Learn from the Small Cases

In a new article from The Crime Report, taken from a NY Times article, small cases involving first-time offenders give big lessons to learn. The article is long, but has some great tidbits that all American’s can learn from. It get started this way:

Anthony, a 28 year-old African-American school bus driver with no criminal record, is in the passenger seat of a friend’s car when the police pull it over for a burned-out brake light. The cops search the car, and they find a pipe with marijuana residue in the console. In New York, simple possession of marijuana leads only to a civil violation, but the police describe this pipe as being “open to public view”— so they arrest both men and bump the charges up to misdemeanors.

Because of that charge, Anthony is automatically and immediately suspended from the job he has held for seven years, pending the disposition of the case.

And later it goes on to discuss why the prosecutor maintained the criminal charge, versus deflating it to a civil penalty. One year free and clear of crime was the first offer the prosecutor put forward in order to drop the misdemeanor charge. Anthony balked, and that was taken down to 90 days. That’s still three months without a paycheck. Anthony balked again and the case was rescheduled for hearing in another month. Anthony is unemployed until then.

The article continues:

We tend to think that the job of a conscientious justice professional is to protect a presumptively safe system from dishonest, lazy, or incompetent fellow humans. But in Anthony’s case none of the humans violated the rules. No one likes the outcome, but everyone did his or her individual job as they’d been taught to do it.

Does that mean no one is responsible? Safety experts in aviation, medicine, and other fields would say everyone is responsible.

The cops made the stop and wrote the “public view” application; the prosecutors “papered” the case and refused to throw out the misdemeanor; the defense failed to find a way to make the questionable basis for the charge count for something; the judge took the path of least resistance and gave the thing a new date.

All the while Anthony is out of a job, on the unemployment lines, and absorbing resources from the system rather than adding to them. First-time offenders often don’t do what is required to make situations like this better for them because the system just rolls over them in a cacophony of lethargy and apathy. Learn how to avoid mistakes first timers make to avoid looking at the unemployment line or worse.

Visit the First-Time-Offender website and read up on protecting yourself from becoming just another story.

Prosecutors and Bullying

The title of this post comes from the new essay, “Threats and Bullying by Prosecutors” by Bennett L. Gershman, a law professor at Pace University. The essay, available for free right here, is definitely worth a full read at only 19 pages, but below I will take a moment to highlight some of the sections and ways Professor Gershman deconstructs the ways prosecutors bully and threaten defendants. It starts out this way:

[Prosecutors] have been described as “virtuous,” “prudent,” “ethical,” “good,” “unique,” and “gamesmen.” But there is one persona that seems to have eluded characterization and commentary: the prosecutor as a bully. In fact, one of the most prominent features of U.S. prosecutors is their ability to threaten, intimidate, and embarrass anyone – defendants, witnesses, lawyers – without any accountability or apology. This is the conduct of a bully.

On Intimidating Grand Jury Witnesses

A state senator’s chief of staff is called in to testify against his boss. He doesn’t want to testify, but is granted immunity and told his refusal to testify can be punished with contempt, and lying is perjury. The witness says he can’t remember a meeting between his boss and a wealthy real estate developer…

The prosecutor, in an extremely agitated tone of voice exclaims: “You know you are lying. Don’t insult this grand jury. You’ll be in jail in a heartbeat unless you tell the truth. You’ll be finished. You will never work again.”
Are the prosecutor’s threats a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial power? Do these threats enhance or degrade the prosecutor’s ethical duty to serve justice?

More Highlights

Gershman goes on to highlight prosecutorial conduct in coercing guilty pleas, attacking defense experts, bullying defense witnesses (and even their own prosecution witnesses), compelling waiver of civil rights claims, retaliation, demagoguery, shaming, and coercing corporate cooperation.

Look for future posts highlighting more sections of this important essay. Any first-time offender will learn quickly how true this information is. He or she will feel bullied and coerced by the prosecuting attorney and wonder how this is part of the legal system they’ve been taught to trust. A fantastic guide for all first time offenders can be found at the first-time-offender website, which hosts the ultimate resource for anybody facing their first charge.

Opportunity After Federal Prison

The United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey had some interesting comments about community release after incarceration. Normally, the American standard of criminal justice involves putting away the bad guys. After that, the narrative seems to stop.

