We've been covering the growing state budget crisis as it affects the criminal justice system for several months. Fox Butterfield's article on Portland, Oregon's police department in Saturday's New York Times illuminates the issue:

Station houses now close at night, and the 960-member force is down 64 officers. With no money for overtime, undercover drug officers sometimes simply stop what they are doing — for instance, tailing suspects or executing search warrants — when their shifts end.

Because the city also has little money for public defenders, Mark Kroeker, the Portland police chief, said officers were now giving a new version of the Miranda warning when they arrested a suspect in a nonviolent crime.

"They effectively have to say, `If you can't afford a lawyer, you will be set free. Enjoy,' " Chief Kroeker said.

Other states are releasing inmates early to save money.

Maybe if we stopped putting non-violent offenders in jail in the first place, there would be money to house the remaining, dangerous ones.

DNA is not foolproof. Why? Because the testing isn't always done correctly. William Thompson is one of the leading skeptics--It's not like CSI in real life, mistakes are made, you can't always trust a positive match.

In March, a 21-year-old Texas man serving a 25-year sentence for a 1998 rape was released from prison after Thompson's review of DNA evidence in the case. Prosecutors argued at trial that Josiah Sutton's DNA was a 1-in-694,000 match with the rapist's. It took a jury just two hours to convict him. In fact, Thompson was able to show that Sutton's DNA wasn't found in any of the police samples.

None of this surprised Thompson, an attorney who also has a doctoral degree in psychology.

Although cases of innocent people falsely convicted by bad DNA evidence are rare, Thompson sees ambiguous results, sloppy lab work or overstated findings in a quarter of the cases he examines.

After hearing three days of testimony in a Florida courtroom, the Judge ruled against the muslim woman who claimed a religious right to wear her veil in her drivier's license photo .

... Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe ruled that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the public, and that having photo identification was essential to that interest. Thorpe also said Sultaana Freeman's right to free exercise of religion would not be infringed by having to show her face on her license.

The Judge in the Scott Peterson case refused to issue a gag order in the case. He also refused to unseal the autopsy reports.

We find this reprehensible. California is expanding the use of 24 hour lockdowns in prisons--as a cost-cutting measure.

The state's financially strapped corrections department is prohibiting inmates from leaving their cells at three prisons in an attempt to reduce overtime pay for guards and is considering further cost-saving restrictions at most of the system's 32 institutions, according to the chairwoman of the state Senate committee that oversees prisons.

The ACLU says the policy is unconstitutional but has no plans to sue. Too bad.

Chisum Lee, who has been writing some of the best in-depth articles out there on the abuse of civil liberties under Ashcroft in the Village Voice,explains why the Government's treatment of suspected "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla threatens all of our rights.

Lisa English of Ruminate This is on top of Ashcroft's testimony today before the House Judiciary Committee on the Patriot Act and renewal of anti-terrorism powers. We will be on the road until this evening, so be sure to check in with her. C-SPAN will air the testimony, starting at 9 A.M. EST, on video and audio feed. Click here for more information.

Attorney General John Ashcroft will be testifying this morning before the House Judiciary Committee on his implementation of the Patriot Act, and whether or not these anti-terrorism powers should be renewed. You can bank on legislators renewing his powers, but be prepared for some rhetorical fireworks especially coming on the heels of a scathing report issued earlier this week about immigrant detentions. Lawmakers are also justifiably peeved over the Justice Department's high level of secrecy.

Even in the face of the negative Inspector-General's Report on the treatment of detainees, Ashroft continues to defend his policies.

Others tell a different story:

...at a forum on Capitol Hill, one immigrant after another told of the toll that they said the fight against terrorism had taken on them. After Sept. 11, 2001, the authorities questioned, jailed or deported hundreds of people who had no known ties to terrorism.

If we trample the Constitution in the name of security," Jeanne Butterfield, director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and a participant in the forum, warned, "the terrorists have won."

The report concluded that the department's arrests of 762 illegal immigrants, most of them Middle Eastern, were plagued with "significant problems." Many of the suspects were left in jail cells for weeks or months without being formally charged, with some suffering physical and verbal abuse from their jailers, investigators found, and few of the detainees proved to have ties to terrorists, investigators found.

The inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, found that the problems were rooted in part in an unstated policy that allowed the F.B.I. to keep the suspects in detention unless it was established that they were not tied to terrorism.

At his press conference today,

....Mr. Ashcroft did not mention the inspector general's findings, and he left the briefing room without answering questions about the report.

