Most of the people who hire our criminal defense firm have never been in trouble with the law before and see themselves as law-abiding people. Everybody wants to throw the book at criminals unless it is them or their loved one that becomes part of the legal process.

In our practice, we see many cases of people who get arrested due to random dumb things, misunderstandings and/or a weird set of circumstances. And one of the most difficult situations is when kids become a part of the legal system. It can disrupt their school and life plans. Seems like there is no such thing as "youthful indiscretions" anymore.

Recently, read some interesting articles that may be worth talking to your kids about.

Evin Mintz of the Memorial Buzz wrote an article entitled, "On a Bad Day, Anyone Can End Up in Jail." The article talks about booksmart kids who sometimes do dumb things. In some ways, kids can't help but doing some dumb things because of their brain chemistry. Neuroimaging research suggests that the frontal lobes that govern things like impulse control and sensation seeking are still developing up through the mid-20s.

Even when people don't do dumb things, they can be pulled into the legal system. George Flynn of The Houston Press wrote a chilling cover story called, "A Wrong Turn:Once Galveston emergency personnel discovered the dead motorcyclist was 'one of us,' a Bellaire teenager's nightmare revved into overdrive." Very concerning story about media rushes to judgment, and how difficult it can be to get the authorities to drop unsupportable charges, particularly when it involves public servants.

In my observation, the criminal justice system seems more throw-the-book at people than it was when I was growing up. Instead of getting warnings, kids are going to jail. It's worth talking to your kids about the science of their developing brains. About making good decisions. About the consequence of bad decisions. Keeping an open and truthful dialogue with them, even when they are telling you things you don't want to hear. I'm sure you do this already, but sometimes discussing articles that talk about real kids can make this seem more real.

Unfortunately, sometimes talking isn't enough as experience is the harshest of teachers.

If you practice criminal defense law in the Houston area, you may not be terribly surprised at the article in Sunday's Houston Chronicle entitled, "Discipline problems persist at Harris County Jail." The article relates stories of excessive force and humiliation at the Harris County Jail.

What you might not know is how the Sheriff's Department uses taxpayer resources to send over-wrought letters complaining about people's opinions about the jail experience.

Here's my story about our taxpayer dollars at work....

Last year, I helped revise our law firm website. Shortly after this was completed, we received the following email and hard copy letter from Alan Bernstein, the Director of Public Affairs for the Sheriff's Department and former journalist for the Houston Chronicle (Yes, this is real and unedited with the exception of deleting email/web/phone information):

From: Bernstein, Alan (HCSO)
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:02 AM
To: Legal Assistant
Subject: Serious allegations



(By e-mail and U.S. mail)

Dear attorneys:

As a newspaper reporter and editor from 1976 to 2009, I learned how to identify – and to abhor -- an erroneous allegation. You know what I mean, because on your law firm web site you state that “a painstaking assessment (of a charge) involves a review of all statements . . . to determine if any errors exist that could lead to an early dismissal” of the allegation.

So I hope you will live up to your principles by deleting from said web site this inflammatory and highly dubious statement: “The jail personnel, especially in Harris County, seem to take a perverse pleasure in making the jail visit as unpleasant as possible. Their actions sometimes border on the sadistic, and the client who is finally released on bail, fatigued, dehydrated and humiliated, vows never to go back.”

I’ve got to admit, there are some crafty “weasel words” in there. It says that jail personnel in Harris County “seem to” take a perverse pleasure in making the jail visit as unpleasant as possible. But the damage of an unproven allegation has been done regardless.

Question 1: What specific evidence do you have to justify the statement that our “personnel” (meaning more than one) seem to take a perverse pleasure in anything? If you have none, please withdraw the statement. If you have some, please provide it to me and I will relay it to jail commanders for corrective action.

Question 2: What specific evidence do you have to justify the statement that “their actions” (meaning the actions of multiple people) border on the sadistic? If you have none, please withdraw the statement. If you have some, please provide it to me and I will relay it to jail commanders for corrective action.

