Rick Reimer, who was smoking a joint when he was pulled over by cops for a traffic violation (crossing the center line), has been found not guilty by a Canadian judge of driving while his ability was impaired.

Reimer, a retired Canadian lawyer with MS, had an exemption from Health Canada allowing him to smoke marijuana for medical reasons.

Defending himself in a trial to the Court, Reimer admitted he was driving while smoking pot, but said it did not affect his driving and was not the cause of his traffic violation. The Judge acquitted Reimer, saying he had a doubt as to whether it was the pot or the MS that caused Reimer to swerve.

"Reimer called several of his friends to testify in the case and they said they drive while smoking pot, too. Some said it made their driving better."

After the trial, Reimer said, "The most important thing, in my opinion, that the judge said is that this is an area that needs a lot more scientific study. It also, in my opinion, needs a lot more democratic debate."

The prosecutor in the case said that the Crown received a very fair trial from the Judge but has not decided yet whether to appeal.

"Defense attorneys for sniper suspect John Lee Malvo asked a judge Thursday to bar the public and the press from a preliminary hearing Tuesday that will outline some of the evidence against him. A Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court judge will hear arguments on the motion Friday afternoon. "

Unfortunately, we doubt the defense will prevail. But, the additional negative publicity may help Malvo in a future change of venue motion--which we think should be granted. Judge Matsch wrote an excellent opinion on the topic when he granted a motion by McVeigh and Nichols to move their trial outside of Oklahoma. [We say "trial" as opposed to "trials" because at the time he granted the motion, the two cases had not been severed yet for trial.] You can read the opinion here.

It may be tougher for Malvo and Muhammed to get a change of venue because the case is in state court, as opposed to federal court-- but the Judge should at least move their trials to a county in Virginia where the citizens were less directly affected by the attacks. Putting aside the issue of the effect of pre-trial publicity on the prospective jurors, there is also the issue that a large number, if not all, of the citizens of the Virginia counties where the two are charged felt personally victimized by attacks. A crime victim can't sit on the jury of the man accused of perpetrating the crime against her. At least in any other case that would be true.

Via Atrios, another example of horrendous police conduct--you have to read this one to believe it: As family shrieks, police kill dog

Former Congressman Bob Barr is outraged (as are we) about this over-the-top and hopefully illegal Virginia police practice (remember, Barr is now working with the ACLU) in Crimes before the fact :

"The gendarmes are going into local area bars undercover, waiting for patrons to imbibe what might possibly be too much inside the bar, forcing them outside for a mandatory blood-alcohol content test and, if they fail, citing them. In some instances, eschewing the boredom of operating undercover, they are charging in with full, SWAT regalia, and pulling patrons outside the bar. All this with no evidence whatsoever the poor souls enjoying a drink at the local pub were going to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive under the influence."

Barr's opinion on the practice? We have to give the former Congressman credit here, let's face it, he's due:

"This actually is a frightening scenario that one hopes is nipped in the bud. Not only is this sort of Gestapolike behavior chilling in the extreme, but if condoned or encouraged, will find its way into other areas of detaining or arresting people for potential criminal behavior."

Come to think of it, however, we're already on the way to that scenario, what with the manner in which law-abiding citizens are subject to humiliating, public partial strip searches for no reason other than they might have looked at an airport security person in the wrong way, or bought a ticket in a manner different from their usual routine."

"All this fits right in with the "Eye-in-the-Sky" perspective of retired Adm. John Poindexter and the cherished Total Information Awareness system he's building at the Pentagon — collect all the information on as many people as you can in advance, decide who might be bad, and act on it. So what if you invade the privacy of virtually every law-abiding citizen in the country; you might be able to possibly identify a potential lawbreaker. The good retired admiral would really like those guys down at the Fairfax precinct. They're his kind of guys."

Instapundit's on our side on this one as well. Law Prof. Reynolds says, "Sorry, but this is inexcusable, and some of the examples make clear that this is really just an in terrorem effort, not serious law enforcement. I hope a bunch of people sue. Could it be another Houston in the making? We'll see."

How much do you believe in coincidences? We'd say not enough to believe these two sets of arrests are not connected.

1. Three Texas inmates serving long sentences (two for capital murder) have been charged with plotting in 2001 to kill federal court Judge Richard P. Matsch--the Judge who presided over the McVeigh and Nichols trials in the Oklahoma City Bombing case. One of the inmates is charged with soliciting the other two.

2. Matt Hale, the leader of a White Supremacist organization, was arrested in Chicago Wednesday on charges that between Nov. 29 and Dec. 17, he tried to get someone to kill U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow. No details are available about who he allegedly tried to enlist.