Also in denial was Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, who said,

the report showed that the Justice Department "scrupulously followed the law, while aggressively protecting innocent Americans from future terrorist attacks."

Update: The ACLU is considering lawsuits on behalf of the rounded-up immigrants as a result of the report. [link via Cursor.]

After her Indictment was disclosed today, Martha Stewart posted a letter on her website, that included the following:

To My Friends and Loyal Supporters,

After more than a year, the government has decided to bring charges against me for matters that are personal and entirely unrelated to the business of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. I want you to know that I am innocent -
and that I will fight to clear my name.

I simply returned a call from my stockbroker. Based in large part on prior discussions with my broker about price, I authorized a sale of my remaining shares in a biotech company called ImClone. I later denied any wrongdoing in public statements and in voluntary interviews with prosecutors. The government's attempt to criminalize these actions makes no sense to me.

I am confident I will be exonerated of these baseless charges, but a trial unfortunately won't take place for months. I want to thank you for your extraordinary support during the past year - I appreciate it more than you will ever know.

For more information, please visit the special website I have established for you at www.marthatalks.com. I will do my best to post current information about the case, and you will be able to contact me there at martha@marthatalks.com. I look forward to hearing from you.

The New York Times Thursday has an article on prosecutors stalking celebrities. You can read the full text of the Indictment here. And don't miss her lawyer's statement in response to the charges.

The American Film Festival has released its list of the top heroes and villains in movies. "The 100 heroes and villains were chosen from 400 character nominees on ballots sent to 1,500 actors, directors, critics and others in the movie business."

So who's the number one hero? Criminal defense lawyer Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird."

"I think Atticus Finch just represents the goodness all of us want to see in others and feel in ourselves," said Jean Picker Firstenburg, the institute's director. "This is a hard time in human history, and we look for the bright spots that show us the way."

[link via Kate Jones and Dan Dodson, Indigent Defense Director and Media Affairs Director, respectively, of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL.)

Speaking of NACDL, we'll be at an NACDL Executive Committee retreat starting tomorrow, through the weekend--we will be posting, but probably mostly mornings and nights instead of throughout the day.

Hooray for Ed Rosenthal! The convicted "guru of ganja" was sentenced in San Francisco to one day in jail--which he had already served--so he's free.

A big and well-deserved slap in the face to Ashcroft.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer sentenced convicted marijuana grower Ed Rosenthal to one day in federal prison with credit for time served, essentially setting him free.

Rosenthal was convicted in January of three marijuana cultivation and conspiracy charges. He faced more than 80 years in federal prison and $2.5 million in fines. The Federal Probation Department had recommended that Rosenthal be sentenced to two 21-month sentences to be served concurrently.

Charles Breyer prevented him from using California's Prop. 215 as a defense in his case. Prop. 215, which is not recognized by the federal government, allows critically ill patients to grow, posses and consume cannabis with a doctor's recommendation. When the jurors who convicted Rosenthal later discovered that he had been growing starter plants for patients, they renounced their guilty verdict and announced that they had been misled.

The Attorney General of California and eight of the jurors in the case wrote the Judge asking for leniency for Rosenthal. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said Rosenthal genuinely believed that what he was doing was not against the law. "He was unaware his conduct was not immunized from federal prosecution," the judge said.... Federal law does not permit legalization of marijuana for medical use, although Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington allow it.

Our full coverage of the case is here.

Martha Stewart has been indicted. She appeared in court, was released on her own recognizance and pleaded not guilty.

The 41-page indictment unsealed on Wednesday charges Stewart with securities fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and making false statements to prosecutors and the FBI. The charges stem " from her alleged involvement in the ImClone insider-trading scandal.....

Stewart, 61, accompanied by her lawyer, entered the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum of Manhattan just after 3 p.m. and took notes throughout the 10-minute proceeding. She wore a tan, light-weight wool pantsuit and large diamond stud earrings.

"How do you plead to the indictment?" Cedarbaum asked. Stewart, who appeared strained, answered crisply and emphatically, "not guilty."

We think this case is political. We're angry about it. In fact, even though we haven't been much of a Martha Stewart fan before, we reformed last night by buying our first copy of Martha Stewart Living at the grocery store. This investigation has caused her a fortune--it's been a guy thing and a power play since day 1. As her lawyer posited today in a written statement asserting her innocence,

"Is it for publicity purposes because Martha Stewart is a celebrity? Is it because she is a woman who has successfully competed in a man's business world by virtue of her talent, hard work and demanding standards?"

We believe the answer is a resounding "yes." Fight, Martha, fight.