As for the rest of your noxious phrase, I do not doubt that many clients leave the jail fatigued and humiliated. But this leads to . . .

Question 3: What specific evidence do you have to justify the statement that “the client” is “dehydrated” in situations where they have not refused sustenance? If you have none, please withdraw the statement. If you have some, please provide it to me and I will relay it to jail commanders for corrective action.

Question 4: In your visits to jail clients, what have you witnessed that supports your allegations?

Question 5: Since you describe yourselves as former prosecutors, were the conditions you now describe present when you prosecuted?

Question 6: If so, what did you do about them as officers of the court?

Sheriff Adrian Garcia and staff strive to provide the public with a safe (for inmates, staff, visitors and others) environment that complies with and often surpasses all regulations and accreditation standards. No one guarantees a fun experience there, but we do take allegations seriously, unfounded or not, as should be obvious by this letter.

In the meantime I look forward to your responses.

Alan Bernstein
Director of Public Affairs
Harris County Sheriff's Office
1200 Baker St.
Houston TX 77002

Alrighty then. My first inclination when I read that was to send a response something similar to the infamous Cleveland Browns stupid letter.

Ultimately, I am certain that running one of the busiest jails in the country isn't easy. And at least, Bernstein agrees with our law firm site that Harris County Jail is not a fun experience that leaves some people feeling fatigued and humiliated. But doesn't the Sheriff's Department have better things to spend their money on than scouring the web to find unhappy words about them and send long, whiney letters? And what's with a former journalist using his position to try to censor other people's points of view?

Or in the words, of County Judge Ed Emmott relating to the recent Sheriff Departments felony database debacle:

"This is proof that we need more budget professionalism and less focus on public relations. We need to be about the people's business rather than trying to win our arguments in the press whatever that might be."

Just inexplicable.

As a former assistant district attorney and current criminal defense lawyer, my husband, Bill Stradley is known for working on difficult trial cases that other attorneys do not have experience handling. Recently, he was asked by Ian Simpson of Reuters to comment on the Jerry Sandusky child sexual assault case. This Q&A format may help expand on his thoughts and help further understanding of the situation.

Our Q&A:

Q: In the article, you were quoted as saying "This is going to be a difficult trial. It's going to be brutal." Can you explain further?

A-Bill Stradley: The difficulty of most criminal matters relating to sexual crimes against children is that usually there are no third-party witnesses. In those circumstances, it can be extremely difficult to distinguish true reports of sexual abuse versus false accusations. Sometimes when there is a witness, the witness isn't clear about what they saw or perhaps has a reason to lie, for example with a contentious child custody dispute or wanting to receive financial gain. (Yes, that is a sick thing to allege without basis, but it happens).

Often, these cases result in a not guilty verdict due to obvious reasonable doubt.

To have multiple witnesses to a sexual assault of a child is extremely unusual, and more unusual for no action taken against the assailant for many years. To have police officer witnesses to what amounts to a confession? How could this happen?

Evil exists. Why people see evil and don't stop it is one of those all time questions. Some try to explain it with science.

It's enraging to read the Sandusky grand jury investigation [pdf], or the summary of the investigation. If all is taken as true, it becomes difficult to think that in order to protect the reputation of a school and a sports program, most of the parties involved became willfully ignorant of such crimes. Don't know if that says more about the excesses of sports or the worst of human nature.

Or perhaps it suggests that the facts are more muddy than the grand jury investigation suggests. Already, there have been conflicting public reports about what the graduate assistant witnessed.

As bad as the grand jury investigation document is, the trial will be much worse. It is hard on the accusers. It's difficult to find impartial jurors to even impanel a jury, and these cases are emotionally difficult on those jurors. The details by the nature of the crime will be graphic.

Some times plea deals happen to avoid putting the accusers through the difficulty and emotion of a trial. However, with so many accusers and Sandusky's age, it is possible there's no plea deal that could be acceptable to both sides.

Q: In the article, you talked some about merging the cases. Please explain more about this.