Unfortunately for that narrative, and fortunately for defendants and inmates, nearly everybody that goes to prison gets release. What happens then? Most don’t know.

In early July, 2014 the United States Sentencing Commission released and confirmed their new drug guidelines that will not only make drug sentences shorter, but apply them retroactively (eventually)1.

Below is an excerpt from an opinion article written by the above-mentioned US Attorney regarding opportunities for inmates after they get released, but the entire piece entitled “Ex offenders get time, now they need opportunity” is worth a full read.

Every year, my office prosecutes several hundred defendants who have violated criminal laws passed by Congress. For most of those defendants, a term in federal prison is warranted. Whether they are public officials who betray their oaths, predators who threaten the safety of our neighborhoods and our children, or thieves who cheat the health care system, investors or the government — incarceration is the appropriate punishment.

But prison is usually not meant to last forever. More than 95 percent of federal prisoners will be released after serving their sentences. Altogether, 700,000 federal and state prisoners are released every year, along with millions more who stream through local jails.

Most return to their communities, trying to put their lives back together and avoid the pitfalls that got them in trouble. Bearing the stain of their convictions, they compete for jobs, look for housing and seek educational opportunities.

A staggering number don’t succeed. Nationally, two-thirds of people released from state prisons are arrested again; half of those will end up back inside. Forty percent of federal prisoners return to jail in the first three years.

This level of recidivism is unacceptable. Offenders, their families and their communities are devastated by it. Public safety suffers for it. And with more than $74 billion spent annually on federal, state and local corrections, we can’t afford it.

Prison alone isn’t enough. Any smart law enforcement model prevents crime by supporting ex-offenders. That is why my U.S. Attorney’s Office — along with federal judges, the federal public defender, and the U.S. Probation Office — began the “ReNew” program, a federal re-entry court in Newark. Those leaving federal prison at serious risk of reoffending are invited to participate.

They are closely supervised, meeting biweekly with federal Magistrate Judge Madeline Cox Arleo, our office, and the federal defenders, and more regularly with probation officers. And they are supported in obtaining housing, jobs, education, counseling and legal assistance. My office provides services to the team and participants and supervises research into the program’s efficacy.

This week, the judge will preside over the first graduation ceremony for those who have successfully completed 52 weeks in the program. It is a hugely inspiring milestone for everyone involved, but especially for the graduates reimagining their lives despite great adversity….

Recently, my office launched the New Jersey Re-entry Council, a partnership with acting New Jersey Attorney General John Hoffman, other federal and state agencies, and NGO community members to share resources and ideas.

But there is one more partner we need: you. Finding a job after release is the most important key to success. In a recovering economy, securing a job after prison can be especially difficult. If you have a company that can train or hire our participants, or if you have access to housing, we need to hear from you….

One of every 100 adults in the United States is behind bars. Most will come home. They will have paid their debt and need a chance to support themselves, their families and their communities. We can look at ex-offenders returning to our communities as a risk, or we can help give them that chance. The potential rewards for their lives, for the economy and for our safety are incalculable.

  1. The Sentencing Commission is using a phased and delayed approach to actually releasing inmates early from federal prison []

Hilarity in a Federal Probation Revocation Hearing

“After violating the terms of his supervised release, Appellant was sentenced to prison and an additional period of supervised release, including special conditions. The Fifth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the special condition without demonstrating that the condition was reasonably related to statutory factors.”

The above quote comes from a federal probation revocation hearing, published online over at the Federal Criminal Appeals Blog, and is part of a larger (sometimes humorous) story of a man named Sammy Salazar (US v. Salazar, 5th Cir 2014). Mr. Salazar was serving a 10-year suspended sentence for third degree sexual abuse when he failed to register as a sex offender and earned himself a new felony.

Time served, plus fifteen (15) years of supervised release with a bunch of special conditions on his supervision. He appealed those special conditions and got a bunch removed.1

Later, Mr. Salazar assaulted somebody in his family2 and got his supervision revoked: prison for 12 months and 14 years of supervision.  Again along with a bunch of special conditions of supervision.