Likewise, few details are available about the plot to kill Judge Matsch. We have practiced before Judge Matsch our entire career--rarely have we encountered a Judge who is as determined to provide a fair trial to the defense. He doesn't suffer fools and he sounds off equally at the Government and the Defense. We've served on several committees at his request, and have a tremendous amount of respect for him. We are shocked and angry at the allegations. But we are also keeping in mind that charges are not evidence, and it would be wrong to presume that those charged are guilty.

Judge Matsch was the Chief Judge of the District of Colorado until just a few years ago, when age laws required him to leave that position. He continued to preside over trials as a district court judge, working every day nothwithstanding that he was waiting for a liver transplant (not due to any alchohol related condition.) He got the transplant, returned to work, and just recently took senior status.

In 1987, Judge Matsch presided over another high-profile case with white supremacist defendants--one that involved the murder of Denver radio host Alan Berg. The defendants were convicted. One of them, David Lane, was sentenced to 150 years.

We have no information to connect the cases of Hale and the Texas inmates. Nor are we implying a connection between either of these two cases and the Alan Berg case, but like we said, we don't much believe in coincidences--particularly when law enforcement swoops down in different parts of the country in the same day and charges unrelated people with similar crimes. On the other hand, we could just be a little paranoid.

President Bush's renomination of Charles Pickering for an appellate judgeship has Democrats steaming:

"Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said today that he was astonished that Mr. Bush had renominated Judge Pickering."

"If they want to force us to filibuster and have that debate on the floor of the United States Senate, so be it," Mr. Schumer said. "We're ready." With Republicans in control of the Senate, 51-48-1, the Democrats do not have enough votes to defeat the nomination, but they do have the 41 votes needed to block any effort to break a filibuster."

Start talking, Senators. We're counting on you.

D'Accord: The New York Times has an editorial today on Pickering's re-nomination titled The Revenge of Trent Lott:

During last month's firestorm over Mr. Lott, Republicans tried to have it both ways on race. They appeased the majority of Americans, who were outraged at Mr. Lott's sympathetic words about segregation, by pressing him to resign as the Senate Republican leader. At the same time they winked at Mr. Lott's supporters by having prominent party members stand by him. More recently, they announced plans to award Mr. Lott a new position of honor by making him chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. Throughout the zigging and zagging it still seemed possible that the party would heed the advice of Bill Frist, the Senate's new G.O.P. leader, who said one of his priorities would be "ensuring that our agenda is inclusive of all Americans." That hope evaporated with the renomination of Judge Pickering and several other jurists with dubious records on racial issues. Senator Charles Schumer of New York, among others, has declared that he will use every weapon at his disposal to defeat Judge Pickering. Other Democrats should join in, as should moderate Republican senators, who insisted last month that Mr. Lott's views had no place in their party.

Former NYC Mayor had to testify in a New York trial today--of a former police officer and two former firefighters suing the City for their improper dismissal after wearing blackface during a Labor Day float and mocking the death of an African-American man in Texas. The issue is whether city employees, including police officers, are entitled, under the First Amendment, to participate in a "spoof of a racist murder, grossly insulting an entire race of people," and later contend "it was all meant in good fun and as fine entertainment."

"At the time, Mr. Giuliani called the float "a disgusting display of racism," and said that if the men were caught, they were "going to be fired immediately." But Guliani did not have the right to fire the men. Police and Fire Commissioners alone have that authority--after due process (i.e., notice and an opportunity to be heard.)

"The New York Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the former police officer, argued that government cannot retaliate for the content of speech. He also charged that Mr. Giuliani acted in self-defense, to rebut charges that he was racially insensitive, especially in regard to the Police Department's handling of the so-called Million Youth March in Harlem just a few days before the float rolled through Broad Channel, Queens."

The presiding jurist, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Sprizzo did not care for Guliani's testimony, and at one poin,"got rather animated."

"They do work for you, they serve at your pleasure, don't they?" he asked. "Knowing how you felt, did you really expect them to disagee with you?"

Yes, Mr. Giuliani said."

"Really?" asked the judge. "You are the boss."

"Mr. Giuliani: "But I wasn't the boss of the disciplinary process."

"The judge: "If that were truly your state of mind, the statements you made were really most improper."

"Mr. Giuliani: "I have a right to my opinion."

"At which point Judge Sprizzo invoked 12th-century England, when Henry II famously flew into a rage and said "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?," in effect directing his followers to murder Thomas à Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury. Which they did."

At one point, "Judge Sprizzo said flat out that the mayor's strong condemnation of the three men "was designed for public consumption."