In Texas, in a case involving multiple accusers, the defense may choose to try each case separately. In doing so, only the evidence of that one case gets in front of the jury. The defense counsel then needs to take care not to ask questions that would allow for the prosecution to argue to the judge that the defense has "opened the door" for the other offenses to come into evidence. The down side to that approach is 1. having to defense multiple trials; 2. if found guilty, the defendant having to face sentences that are stacked on top of each other instead of running concurrent.

The positive side of doing that is if there is a not guilty verdict, depending on the evidence, it can lead to a favorable plea deal or the dropping of all the other charges. In addition, it is easier for jurors to find reasonable doubt involving one incident than if many people are saying the same thing.

Strategically, given the publicity in this case, many of the benefits of trying each case separately go away because it would likely be impossible for the defense to find jurors that do not know about the multiple accusations against Sandusky.

Q: Were you surprised that Sandusky's lawyer waived his right to a preliminary hearing?

It depends on what Sandusky's lawyer is attempting to accomplish. If he is truly preparing to try this case, a preliminary hearing could have been very helpful to know what the specifics of the testimony were going to be and how good the witnesses would be for the prosecution. The defense counsel in this circumstance would not need to do any cross-examination.

If a plea deal were being contemplated, then all that the preliminary hearing would do would be to inflame the public and create unnecessary emotional hardship for the accusers. Even so, Sandusky can't make a plea deal with himself. If the prosecutors do not want to make any reasonable deal, Sandusky's lawyer will have to go to trial without the benefit of the information from the preliminary hearing.

Theoretically, you might want to avoid the hearing so as not to taint the potential jury pool further, but as it is, it may be difficult to find people who haven't made their minds up about this matter.

Also something to consider is potential civil cases against non-Sandusky defendants, like the university. The accusers may wish to obtain a quick plea that unequivocally gets Sandusky to admit guilt and his actions, and then use Sandusky's cooperating statements to find civil liability against others.

Even when people are guilty of crimes of this nature, it is often difficult for them to admit their guilt to anyone. Sometimes they would rather have a jury convict them of the offense and risk maximum sentences than to admit to their families and the world what they have done by pleading guilty.

Q: What complications arise from Sandusky's phone interview with Bob Costas?

Typically, attorneys do not want their clients to speak to anyone, even if the defendant is actually innocent and wants to publicly maintain their innocence. Few good things come from that.

In high media attention cases, sometimes attorneys can make the strategic decision to have the defendant make a statement in order to get their side of the story public to help minimize damage to the jury pool. Sometimes the defendant sounds sympathetic and truly innocent in their statement. In addition, it may allow the defendant's side of the story to be known without the well-known dangers of presenting the defendant as a witness.

In the interview, Sandusky admits to showering with children and engaging in horseplay. Including the time witnessed by the graduate assistant. This means at time of trial, his defense attorney can't maintain that the event never happened. Hard for a defense counsel to claim that showering with unrelated children was completely innocent, or that Sandusky in the interview sounds sympathetic at all.

Q: The Sandusky matter also involves university personnel who failed to report the injury to children. Some people think not enough of the people who knew of the abuse were charged. What are your thoughts on that?

A: Failure to report child abuse cases can be complex. What did the witnesses know and when did they know it and did they do enough. Getting accurate information on that becomes more difficult the more highly charged the subject matter and the more publicized the case.

For example, I recently defended a failure to report child abuse case involving a school administrator. The case involved an assault that was filmed on video and widely distributed on TV and social media, so there was a great deal of public pressure to prosecute.

It turned out that once the true facts came out, a jury decided to find the defendant not guilty after deliberating for about 10 minutes. The facts demonstrated conclusively that the defendant did not know and shouldn't have known the nature of the assault, tried to do further investigation in a timely way, and had no reason to go to the police with the information he knew at the time.

I do not think that case applies to the Sandusky matter given what's contained in public reports. What I do know from my dealings with the criminal justice system and the law is that I am highly distrustful of public information about legal matters, especially involving emotionally charged, high publicity cases.