Defense attorney objected, and led to the funniest written exchange between judge and lawyer I’ve seen in a long time:

Judge : Counsel, I’m aware that this is what went up on appeal because they weren’t written at the time of the sentence. This is not the original sentence. This is a new sentence on revocation. I am adding these conditions. I may do so under the terms of the supervised release and a revocation. So these are additional conditions that I am imposing on the revocation.

Saad: Then Your Honor, we would object and make a new objection that they’re overly burdensome and …

Jude: Overruled, counselor.

Saad: …and…

Judge: Overruled.

Saad: Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge: Overruled.

The defense attorney pissed the judge off to the point where defense’s GRATITUDE was overruled. Well done counselor.

  1. Removal of these special conditions wasn’t because Salazar didn’t need them, or deserve them, it was simply because the judge ordered only a few of these special conditions out loud in court. The rest of the conditions were snuck in outside of oral orders and were thrown out by the Appeals Court. []
  2. without a doubt, Mr. Salazar isn’t a man I want to get to know. Most times, important decisions are made and important precedents are set because of very unlikeable characters such as Salazar []

A Good Week For Federal Probation Termination

The Feeling of Freedom after federal probation termination

Here at PCR Consultants we periodically like to share our success stories with readers and future clients. Since the launch of our Federal Supervision Release services, we have seen a large increase in the number of visitors seeking federal probation termination (that’s the official term for early release from federal probation) and a lot of their successes are coming in.

In the week of March 11-17th, 2013 two such success stories came to us back-to-back. Their release dates are over three weeks apart, but we heard the news last week. With the permission of the clients, we’ve published one testimonial and both of their release orders below. (Names and case numbers are redacted per client request).

Successes

These are just the first few:

Our first client was one of the first to sign up and use our online document services to prepare his Motion to Terminate Supervised Release. His motion was filed on 12/3/12, termination order was issued on 1/18/13. That is 46 days from filing to early termination of federal supervised release.

For those that keep track, he served just over 23 out of 48 months on supervision. Its great news when we see clients release before even serving half their term! Take a look at his release order.

Our second client success story of the week petitioned outside of her supervisory district because court oversight was never transferred to where she lived and was supervised. She served 41 months out of 48, and was released on 2/13/13 (docketed filing date not specified on record). Take a look at her release order.

She even supplied a testimonial, which she has allowed us to publish as well:

“My name is [withheld] & I am writing to say thanks for your assistance on my Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release. I talked to & worked a lot with Eric prior to obtaining PCR’s assistance as well as after hiring the company. I am pleased to inform you that the motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release was granted and I am no longer under supervision or in care of the federal government or a probation officer. Originally, I had wanted to file in Colorado Springs rather than the state I was convicted in (NE) & for good reasons but unbelievably NE granted the termination & I have the papers to prove it, lol. Thank You (everyone involved) for all your help! I will be letting others know and referring your business to those who, like myself, are just a waste of time and taxpayers money. Sincerely,
[withheld]”

Thank you for those kind words!

Ending Federal Probation in the Age of Sequestration

Update: 4/21/14

It seems as though Sequestration changed the way many probation departments handled early release requests. For most of Summer/Fall 2013, probation officers were ending federal probation early for their supervisees on their own request. However, it seems that this trend is waning and there is a heightened need for do-it-yourself motions. E-mail us or give us a call to find out how to do this!

Ending Federal Probation Early – The New Game

The topic of the federal budget sequestration hasn’t arisen much in the news much since early Spring. However, it is important to know that these distasteful budget cuts are still in effect, and will seemingly remain in effect for the near future.

In a time where government budgets are stretched, nowhere is this more apparent than in the federal justice system. Dated August 13, 2013 a letter was sent to congress signed by 87 Chief District Judges that dealt specifically with the budget cuts the Sequestration has made to the federal judiciary.

Here’s the most interesting part for those seeking federal probation termination:

“As a result of sequestration, funding allocations sent out to court units were cut 10 percent below the fiscal year 2012 level. Clerks of court and probation and pretrial services offices will downsize by as many as 1,000 staff during fiscal year 2013 due to this reduction in funding. Staffing in these same offices has been reduced by nearly 2,100 staff between July 2011 and July 2013, representing a 10 percent staffing loss to the Judiciary over this two-year period. Our current staffing level is the lowest it has been since 1999 despite significant workload growth during this same period of time. In addition to downsizing, the courts have already incurred 4,500 furlough days as of June 2013, and an additional, 4,100 furlough days are projected by the end of the fiscal year.”

