, prior to the results of the investigation, “heroes.”  One week later, the NOPD kicked in the door of suspected marijuana dealers and ultimately killed 20 year-old Wendell Allen.  A young Black man, but of course.

Speaking of presuming guilt and innocence, an off-duty Chicago policeman shot two young Black people, killing 22-year old Rekia Boyd.  She has been called an “Innocent Bystander.”  Bystander to what?  The “alleged gunman” (alleged by the shooter, although nothing corroborates his story) was on a cell phone at the time he was shot, reminiscent of Amadou Diallo and his infamous wallet.  The police reaction in this case?  It appears to be “justified.”  Actually, it appears to be unjustified, even if we suspend our judgment until later.

A few years ago in the New Orleans area, the Winnfield coroner contradicted the Winnfield police report:  21 year old Baron Pikes, a young Black man, was killed not by a drug overdose, but by the nine Taser electrocutions- including the final two while he was handcuffed and unresponsive in the back of a police cruiser.  The officer was later found not guilty on manslaughter charges.  After America watched Oscar Grant killed by BART police on Youtube, calls for “Justice” were not answered by a court system.  The six years it took to convict police who killed two Black people in the wake of Katrina, on Danziger Bridge, came across as the old adage “Justice delayed is justice denied.”  The five police who pled guilty, and five others who were found guilty by a jury, was followed by a mistrial of a detective involved with the cover-up.

In a nation of 300 million and the age of internet, I am never surprised by individual actions, whether tragic or wonderful.  If I saw a lottery winner every night on the news, I wouldn’t think we are all winning the lottery.  I personally don’t think the murder rate is “high” and people’s civility in the face of poverty, exploitation, and militarism should be applauded.  Yet in all these anecdotes that make national news, the racial bias is abundantly clear.  Of course some racists went to see Hunger Games, and obviously some of them didn’t read well enough (or read the book at all) to know that many of the characters were people of color.  The nonchalance, particularly in government agents sworn to uphold the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, is the troubling aspect.

The last time racist sentiments were this strong, Ronald Reagan was convincing America that Black “Welfare Queens” and Black drug dealers were going to destroy our nation.  Three decades later and Anita McLemore is sentenced to three years in federal prison because she did not check the box on a food stamp application indicating she was a convicted felon.  Legislatures have people on the defensive with laws to crack down on suspected undocumented immigrants, require Voter ID, and drug test those receiving Temporary Aid to Needy Families.  For those who think this all belongs on the Republicans backs, think again.  Rhode Island, the most heavily Democratic state in the nation, refuses to legislate against known racial profiling and has passed a Voter ID law that disproportionately impacts urban residents without driver’s licenses.

As someone who advocates for solutions that don’t involve guns and prisons, or in the least vastly reduces the usage of guns and cages, it is difficult to demand “Justice for…” in the same manner I typically see.  However, it seems obvious that any justice requires a determination of guilt by a jury, not a clearance by one’s co-workers.  It seems obvious to me that those sworn to uphold the public trust should be held to a higher standard, both in their use of violence and their pursuit of racial equality.  I’m not sure this is obvious to others, but in an ideal world, those co-workers and superiors would wean out any government workers (especially those carrying guns or law degrees) who have improper tendencies regarding Equal Protection.

In England, “inciting racial hatred” cost a Tweeter 56 days in jail.  Again, I’m not sure if I call that “Justice,” but at least they take the issue seriously.  America appears destined for 1965 all over again.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

America’s Top Lobbyists On Criminal Justice Reform- Legal? Proper?

Posted on March 28, 2012 by Bruce Reilly
"Oliver Twist." FDR wants more power...

"Oliver Twist." FDR wants more power from Congress. reorganization program executive branch.

As the legislative process picks up in many states, one common lobbyist will again take their leadership position at the statehouses.  The state Attorney General and local police chiefs will again move to the front of the line of “The People.”  And once again, their participation will prove a problematic separation of powers.  As most children learn in school: the Legislature, appointed by the People, makes the laws.  The Executive Branch, including prosecutors and police, enforce the laws.