It is cases like this that challenge people's feelings about "Innocent until proven guilty" abstractions when faced with the reality of terrible allegations.

*******

I'd like to thank Bill for helping me put this together. It's difficult sometimes explaining legal things in a way that is clear but also accurate, and I like when I am able to help with that. If any media members wish to get additional questions answered on this topic, please visit Stradley Chernoff & Alford's contact page and ask for Bill.

I learned about blogging from my sister Debby. She wrote an inspirational blog that started off talking about her life and her love for daughter Zoe, and sadly ended talking about her fight against leukemia that eventually resulted in her death [her obit]. She beat leukemia once, but relapsed in November 2008.

On Thanksgiving of that year, she became very sick from the effects of the chemotherapy, and I rushed her to the MD Anderson ER. I've never been as thankful as I was that Thanksgiving. Sad we couldn't be with our family, but thankful that hospital workers were there to take care of her, and cafeteria workers provided an imperfect turkey dinner.

Debby stayed in the hospital from Thanksgiving 2008 until her death in May 2009. For the last 6 months of her life, she was confined in loud ICU wards. She could only breathe through a respirator, could barely move, was in near constant pain and could not speak. She fought hard, painfully to live, and when they finally told her that she would never get off the respirator and that her death was certain, she asked me to update her blog with a message that would be posted after her death.

The following is the only post she did not type herself. She mouthed the words to me over months, and it was very difficult communicating with her, writing this all down. Even helpless and in pain and waiting for her death, she wanted to make a difference to others. She was trying to find any sort of meaning in her terrible suffering. This is Debby's message of Thanksgiving to you, reprinted from her blog that sadly no longer exists:

"I am writing this blog post to say a more proper goodbye to all the interweb peoples who have helped me keep it together. Who have given so much support to me through the years. Who are my friends and family. Who were strangers who became friends.

In my blog, I often give assignments for people to do. Here's the ones that are on my mind....

1. Appreciate everything. Even stupid stuff. Since I've been sick, I've communicated with a number of service members abroad. We understand each other well because we both know how much we miss just the normal stuff that most people take for granted. Driving. Driving in traffic. Complaining about stupid stuff is for people who have no idea how good they have it.

2. Be a force for good. There's enough bad stuff in the world without adding to it. Forgive people and leave grudges for others. Do kind things just because. Figure out what you are good at and do good with it.

3. Seek a higher power. I believe Jesus Christ is my savior and this gives me comfort. As it takes faith to believe, it takes faith not to believe. I believe God doesn't want us to live our lives on an island, and that finding a community of faith that is uplifting and supportive to you can make a huge difference in your life. If you have that cool. If you don't, consider it. But don't wait until you are looking death in the eye because you will miss out on some neat things. (Love you ACTS community!)

4. If you have kids, squeeze them. And then squeeze them again. Give yourself a pat on the back if you are responsible and work hard to give your children a good life and better opportunities. Sometimes you don't give yourself enough credit. If you have people in your life that you love, tell them that. Often. Don't save your I love you's for a rainy day.

5. Take care of yourself. I understand more than most that there are injuries and illnesses that you can't prevent by eating well and moving, but that doesn't mean you should be fatalistic. Nothing like being hooked up to a respirator to make you appreciate just getting going, doing and breathing. Treat yourself at least as well as you treat your car--you put the right type of fuel in your car and you drive it safely most of the time--you are more important than a car so treat yourself that way.

6. Enjoy life. Life is meant to be enjoyed, and as long as it isn't hurting yourself or others, go for it. Bring joy to others. Find passions in your life that make you want to get out of bed in the morning, unless your passion is sleeping and then go ahead and sleep in.

7. Be open to new things. Listen. Doesn't mean you have to change your mind, but who knows, you might learn something.

8. Support sensible health insurance reform. I'm not sure what that ends up looking like, but injuries and illnesses shouldn't fate people into a life of insurmountable debt and bill collectors. I spent the last “healthy” months of my pre-hospital stay, worried and scrambling to find insurance because my COBRA insurance ran out. Patients should be able to focus on getting better and not crushingly large mountains of papers telling them that their credit is forever screwed.