. . . and later:

“Funding cuts to the Judiciary have also put public safety at risk. The Judiciary employs nearly 6,000 law enforcement officers—probation and pretrial services officers—to supervise individuals in the community after they have been convicted of a crime and subsequently released from prison, as well as defendants awaiting trial. The number of convicted offenders under the supervision of federal probation officers hit a record 187,311 in 2012 and is on pace to reach 191,000 by 2014. At a time when the workload in our probation and pretrial offices continues to grow, budget cuts have reduced funding allocations to these offices by 10 percent. Staffing in probation and pretrial services offices is down nearly 600 (7 percent) since 2011.”

Hit ‘Em Where it Hurts

No matter the political leaning of a specific judge, the fact that 87 out of 94, or 92.5%, Chief judges signed this letter1 shows that budget problems have their attention.

The one place judges can agree, and where a probationer (or those on federal supervised release) can focus on, is the Court’s pocketbook. Want to hit ’em where it hurts? Try the wallet.

 

PCR Consultant’s Probation Termination service

This, like many other current issues that affect the federal courts, is used to its maximum effectiveness in each of our client’s services. When the goal is ending federal probation early, using as many arguments like this as possible only helps. If you want to get started on the road to terminating federal supervised release early, click here.

  1. When, as federal district judge Richard G. Kopf (NE) said in this article about the letter “As a former Chief District Judge, I know that you can almost never get 87 Chief District Judges to agree about when the sun comes up. The fact that 87 of them wrote the foregoing letter to Congress ought to make clear that the federal district courts are inches away from disaster. Congress is on the brink of intentionally wrecking the federal trial courts. Will sanity prevail?” []

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Today we have a couple of stories from around the country that will interest those searching for some sanity in American criminal justice.

To start, we have a story from the Federal Criminal Appeals Blog. It turns out that the government believes riding in a car with drugs, even if a defendant had no idea drugs were present, is still a crime worth many years in federal prison. The story goes like this: a construction worker (Mr. Tavera) was riding to Tennessee to do a roofing job.

Prosecutor Hides Evidence of Innocence

Tavera’s driver had lots of construction equipment in the back of the truck, including a bucket of nails and a large quantity of methamphetamine below those nails.

The US Attorney for the case was told by the truck driver that Tavera had no idea the Meth was there, but forgot to mention that at Tavera’s trial which ended up netting him over 15 years in prison.

From the story:

AUSA Taylor never told Mr. Tavera’s lawyer that Mr. Mendoza said Mr. Tavera isn’t guilty.

And, as a result, the jury never heard that the only other guy in the car told the prosecutor that Mr. Tavera didn’t know about the drugs.

As the Sixth Circuit said, “Mendoza’s statements to Taylor were plainly exculpatory.”

The Supreme Court has said that the government has to hand over all information that is exculpatory and that if it fails to do that, the prosecution is fundamentally unfair.

Yet, despite that the law is crystal clear on this, the Sixth Circuit notes that “nondisclosure of Brady1 material is still a perennial problem, as multiple scholarly accounts attest.”

The prosecutor, as the Sixth Circuit explained, figured it was Tavera’s fault for not doing a good enough job on defense. However, US Supreme Court history is very explicit that it is the prosecutors job to be forthcoming with any such evidence to ensure a fair trial.

With the deck already stacked so squarely in favor of the prosecution in federal cases, do they really need to act this poorly? The Sixth Circuit decided that this was so clearly unfair, that it ordered a new trial.

How long will this new trial even last with this evidence on the record for a jury to see? My guess: not long.