Guliani kept his cool during his three hour stint on the witness stand, "perhaps mindful of his national reputation." The trial is ongoing.

"The legal community is battling a plan that would require lawyers to alert regulators if a corporate client is about to inflict financial harm, such as inflating profit."

"Under current ethics rules, lawyers would not be obligated to blow the whistle on their business clients. But the Securities and Exchange Commission could change that, under a proposed rule that would require lawyers to tell the SEC about problems that companies refuse to fix."

What's wrong with this? Susan Hackett, general counsel for the Corporate Counsel Association, the trade association for full-time, in-house company attorneys, gets it right: Lawyers are not policemen (or women). "Clients have to feel free to bring dirty laundry or problems or questions to their lawyer," Hackett said. "When a client doesn't know if the lawyer might take something to a regulator, the client is not likely to tell the lawyer anything significant."

There is a sanctity accorded the attorney-client relationship. A lawyer can only represent a client effectively if the client discloses all pertinent facts. What client is going to do this once he knows the lawyer might have to divulge his confidences to the SEC? We think it runs afoul of our Code of Professional Responsibility and our Canons of Ethics. We also think it's bad policy. So do the American Bar Association and many other organizations.

If a company fails to take corrective action, then an attorney should stop representing the company, they say. But they argue that lawyers shouldn't be forced to take two additional steps that the SEC's proposal would require. Those steps would be for lawyers to notify the SEC that they no longer represent the company and to make clear which documents filed with the SEC -- such as an annual report -- they believe are "tainted" or no longer accurate. These two steps amount to what the business community calls a "noisy withdrawal."

Think of "noisy withdrawal" like a red flag. Critics of the proposed rule say "its practical effect would be to turn lawyers into police who, by raising an alert, would be betraying their clients. That's because alerting the SEC to a problem usually leads to an investigation by the agency..."

Critics of the proposed rule argue that "if a lawyer learns that a company's annual report contains misleading statements, the lawyer's obligation is to alert the company, not the SEC."

"Critics also object to a federal agency imposing national conduct codes on states, which traditionally have set professional standards for lawyers based on model codes attorneys write for themselves. Hackett describes it as the "nose under the camel's tent" that could lead to more agencies seeking to turn lawyers into spies."

Our view: The Government's plan to turn lawyers into snitches, having already implemented a system under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in which they apply enormous pressure upon our clients to become snitches, will render our criminal justice system morally bankrupt.

[comments now closed]

"A homeless man who killed himself in a police holding cell hours after he was charged with rape has been cleared of the crime through DNA evidence, police said. Forensic evidence collected after the alleged rape does not genetically match that of Wade Evan Deemer, who hanged himself with his shirt at the West Chester police station in August, investigators said Tuesday."

"It's not his DNA," police Sgt. Thomas Yarnall said. "It appears that he did not do it."

According to ABC News, seven "volunteer" executions in 2002, where death-row prisoners relinquished their remaining appeals and opted to be put to death.

"More death-row inmates have been volunteering for their executions: Between 1993 and 2002, 75 volunteered for death, compared to the 22 consensual executions between 1977 and 1992.... Some critics argue that this shows that, contrary to popular belief, death is not the ultimate punishment for prisoners. "One could argue that life in prison is the worst kind of punishment and not the death penalty," said Richard Dieter, DPIC's executive director. "So many people wouldn't be volunteering for it if it was so bad."

This was in our email box today:

"Gov. George Ryan is expected to make a major announcement about the death penalty Friday, but it is not clear whether that announcement will include his decision on commuting the sentences of every man and woman on death row. Ryan is scheduled to speak at DePaul University, Chicago. The governor, who leaves office Monday, is contemplating reducing the sentences of more than 150 people."

Meanwhile, the website that was set up to support Gov. Ryan's nomination for the Nobel Prize has registered over 1,100 visitors since Dec. 24.

High praise to Roger Diamond, lawyer for Max Factor heir Andrew Luster who disappeared in the middle of his rape trial. Diamond tried to halt the trial, the judge said no, and Diamond is now trying the case in abstentia.

Diamond said on Wednesday that "he would vigorously defend his missing client in court" while police continued searching for him.

"Attorney Roger John Diamond failed to have Luster's trial halted until the 39-year-old millionaire surfaced so must proceed with an empty chair in the Ventura, California courtroom where his client once sat."

"Ever since Monday I've been doing the best I can to defend the case," Diamond told Reuters in an interview. "It would be helpful to have the defendant's input but I'm still going to do a good job for him. I'm fighting as hard as I can."

Good for you, Roger, and even better for your client.