9. Ask for help. This is a hard assignment. For a lot of people, it isn't easy to ask for help when you need it. But what I've discovered is that it is a part of the human condition for people to want to help those in need. People enjoy helping others. Sometimes you get help where you don't really expect it. So if you need help with something, go to the appropriate people and get it.

I sometimes think that the bad stuff that happens in life is one of the few things that bring people together. It still sucks, but maybe it sucks a little less.

There are too many people to thank for the help they gave me and my family over these difficult times. I would list you individually but am afraid I would leave someone important out. My last days have not been easy at all, but it has been a great comfort to know about all those who gave me prayers and love.

In my life, I've looked for love in a lot of wrong places, and as I die, it is nice to know I am surrounded by love.

10. Last assignment. There is no last assignment. You create your own assignments every day. Choose wisely.

.....

To sum it all up....I love you internets! I love you friends! I love you family! I love you Zoe!

All my love,
Deb"

One way that politicians on both sides of the aisle get elected is being "tough on crime." Nobody wants to take laws off the books that make them look soft.

If there's a high profile bad act that happens, the first action is a politician grandstanding to fight that evil with a new law. There's also big money lobbying interests who want to criminalize acts against their businesses. That protects businesses, but taxpayers end up paying for this enforcement service.

Problem is more laws mean more money. Money to prosecute those cases and to have judges hear them. Money to investigate those cases. Money to warehouse criminals in jail. The problem of the increaes in Federalization of crime isn't a recent point of view. Advisor to President Reagan, Edwin Meese wrote about this issue in 1999 in a Wall Street Journal article called, "The Dangerous Federalization of Crime:"

Following a two-year study by experts in all segments of the criminal justice process, the [American Bar Association] task force documented the explosive growth of federal criminal law, including the startling fact that more than 40 percent of the federal criminal provisions enacted since the Civil War became law in just the past three decades. Most troubling is the high percentage of these federal crimes that duplicate state laws that have been on the books for years. This endangers the constitutional principle of decentralized law enforcement authority that has worked well in America and that has been a bulwark against the centralization of police power at the national level.

And nothing has been done about this. Look at the numbers listed in this interesting Reason.com article, "Washington's Biggest Crime Problem:"

1981 - 20,000 Federal prisoners; 1989 - 53,000 Federal prisoners; 2004 - about 171,000 [According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons website, the number in 2011 now roughly 218,000 Federal prisoners with over 38,000 employees] In 2001, about 10% of people in Federal detention had committed violent crimes.

1981 - 1500 Federal prosecutors; 2004 - over 7000 Federal prosecutors

It's not just new laws that are at issue. It is also the broad interpretation that the Department of Justice wants to use to interpret current laws. A recent example that made me think of this is the DoJ wanting to be able to use website's "Terms of Service" as the basis of criminal charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

What does that means in simple terms? The DoJ in its tremendous discretion could make it a Federal crime for you to lie about yourself on the internet or any number of things that are violations of "terms of service" that you've likely not read. Interested in this subject? Read: Professor Owen C. Kerr's testimony on the threat to civil liberties of the DoJ's reading of the CFAA [pdf].

We can't afford this. And yet nobody will likely do anything about it because no politician wants to be painted as soft on crime.

I've been asked to talk to a high school class about fundamentals of blogging. Instead of giving out handouts, I figured the best thing to do was to write a blog post. Here's some Blogging 101 tips:

What is a Blog. The word "blog" comes from the word web log. In the legal world, they are sometimes called "blawgs." The wiki on blogs defines it as:

"type of website or part of a website supposed to be updated with new content from time to time. Blogs are usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order. Blog can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog."

"Although not a must, but most good quality blogs are interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments and even message each other via widgets on the blogs and it is this interactivity that distinguishes them from other static websites."

The word blog refers to the website as a whole. If you are referring to a particular entry in a blog, you call it a "blog post" or a "blog entry" but you shouldn't call it a blog.