  1. Any evidence of innocence possessed by the prosecution, known as exculpatory evidence, is required to be turned over to the defense before trial. Brady material refers to evidence of innocence, from Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) []

Durbin and Lee Introduce Smarter Sentencing Act

This press release from the office of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL and then-assistant-majority-leader) gives some pointed details about the Smarter Sentencing Act. Its tagline  states the intent of the bill like this:

“[The] Bill Modernizes Drug Sentencing Policy, Focuses Resources on Violent Offenders and Public Safety Risks, Promotes Consistency with Fair Sentencing Act”

The press release gets started this way:

“With federal prison populations skyrocketing and nearly half of the nation’s federal inmates serving sentences for drug offenses, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) have introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act, to modernize our drug sentencing polices by giving federal judges more discretion in sentencing those convicted of non-violent offenses. Making these incremental and targeted changes could save taxpayers billions in the first years of enactment.

“Mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses have played a huge role in the explosion of the U.S. prison population,” Durbin said. “Once seen as a strong deterrent, these mandatory sentences have too often been unfair, fiscally irresponsible and a threat to public safety. Given tight budgets and overcrowded prison cells, judges should be given the authority to conduct an individualized review in sentencing certain drug offenders and not be bound to outdated laws that have proven not to work and cost taxpayers billions.”

It seems this bill is a sort of reboot of another sentence reform bill introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy and Rand Paul, which would give sentencing judges discretion on imposing mandatory minimums.

It is currently unclear if these bills will be competing or complimentary (symbiotic, so to speak) with/to each other. The good news, if it can be called that, is that lawmakers are seeing that balooning prison populations which consist of many non-violent crimes is getting noticed as a prime place to reduce budgetary spending.

Making Everything a Crime

The Over-Criminalizing of Americans

This post’s title is from the folks over at Reason.com who posted the Title article today which brings a refreshed look at three very important things:

  1. The continued over-criminalizing of Americans;
  2. The militarizing of domestic law enforcement; and,
  3. Criminalizing the use of constitutional rights.

The entire article is great and deserves a full read (the original article can be found here). Here is how it gets started:

Elizabeth Daly went to jail over a case of bottled water.

According to the Charlottesville Daily Progress, shortly after 10 p.m. on April 11, the 20-year-old U.Va. student bought ice cream, cookie dough and a carton of LaCroix sparkling water from the Harris Teeter grocery store at the popular Barracks Road Shopping Center. In the parking lot, a half-dozen men and a woman approached her car, flashing some kind of badges. One jumped on the hood. Another drew a gun. Others started trying to break the windows.

Daly understandably panicked. With her roommate in the passenger seat yelling “Go, go, go!” Daly drove off, hoping to reach the nearest police station. The women dialed 911. Then a vehicle with lights and sirens pulled them over, and the situation clarified: The persons who had swarmed Daly’s vehicle were plainclothes agents of the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The agents had thought the sparkling water was a 12-pack of beer.

Did the ABC’s enforcers apologize? Not in the slightest. They charged Daly with three felonies: two for assaulting an officer (her vehicle had grazed two agents; neither was hurt) and one for eluding the police. Last week, the commonwealth’s attorney dropped the charges.

This is just one example of where law enforcement in America is going, and what it has now become. Here’s another example from the same article:

This follows the case of Jeff Olson, who chalked messages such as “Stop big banks” outside branches of Bank of America last year. Law professor Jonathan Turley reports that prosecutors brought 13 vandalism charges against him. Moreover, the judge in the case recently prohibited Olson’s attorney from “mentioning the First Amendment, free speech,” or anything like them during the trial.

June Roundup

The end of May was not a good one for anybody sitting at the defense table in Federal (and even State) courtrooms. This post is a quick look at the decisions that make defendant’s lives harder.

Maryland v. King

This case is all about 4th Amendment rights, and what constitutes too much invasion of personal liberties (and one’s own body) without a judge’s authorization. In short, can police take a DNA sample of citizens suspected of felony crimes?

In recent years, law enforcement and prison bureaus have taken DNA samples from inmates who are convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors. These samples get loaded into local and national databases to be compared to DNA samples from unsolved crimes.1

In Maryland, a law was passed which allowed law enforcement to take DNA samples of citizens who were arrested of crimes, but not yet convicted. All without a judicial warrant for this “search” of the body. An old case was solved using DNA, and a conviction for a rape in 2003 was achieved through this process. Defendant King appealed, saying that DNA collection from people not yet convicted of any crime violates 4th Amendment Protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

The United States Supreme Court, in this recent and sharply divided decision, said that these DNA collections are not protected by the 4th Amendment and do not need a judges signature for those arrested for certain crimes.