For years I watched the full-time lobbyist of the Attorney General, their legislative specialist, testify against practically every attempt to reform the criminal justice system.  Every testimony was opposed to sentencing reductions, opposed to protections that would ensure more accurate identifications or confessions, opposed to every measure that might result in fewer prisoners such as the decriminalization of marijuana.  Meanwhile, they typically draft and submit about ten pieces of legislation that would result in sentencing enhancements, creation of new crimes, databases, restrictions, fees, or fines.  They have opposed opportunities for people being released from prison, and opportunities they might have once convicted.  This goes for associations of police chiefs, the state police, and individual police departments.  Advocates of community groups consider it a victory when the Executive Branch is silent, as it is inconceivable to hear them testify, “this law has gone too far,” or, more honestly, “my job is to enforce the laws you give me.”  When confronted on a personal level regarding a system universally declared to be broken, I have heard individual law enforcement officials say, “hey, I don’t make the laws.”  But don’t they?

Rhode Island’s Director of the Dept. of Corrections, A.T. Wall, is the longest serving director in the nation.  He always maintains the position, “My job is to deal with the prisoners you send me.”  His department rarely advocates for a position on legislation, and generally they merely testify in relation to prison finances or conditions.  Considering how society invests as little as possible in prisoners’ survival, it is not surprising that DOC officials and civil rights advocates are routine adversaries.  The position of an Executive Branch official, that “I enforce the laws you give me,” is respectable and proper.  Yet this view is all too rare.

Separation of Powers is a concept that is supposed to ensure this principal, that one body makes the laws while another enforces it.  Anyone who has ever done their own taxes can immediately figure out why accountants and lawyers write the tax code in such a Byzantine manner, “adding line 4c from Worksheet B to line 35 of Form 9962, and If A is not less…” There is an added element of job security.  A current Louisiana proposal for the state to buy up all the private prisons is contingent on those prisons being 90% full.  Presumably there would be a penalty if they are only 89% full or below.  Do we really want the Executive Branch to advise The People that this is a good deal when they have a financial incentive to incarcerate people?

If public safety is being debated, it is that public which should be at the top of the consultation list, not the public safety officers.  Even more precisely, the bulk of police are in poor communities like South Providence or Mid-City New Orleans.  The bulk of arrested drug users, of arrested drug sellers, and victims of violence are residents of those communities.  It stands to reason that these are the bulk of People whose name is invoked for more and more “public safety.”  These people, their neighbors and families, should have first dibs on the microphone when Legislatures are struggling with new proposals to deal with crime and punishment in America.  These are the communities that the Attorneys General and the police are, theoretically, protecting and serving.  They are the “primary stakeholders.”  Who wants peace more than the mothers of sons caught in the cycle of violence?  Who wants healthy solutions to addiction more than the child of a serious drug user?  Noble ambitions aside, first in line should not be those whose primary connection to drugs and crime is their paycheck.

Related articles
Posted in Legislation | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Who Supports Education After Incarceration?

Posted on March 20, 2012 by Bruce Reilly

When the question of education after incarceration was raised on a national stage last fall, I never related to the view that puts a single individual under a microscope.  To me, it was always a systemic question; one that happened to be using me as a guinea pig.  As the salaciousness settles, the systemic question comes to the fore:  Does contact with the criminal justice system assure a stunted education that, in turn, reinforces a caste system?  A community event this Sunday, at First Grace Methodist Church in New Orleans, brings together people dealing this topic to share their knowledge and hear from others.

Andres Idarraga and myself shared books, stories, and inspiration while incarcerated together for years.  Andres went on to receive degrees from Brown University and Yale Law School, while I recently enrolled in Tulane University Law School.  While we were filling out college applications, Calvin Duncan was filing court documents for Angola State Penitentiary’s Death Row prisoners.  He served for years as the Inmate Counsel for a group of men with a high rate of innocence.  After having his own New Orleans conviction overturned, Calvin enrolled in Tulane’s School of Continuing Studies.  Professor Richard Marksbury did not go to prison, yet in three decades of education, he has taught many who have been there.  His scholarship on caste systems, race, and New Orleans provides a key framework for freeing our community from the cages we build.

In 2012, over 700,000 people will be released from prison in America and return to their communities; about 15,000 of them will be former state prisoners in Louisiana.  Some will have family support, few will have jobs waiting, and all will be looking for an opportunity.  What about educational opportunities?  In New Orleans, over 10% of Black men are living in the community on probation or parole.  They have no voting rights.  An even larger percentage of Black men have formally completed their sentence, yet continue to suffer consequences such as employment and housing discrimination.  Considering the criminalization of youth in New Orleans, where suspensions, arrests, and graduation rates can shock a casual observer, it is not enough to be able and willing to work.  A vibrant economy needs a diversified labor force, with a wide range of specialization.