Purpose of Blog. First things first. Why are you blogging? What is it that you wish to accomplish? To blog well takes a lot of time and effort, and you may not choose to take the time to do it.

To make money? For your business? To provide information about a subject that people have an interest in but there's little information out there? For creativity? To put information you want to say but don't have a place to say it? A place to store words and images? Some combination of that?

To do any sort of writing well, you need to know who your audience is and what they would like to read. Sometimes knowing what you wish to accomplish with your blogging can suggest whether you wish to have an independant blog or whether you wish to become a part of a blog network. What audience you want may also drive which blogging platform you wish to use as some blogging platforms support sharing better than others.

Writing Style of Blog. Blogs can be written in a formal way or informal way. Some are conversational. The style and tone of your blog may depend a lot on what your blog's purpose and audience is. Some people who start writing for blogs copy other people's styles. Sometimes it takes a while to develop your own blogging voice.

Take Care in Your Words. The internet is forever. Except in exceptional circumstances, it is considered very poor blogging etiquette/form to erase a blog post. Even if you erase it, a cached version of a blog post can exist on the web. So the best course of action is to never write things you may later regret.

Anything you write on the web, whether blogs or otherwise, your family, friends, future employers, etc may read. A good rule of thumb is to never post anything on the web that you would be ashamed for your pastor to read.

That is my own personal bias. There's plenty of people who try to live their real lives in a Christian way but in their internet lives, they act sort of like web gangsters, saying snarky, nasty things. That's always struck me as a bit hypocritical.

Some people try to avoid having things attributed to them by using a pen name. Even that isn't without concern because sometimes pen names become public.

Ultimately, if you write enough words, you may write a few you regret. But you should try to keep those down to a minimum.

Be Link Generous. If you obtain information from another source, it is proper to link to that source and if very reliant on that source, specifically name where you got the information in your post. There's nothing more frustrating than putting original content on the web and then discover someone else used your content without attribution.

Blogging can be a sort of community, and linking to blogs is a good way to support quality content.

Writing for Web Different Than Paper. Though there are a number of journalists who are excellent at using the blog medium, writing for newspapers is different than writing for blogs. Newspapers typically have word counts. They don't allow for linking to related articles or including video content. The best blogs take advantage of the blogging medium by doing those things you can only do for the web.

Also be aware of the phyiscal space of your particular blog. Sometimes with the size of the print/margins, it may dictate shorter paragraphs.

Don't Violate Copyright. Just because you write something online, doesn't mean you are exempt from following the law. You are not supposed to use other people's creative content, like photos, unless permission is already granted or you get permission. The rules on this can be rather involved, and I think this Q&A from the US Copyright Office does a nice job of summarizing what is allowed.

Pictures can certainly make your blog more reader friendly. You can use your own pictures, or there are a number of sources online where you can find free or lowcost pictures you can use for blogging.

Write Regularly. To get people to visit your blog regularly, you should update your content frequently. I'm better at doing that on my Houston Chronicle Texans site than I am here. At that site, the subject matter and readership sort of dictates the frequency of posts. Because I have a bit more freedom here, I write when inspired, and lately, I must confess I just haven't had things I feel like saying. This blog is more of a repository of writing that doesn't fit on other platforms, like microblog site like Twitter or Facebook, or at my Texans blog.

This isn't going to be the only things discussed in my talk to students, but I think these things are the basics.

Most emails I get aren't terribly uplifting. Through accident, I found one that truly has benefited my day to day life. Everybody I've shared this with agrees with me, so there must be something to it.

Click here and add your email address. You will receive a short email every day before you wake up. Read it. Think. Be inspired. Improve your life.

Dr. Jim Jackson is the Senior Pastor of United Chapelwood Church in Houston. He uses a variety of radio and internet methods to reach out to people. The blog that contains the daily emails is called "Jim's Daily Awakenings." It's from a preacher but not too preachy. I prefer receiving the emails versus going to the blog because you don't have to think about it.