Some Good News

Managers and leaders are taught in training courses that, in order to communicate dismay, such news must be presented in between positive notes. While there aren’t enough good cases to bookend the bad, there was one decision from the 6th Circuit that bodes exceptionally well in the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) arena.

The FSA 2010 brought down the sentencing disparity in federal courts between powder and crack cocaine. In the pre-FSA days, there was a disparity between sentences of 100:1. This meant that 2.2 pounds of distributed powder cocaine carried the same sentence as only 10 grams of crack cocaine. FSA 2010 brought that ration down to a mere 18:1. These drugs are not treated equally yet, and it still punishes poor urban defendants disproportionately, but its a start.

Later on, the US Sentencing Commission decided unanimously to apply these reductions retroactively. This retroactive ruling, however, did nothing for those sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences before FSA 2010 became active. In US v. Blewett, No. 12-5226 (6th Cir. May 17, 2013), the 6th Circuit decided in a split decision that it would be the UN-Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 if it did not apply retroactively to defendants who were sentenced before the enactment of the law.

This decision is sure to be reviewed by the entire panel of 6th Circuit judges en banc and may well not make it through that review, but its good news for incarcerated crack cocaine defendants in the 6th Circuit until then.

Brady Rules of Evidence

Prosecutors want convictions. Defense council wants the opposite. However, in the American justice system, the prosecutor holds almost all of the cards. The landmark US Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) the interest of justice was put before simple conviction numbers.

This opinion editorial from the NY Time on May 18th begins by describing Brady this way:

Fifty years ago, in the landmark case Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court laid down a fundamental principle about the duty of prosecutors — to seek justice in fair trials, not merely to win convictions by any means. The court said that due process required prosecutors to disclose to criminal defendants any exculpatory evidence they asked for that was likely to affect a conviction or sentence.
It might seem obvious that prosecutors with any sense of fairness would inform a defendant’s lawyer of evidence that could be favorable to the defendant’s case. But in fact, this principle, known as the Brady rule, has been restricted by subsequent rulings of the court and has been severely weakened by a near complete lack of punishment for prosecutors who flout the rule. The court has also declined to require the disclosure of such evidence during negotiations in plea bargains, which account for about 95 percent of cases.

Read more about this complete lack of punishment for prosecutors who commit misconduct from their office in this lengthy Yale Law Journal post. Noting how the Brady decision above has been so thoroughly gutted since 1963, the Times article points out the Thompson case.2

The 2011 case of John Thompson is particularly instructive — as an example of atrocious prosecutorial misconduct and of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hold the prosecutor accountable. Mr. Thompson spent 14 years on death row for a murder he did not commit. He was exonerated when an investigator found that lawyers in the New Orleans district attorney’s office had kept secret more than a dozen pieces of evidence that cast doubt on Mr. Thompson’s guilt, even destroying some. Yet the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned a $14 million jury award to Mr. Thompson, ruling that the prosecutor’s office had not shown a pattern of “deliberate indifference” to constitutional rights. Outrageous breaches of due process rights in such cases show that the Brady rule — which seems essentially voluntary in some places — is simply insufficient to ensure justice.

To summarize, prosecutors must disclose all evidence which would be beneficial to the defendant, in order to secure fairness in the judicial system. Prosecutors are not supposed to withhold or suppress evidence in order to secure convictions simply for the sake of convictions. However, prosecutors are not required to exercise this mandate during 95% of federal cases because that many cases end up with plea deals. Further, even if a prosecutor plays unfairly, there are no consequences of note.

Many clients believe that the cards are stacked against them. If this isn’t objective evidence enough that they’re right, what is?
And last but not least…

Fricosu: A final Update

This is a story that we’ve followed through half-dozen-or-so posts (see here, here, here, and here to get started). The anti-climatic ending to this very important 5th Amendment case was reported in this related article over at Wired.com yesterday.

What could have been a huge case in the 5th Amendment fight against a judiciary that doesn’t understand technology fizzled when a co-defendant went all “5K” and gave authorities the password that Fricosu was supposed to supply.

  1. crimes of murder, rape and the like… []
  2. Connick v. Thompson, 09-571 (SCOTUS 2011) []