Ultimately, every judge, prosecutor, politician, and neighbor needs to ask: What would I prefer people to do upon return?  There can be no one-size-fits-all job training program, and a sustainable model of reentry cannot be one of dependence.  It is no easy task to Outside of Highly Policed Communities we hear a message of education creating development in economics and culture.  That same message, with corresponding action, is the only way to break a cycle of poverty, underground economies, and violence.

The event is from 1:30-3pm at First Grace Methodist Church, 3401 Canal St. (corner of Jefferson Davis, along the trolley line), New Orleans.  Refreshments provided, and families are welcome.

Posted in Commentary, Rehabilitation | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Just Who Should Be “Crashing The System?”

Posted on March 13, 2012 by Bruce Reilly

United States criminal justice system flowchart.

The recent article by Michelle Alexander appearing in the New York Times, “Crash the System,” has stirred up a great deal of interest among the activist community.  Most of the people I have heard from, however, have been those who never faced imprisonment- including many lawyers and law students… i.e., people who actually read the New York Times or have it shared with them on their Facebook wall.  Alexander’s article dangles a theory of overloading and “crashing” the criminal justice system: by everyone refusing the plea bargain and going to trial.

This crashing maneuver is nothing new to prisoners.  The article itself spawned from a conversation between Alexander and Susan Burton, a formerly incarcerated woman who has since become a trailblazing activist and organizer on criminal justice reform.  Having spoken with those who have done time in other states, I know most elements of the system are essentially the same no matter where you go.  When I was facing my own sentence, being held without bail for nearly three years, I counseled hundreds of men regarding plea bargains and trials.  I could typically anticipate the first offer from the state, what he should counter-offer, and what the state will settle on.  It was very formulaic, and a disappointment whenever someone took the first offer just to get out of the hideous conditions of pretrial detention (yet another tactic).  And there was always that guy yelling, “People need to take everything to trial.  Shut down that whole damn system.”  And there is another guy saying, “I came in alone, I’m going out alone.”

In hindsight, I could have never organized these men to refuse plea bargains and go to trial for several reasons.  First, there is something distinctly personal about one’s own sentence.  Unlike conditions of confinement that affects everyone inside, the individual sentences can range from weeks to decades for actions that have nothing to do with each other.  That early phase of confinement, in jail or “Intake,” is rife with suspicion, ego, and predatory tactics.  Nobody is prepared to take a bullet for the person in the cell next to them.

Some of the commentary I have read by activists (who do not live in Highly Policed Communities) suggest that the nation’s arrested (mostly poor People of Color) should take this on.  As if we have now found the secret method of change in a nice March On Washington and Occupy Wall Street way.  They would put the onus of changing an oppressive system on the lashed backs of the oppressed.  Sadly, due to the impotence of the American public at large, it will likely end up being just that.  Others have asked the legal community what they can do in this situation, suggesting that a lawyer holds the key to a plea bargain and could actually counsel people to take a stand.

A lawyer’s job is to arm a client with as much knowledge as possible so they can make the best decision.  This does not always happen, particularly in the world of young Public Defenders with massive caseloads.  Not only does the typical lawyer have little knowledge about the totality of the system, from police tactics to prison conditions, parole hearings to probation violations, or employment discrimination to voting rights… most attorneys would not have time to truly explain this to an accused person.  Public Defenders, AND prosecutors, need to develop an ethical standard about collateral consequences, sentencing enhancements, and reduced standard of guilt (on violation hearings) so that people can intelligently accept/reject a plea.  As of now, the accused generally hears “If you sign this, you can go home today.” or “If you go to trial and are convicted, they will throw the book at you.”

One lawyer mentioned to me that he is currently pursuing a strategy against a sentencing enhancement by arguing how, when he was sentenced before, nobody said anything about getting extra time if he were convicted again.  Every state has “bonus” time, such as Three Strikes in California, where people can get as much as 20 years to Life tacked on “just because.”  Thus, the enhancement is often higher than all their previous sentences combined.  This is a good legal strategy, similar to the successful argument in Padilla, holding that someone cannot be deported for a prior guilty plea when they were not told that the plea can result in deportation.  Those in best position to fight a criminal conviction by taking it to trial are often facing lighter crimes at a young age.