I was going to list some of my favorite of the emails, but I think I like most of them. The Random Thoughts series is particularly good.

The emails are uplifting and thoughtful, but not enough for a lot of folks. If you are visiting here, you might have a criminal defense, family law or other legal issue and may be experiencing the worst time in your life. Lawyers, even if they are particularly empathetic, aren't very equiped to help when people's depression is serious.

Know that there is help out there. There are resources that can help with mental health issues and/or substance abuse issues. They can help you rebuild your life. I will also suggest from my own experience that religious faith can be helpful in both good times and bad.

Today, Amanda Knox was found not guilty of murdering and sexually assaulting her roommate by an Italian appeals court.

As a lawyer, I find the differences between the Italian criminal defense system and the American system fascinating. (In Italy, they review all the evidence at the appeal level in front of a jury that includes judges). As someone who has worked as credentialed media, I find much of the coverage of the Knox trial repulsive.

After years of exploitive media coverage, the case has been described in many American news sources today as "Character assassination versus evidence." Lurid, irrelevant personal details about the defendant leaked. Every action of the defendant, even ones with innocent explanations, characterized in the worst light. I don't know. Sounds like most TV coverage of trials in the United States.

Can't blame media for that. Television is about ratings not justice. Many parts of criminal cases are boring. If you have a choice of flashy video or audio versus subtle details, guess what TV is going to choose?

For background on the Amanda Knox case, I suggest reading this fascinating opinion piece in the New York Times entitled,"An Innocent Abroad." In it, the author, Timothy Egan quotes someone talking about the differences between the Italian and American systems of justice:

“In Italy, the general assumption is that someone is guilty until proven innocent. Trials – in the press and in the courts – are more often about defending personal honor than establishing facts, which are easily manipulated.”

As I've mentioned before relating to the NFL Personal Conduct Policy, I think public opinion in America already has already evolved to presumption of guilt.

Interesting story today in the New York Times about King James Bible exhibit hosted at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington DC. They are commemorating the 400 year anniversary of the King James translation of the Bible by showing rare and unique Bibles collected from around the globe.

One of the more interesting Bibles featured is the so-called "Wicked Bible." The original printer of the King James Bible, Robert Barker, got in trouble for leaving out the word "not" in a subsequent edition. Unfortunately, the offending sentence read, "Thou shall commit adultery." Oops.

The Wiki on Robert Barker says that he and his co-printer Martin Lucas in 1632 were fined £300 for the mistake. Apparently, King Charles I of England was not amused. In today's dollars, that would be roughly the equivalent of 33,800 pounds.

All the Wicked Bibles were supposed to be destroyed, but apparently 11 survive, including the one on exhibit.

I am very glad I do not get fined for typos, and I miss having an editor. Great editors are like great legal assistants-they just make your life better (and more more literate sounding).

I'm often asked to comment on legal issues by non-lawyer media members. I enjoy helping with that, though it is sometimes hard to explain legal matters without simplifying to the point of inaccuracy. The following is an email exchange that happened with a story that the journalist decided not to write after getting my response because it made him think of the issue differently:

Media Question: "Do you think the pace with which the league or it's teams now take disciplinary action against players who've not been found guilty (like Pat McAfee) or not even been charged (like Kenny Britt) spills into society's general interest in rushing to judgment?

Has Roger Goodell, operating in the interest of his league, served to dent American principles like due process under the law and innocent until proven guilty?"

My Response: "I've written about the Roger Goodell-version NFL Personal Conduct Policy a number of times, but I think this piece, "All Hail Roger Goodell Or Else: A Look At The Personal Conduct Policy" summarizes my views the best.

As to your question, I do not think that the NFL Personal Conduct Policy as it is currently being enforced dents American principles like due process or innocent until proven guilty at all. I think, instead, the Goodell-revised policy is a reflection of those principles already being eroded in our cynical, plugged-in society. People think they know the facts, whether they've been accurately reported or not, and make their judgment. The "primacy effect" with how memory works means it is an uphill battle to overcome people's initial judgments, even when shown facts that challenge their assumptions.

In all cases, high-profile or otherwise, criminal defense lawyers have to spend a good amount of time during voir dire, the pre-trial questioning of jurors, making sure that jurors truly understand innocence until proven guilty and keeping an open mind until they hear all the facts.

I think NFL fans in general tend to like the policy unless it involves one of their star players, and they don't understand or like the punishment. Lots of "due process" and "innocent before proven guilty" talk thrown around by Steeler fans after the Ben Roethlisberger suspension, for example.

In general, however, people want to throw the book at criminals. Politicians get elected making harsher and harsher sentences against criminals and get thrown out of office if they are perceived as being soft on crime. Most people think that if someone is arrested, it means they are guilty, even if the American system of justice has a presumption against that.

I feel Goodell changed the policy because he knew fans don't care to have all the facts before making judgment and trusts his own judgment as a substitute for the legal system. In particular, society as a whole resents the rich and famous, and feel that athletes get special treatment (even if they do not). Few have patience for dealing with how long the legal system typically takes to come to a final resolution. The policy arose out of fan frustration that a player like Adam "PacMan" Jones could repeatedly get into trouble, sometimes of a serious nature, and that he wasn't being punished in what they saw as a timely manner.

Though athletes often do have some advantages in the legal system if they can afford to hire quality counsel and do so, they also have some disadvantages as well. Potential jurors can think they know the facts based on media reports, and jury selection in high profile cases presents special challenges. Some prosecutors see high profile cases as ways to make their career or set an example for the community, and as a result a player's case will sometimes receive harsher punishment or plea offers.

The NFL is entitled under its Collective Bargaining Agreement to discipline players in the way it is doing, even if it means that the commissioner is the judge, jury and appeals court. The same thing goes for non-NFL employers. Most states are known as "employment-at-will" states which in basic terms means that employers can fire employees for whatever reason they want to, as long as it doesn't violate a contract or the law, like discrimination laws.

So what Goodell is doing is fairly similar to what most anyone's employer could do. His policy isn't changing society but rather a reflection of general American attitudes that only respect due process and innocent before proven guilty when it happens to benefit them."

Sums things up pretty well.

As a child, I didn't know any attorneys. Probably didn't meet one until I did an internship at a large lawfirm during college when I was trying to figure out whether I was going to law school. My first exposure to the legal profession was reading To Kill a Mockingbird in high school. From reading the interesting wiki on the book, apparently Atticus Finch made an impression on generations of lawyers.

This also was my first exposure of how lawyers sometimes need to represent publicly unpopular clients. There are differing legal and ethic obligations for doing so, and the standards differ throughout the globe. [pdf]

I get startled some by the social media-talking head hostility toward lawyers doing their job. Just doing zealous representation of a human being, not a caricature. Our legal system may not be perfect, but it is better than rogue justice.

President John Adams was elected President of the United States, even after he had represented the British Soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Could a good defense lawyer be elected President in today's world? Adams worried about his reputation, and at the time famously remarked about the case:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

I'm guessing in a 24/7 talking heads cable world and with Facebook and Twitter speculation, Adams would had issues with people making up their own facts because they heard it on the web or saw it on TV.

Greetings to those visiting from HoustonCriminalLaw.com and others. My name is Stephanie Stradley, and if you are here, you have discovered the location of my new blog. The blog isn't built out yet but hopefully it will be soonishly.

Here are my answers to imaginary FAQs:

No, my Houston Chronicle Houston Texans blog will not got be going away, though the NFL lockout makes blogging challenging.

Yes, I will be talking about things other than sports.

No, I won't talk only about criminal defense matters or legal issues but will be talking about them some.

Yes, I will try to make this part of the web interesting, especially to folks from the Houston area.

No, I won't be answering your legal questions. You are not my client. Don't get your legal advice from a blog or from the web.

Yes, you can get your criminal defense legal matters answered here.

No, the actual blog will be more interesting than this. I hope.

Please check back soon and thanks for your patience. -Steph