My first plea was for marijuana possession.  Four of us were travelling in a car, we were pulled over, and the police found a bag after nearly ten minutes.  No warrant, of course.  My friends all had families to report to, so I claimed it to be mine.  When I went to court, the Public Defender met me in the hallway and never mentioned the Fourth Amendment.  Instead she explained how if I pay a few hundred dollars the charge will go away if I stay out of trouble for a year.  And I won’t have to do any time on it.  Up until that point, I had contact with the police just about every year since I was eleven years old.  It did not seem to matter to her whether or not I might have contact over the next year.  This was a standard deal.  Bargaining was not a concept in this plea.

My second plea, within a year of the last, was slightly more complicated, as they offered me five years suspended and five years probation.  Same procedure in the hallway, but I insisted two things: I didn’t steal the car, and I was not intoxicated.  The prosecutor amended the charge to Receiving Stolen Goods Over $500, and kept the sentence.  I took it.  Many years later, when trying to get a driver’s license, the DMV told me I was convicted of refusing a breathalyzer.  I felt this was ludicrous considering the police brought me unconscious into the hospital after a car wreck.  But it was too late to challenge this, so I was told.  The total tab to get back on the road was over $3000, including DWI classes and extra insurance.  And yet today, this little bonus conviction doesn’t even show up on my record.  Such is the ways of the system.

My final plea is the most telling.  I called their bluff.  I knew what I was actually guilty of, under law, and they initially agreed to this, and would ask the court to impose the maximum sentence.  When I went to court for the official sentencing, they pulled the rug out and wanted a more severe charge. Apparently the Attorney General wanted to keep his statistics up.  I demanded a trial.  I told my lawyer, “Going through life as a convicted murderer is likely to be much different than being labeled a convicted manslaughterer.”  My lawyer asked what I would take on second degree murder.  I told him 15 years.  He said they would never go for it.  I said “get a jury, let’s go to trial.”  He started to explain how summer was coming, nobody wants to do trials, people go on vacation… I reminded him I had been held without bail for almost three years.  I wanted my “Speedy Trial,” which is supposed to be within 180 days.  My lawyer went back upstairs.

The guys in the holding pen were scared for me.  “Man, you’re rolling some big dice.”  The few who knew me had to remind me I knew the law and wouldn’t get rolled over.  Manslaughter itself carried up to 30 years, and I knew if I lost a trial I would get just that, and hopefully be out in 15 or 20 on parole.  I would rather get 30 for manslaughter than 25 for murder.  I knew it would have a domino effect on my entire life.

It only took about fifteen minutes for my lawyer to come back down.  The prosecutor was going to ask the court to impose 25 years for second degree murder- they knocked off five.  If I plead guilty, the judge could still do whatever he wanted.  If he went higher, naturally I would have screamed out in the courtroom about “fraud, deceit” and other such things that would get my “plea” thrown out.  Upstairs, the prosecutor who previously recommended a manslaughter conviction, labeled me before the court in as vile terms imaginable.  He could have said the same things about Osama bin Laden, as there really isn’t much else to say.  After hearing statements all around, the judge gave me 45 years, with 20 years to serve.  I didn’t scream out, or anything.  I was already numb.  That chapter of my life was officially over.

Two decades later and I can say with certainty that the label on me does not rest.  The label says nothing about what I actually did, but its easy for journalists and others to use- people can attach a set of images and presumptions to it.  My lawyer was not overly concerned about this label, nor any collateral consequences.  A nice enough guy, it just wasn’t in the cards to discuss anything other than the actual number of years in prison.  We did not talk about life on parole, or on probation, and how that will impact me.  Ultimately, even a Jailhouse Lawyer like myself who spent years studying the rules of evidence and constitutional provisions, did not make a fully informed choice regarding my plea.

 

The eighteen year old me could have been part of crashing the system.  I had a perfect case for trial that carried a light sentence overall.  A good lawyer would have taken the extra hour to get it dismissed.  A good lawyer would explain to young people that if one takes the statutory maximum sentence, suspended, and goes home today on probation, they are very likely to serve at least five years on that probation violation… because something is likely to happen between ages 20 and 30- particularly in Highly Policed Communities amongst my Black and Brown brothers and sisters.  The nineteen year old me, facing serious charges, needed the benefit of those who keep the system in check.  Unfortunately, I’ve found that those without criminal records are waiting on me to keep the system in check.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Courts | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Formerly Incarcerated: What My Mom Thinks I Do…

Posted on February 27, 2012 by Bruce Reilly

Can You guess who of the above served time in prison?

Posted in Commentary, Rehabilitation | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments