TalkLeft is blogging from Shanghai today. It is Saturday morning here, while it is dinnertime Friday in Colorado.

We were going to take a respite from blogging until our return on Tuesday, but watching the Asian edition of CNN on television provides an interesting perspective on world events and China itself is so fascinating that we have decided to report from here.

This is our second visit to this incredibly modern and technologically advanced city. We'll be back this afternoon, hopefully with some fresh insights. Our newsfeed will resume Saturday, U.S. time.

From the crimes in the news department:

Dominatrix Pleads Not Guilty in Client's Death

"A dominatrix pleaded not guilty on Friday to charges she chopped up a client after he died of an apparent heart attack during a bondage session, and then dumped the body parts in a trash bin, court officials in Massachusetts said."

The ACLU is organizing against Ashcroft. Check out today's Nat Hentoff piece in the Village Voice, The New American Freedom Fighters.

We last gave thanks on July 4th to those we've learned from and those who have encouraged and praised us. We're doing it again for Thanksgiving. We hope that if these blogs are not already on your daily reading list, they will be soon.

Some of our favorite bloggers have made especially nice comments about TalkLeft in their blogs the last few weeks. We'd like to thank them, and share some of their comments with you. These are blogs whose opinions we value highly.

Jeanne D'Arc of Body and Soul :

"I hope you already know that when legal issues are in the news (and, lately, that would be every day, wouldn't it?), the one site you must visit is the indispensable Talk Left . But if you haven't read Jeralyn's analysis of the case, you should."

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review:

"If Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft knows so much about crime and criminal law, how come she’s not a ten-most-wanted criminal mastermind by now? Or is she? Just kidding. I’ve learned more about the law from Merritt, online and off, than I have from any other resource I’ve met, or encountered rather, online or off."

Daily Kos "Update: TalkLeft, the ultimate authority for all matters regarding crime policy, has her own extended analysis...." Kos is our arbiter of truth on all matters political--and he designed TalkLeft.

Jeff Cooper of Cooped Up: "I am deeply flattered to be included in the company of sites mentioned in the post. TalkLeft does a superb job of discussing criminal law issues from a left-liberal perspective."

Eric Alterman, who has praised us often, allowed us to help create the Altercation links list, and best of all, guest-blog for him while he was on vacation.

A very special thanks to Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit who mentions us far more often than we deserve.

Atrios, Cursor, The Hamster, Ruminate This, CalPundit and, of course, Skippy who mention and link to us more times than we can print here.

Buzzflash and Tapped for their permanent links to us.

Long Story, Short Pier , who just found us today and wrote:

"...a new favorite: Jeralyn Merritt’s TalkLeft, an excellent argosy of "crime-related political and injustice news," whether it’s riffing on what it was that Law & Order guy said, or contemplating the appalling microcosm found within Tabitha Pollack’s terribly contingent release."

And to those with differing points of view:

Vodkapundit, to whom we still owe a drink (if he would ever drive the 60 miles north to Denver) for being one of the first blogs to give us a link, and for having such panache in his own posts;

Jay Caruso of Daily Rant who said initially, "Check out her blog. I don't agree with much of what she says, but her blog is informative and contains links to very valuable resources, especially in the area of the law" and then a few days ago: "Another reason to read Talkleft. You may not agree with Jeralyn Merritt. She proudly proclaims to be a progressive (ie liberal) Democrat. But she's fair."

Tom of Just One Minute, who rarely agrees with us but reads, analyzes and contributes nonetheless;

Finally, and most important of all, thanks to all of you who read TalkLeft--you make it all worthwhile.

Have a great holiday. We'll be back in a few days.

Instapundit (Law Professor Glenn Reynolds) has a new column up on FoxNews.com, Conservative Court Could Be Dems' Best Friend , co-written with Brannon Denning.

They posit that "Democrats might want to consider that a "conservative" U.S. Supreme Court with a renewed interest in limiting the power of Congress might be their new best friend." Two examples they cite are the Lopez decision, requiring an interstate commerce connection before allowing a federal sentence enhancement for using or carrying a gun during a drug crime or crime of violence, which requirement has since been extended to other crimes in federal court, and limits placed by the Court on congressional power through its holding that "Congress cannot commandeer state legislatures or state executive officials to pass or implement Congress’s mandates. If Congress wishes the states to do something, they must make it a matter of federal law (which prevails over conflicting state laws.)"

We agree with the Professor on the federalism issue, but we don't agree that democrats should believe that a conservative judiciary is supportive of their ideals. Taking them one at a time, first off, like Prof. Reynolds, we are definitely against the recent move by Congress towards mass federalization of crimes traditionally left to the states to decide how to prosecute. Here's why, from the Legislative Priority page of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:

NACDL urges Congress to reject its tendency to federalize crime and repeal legislation that is contrary to our system of federalism and sound crime control policy.

Increasingly, crime bills grant federal prosecutors greater and greater authority by creating more federal crimes out of historically state and local crimes. For example, domestic violence, carjacking and failure to pay child support, the subjects of recent federal measures, are traditionally the prerogative of state and local governments; federal jurisdiction is unwarranted, unwise and contrary to the Constitution. Regarding these and other federalized crimes, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist observed that "one senses from the context in which they were enacted that the question of whether the states were doing an adequate job in this particular area was never seriously asked."

Before enacting federal criminal legislation, Congress should consider whether a federal interest is implicated and whether the state or local remedy is shown to be inadequate to address that interest. The impact on federal law enforcement and court resources should also be assessed.

A blue ribbon task force sponsored by the American Bar Association concluded "that inappropriately federalized crime causes serious problems to the administration of justice in this country. It generally undermines the state-federal fabric and disrupts the important constitutional balance of federal and state systems." American Bar Association Task Force on Federalization of Criminal Law (1998) (task force included former Attorney General Edwin Meese and several other present and former prosecutors and law enforcement officials).

Likewise, in the collaborative article, Justice That Makes Sense (1998), the then-leaders of the nation's three largest criminal justice groups — NACDL President Gerald B. Lefcourt, National District Attorneys Association President William L. Murphy, and ABA Criminal Justice Section Chair Ronald Goldstock — agreed: "Criminal and social problems are increasingly being addressed by the Congress with what many have come to regard as a purely political response — calls to federalize more criminal activity and to lengthen already unwieldy prison terms. . . . There can be little doubt that increased federal prosecutive authority has adversely affected the Department of Justice's ability to fulfill its role of enforcing traditional federal offenses."

But we cannot support a right-wing, conservative judiciary. They are more of a menace than a positive force. Anyone concerned with criminal justice issues cannot realistically view a conservative court in a postive light, even though, in addition to the issues set out by Glenn, we appreciate conservative judges' support of privacy rights, opposition to laws providing increased punishment for hate crimes, and views on matters pertaining to asset forfeiture.

Looking at the big picture, a conservative court will not issue an opinion requiring: the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses; a moratorium on the death penalty; abolition of the death penalty; the elimination of racial disparities in sentencing; fair procedures (as exist in many states) regarding discovery, guilty plea colloquy, jury selection, and judicial disqualification; grand jury reform; adequate funding for indigent defense; restoration of full habeas corpus rights that were taken away by the "The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996"; meaningful checks and balances and oversight of law enforcement powers through increased scrutiny of requests for even more powers and resources; fair treatment of juveniles as juveniles, not adults; fair treatment of immigrants and restoration of discretionary relief from deportation.

Conservative judges only support some constitutional rights for some people. By and large they do not support constitutional rights for the citizen accused or convicted of crime. Thus, while Prof. Reynolds is correct that we should appreciate a conservative judiciary for the positive effect it will have on issues involving intrusions into privacy and federalism, we think any such benefit is far outweighed by the detrimental effect it will have on our principles of justice and on what until now has been the best and fairest criminal justice system in the world.

Our advice to the Democrats, therefore, is different from that of Professor Reynolds and Mr. Benning. Instead of capitulate and embrace, and hold the conservative jurists to their promise of more great rulings restricting Congress and the federal courts, we advise the democrats to filibuster, early, loud and often. The only way to prevent these right wing jurists from imposing their narrow and unjust views on the rest of us is to keep them from attaining the bench in the first place. Take note of political action alerts, write your elected officials and tell them to oppose the nomination, and remember, grass roots efforts can be successful. A Senator can only serve his or her constitutents if he knows their position on issues. By writing to them, you become heard, and your opinion counts. We neither need nor want more Scalia's, Kennedy's or Clarence Thomas'. Do you?

Sniper suspects John Muhammad and 17 year-old John Lee Malvo have been cleared in three Baton Rouge murders . DNA evidence has excluded them.

This is one of the problems with presuming a person is guilty of a crime based solely on allegations that he has committed other similar acts in the past. Much of the public has already decided, based upon media reports and leaks by cops and/or prosecutors or high government officials that the two suspects likely committed every unsolved murder in the South in the past year. How do you unring the bell to assure the suspects a fair trial?

There hasn't been a single leak we are aware of attributable to defense counsel in the case. Read our prior coverage (click on the Crimes in the News archived section on the right) and let us know if you find any.

The Racine Journal Times reports that the ACLU is demanding the City of Racine drop charges against 445 people who attended a rave-style Halloween fundraiser for a local theatre group, arguing the citations "violated the partygoers' First Amendment rights to dance and hear music."

If the city does not drop the charges, the ACLU says the city risks " a costly legal battle over the tickets."

We reported on the raid shortly after it happened. Here's the gist of the case, according to a prepared police statement:

"Based on information from the U.S. Customs Service, undercover officers went through the Haunted Theater (Uptown Theater) at 1430 Washington Ave. After the very brief tour, officers were directed to the basement of Tradewinds Village, 1518 Washington Ave., for the party. There they bought Ecstasy and Ketamine." Although only three arrests were made, police issued citations to 445 attendees with a penalty of $968 each for being "patrons of a disorderly house."

Thanks to Pete Karas, CIC of Cims.Com for bringing the update to our attention.

The 107th Congress adjourned without taking any action on the amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure, approved by the Supreme Court on April 29, 2002. Accordingly, the following amendments to the rules will take effect on December 1, 2002, including:

Changes to the Federal Rules will be effective on December 1, 2002. The following rules have been amended:

Appellate Rules: 1(b),4(a)(1)©,4(a)(5)(A)(ii),4(a)(7), 4(b)(5),5©,21(d),24(a),25©,25(d),26©, 36(b),45©,26(a)(2),4(a)(4)(A)(vi),27(a)(3)(A), 27(a)(4), 41(b), 26.1,27(d)(1)(B), 32(a)(2),32©(2), 28(j),31(b),32(d),32(a)(7)©,44

Bankruptcy Rules: 1004, 1004.1, 2004, 2015, 4004, 9014, 9027

Civil Rules: 7.1, 54, 58, 81(a)(2), Admiralty Rule C

Criminal Rules: Comprehensive Style Revisions 1-60 Substantive Amendments to 5, 5.1, 10, 12.2 12.4, 26, 30, 35, 43 Amendments to Implement USA Patriot Act of 2001 - 6 and 41

You can read the full text of them here.

We take great umbrage at this article in the Centre Daily Times, TV prosecutors now have the upper hand on defense attorneys.

On the one hand, it accurately points out a reality that criminal defense lawyers have been up against for sometime: that people are more apt to believe in guilty until proven innocent than the other way around, and that in the media, guilt sells while stories about innocence don't get much play.

But we have to take uber-producer Dick Wolf to task for his comments. Wolf is the producer of Law & Order and innumerable other television series that glorify cops and prosecutors and always feature a guilty defendant.

Now Mr. Wolf is a very personable man and obviously a tremendous success as a television executive. But the following comments are totally one-sided and really stretch the truth--and cause damage to the public's perception of our system of justice--and next time we run into him, we'll tell him so ourselves.

"Any of the people you see" working as assistant DAs in "Crime & Punishment" "could clean out their desks on a Friday afternoon and double or triple their salary on Monday morning" by going to work in a law firm, Wolf said recently.

"They really do think they're doing God's work."

"Moreover, he said...I don't hold criminal defense attorneys in very high regard, based on what they do for a living, which is basically getting guilty people off."

Now come on, Mr. Wolf. You don't think public defenders believe they're doing God's work? You don't think they couldn't get a job in a corporate firm earning twice or three times as much?

The lawyers who dedicate themselves to freeing the innocent, that's not God's work to them?

The lawyers who make a career of trying to save a life in a death penalty trial, while underfunded, understaffed and underpaid, you don't think they believe they're doing God's work?

Prosecutors and Public Defenders have a few things in common: Both groups have chosen public service, and in so doing, they have sacrificed more financially rewarding opportunities to become overworked and often under-appreciated public servants. Prosecutors have no leg up on defenders in terms of doing God's work.

Trends come and go. In the 80's, LA Law and defense lawyers were on top. This past decade, it's been all about guilt and cops and DA's. Just wait, a few more years of Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, secret detentions and programs like TIPS and Total Information Awareness, and the tables will turn again.

One other thing. The majority of prosecutors don't stay in it for the length of their careers. They leave and become....private criminal defense lawyers. Look into the background of the lawyers for the Enron and WorldCom and other high-level corporate crime defendants, and more often than not they will have "former U.S. Attorney" in their bios. What happened to their belief in "God's work?" But how many criminal defense lawyers can you name who left the practice to become prosecutors? Which stay truer to their beliefs? Or put another way, whose beliefs were truer in the first place?

[edited to correct spelling of Mr. Wolf's name. It is Dick Wolf, not Dick Wolfe as we originally posted.]

More technology is about to be employed against foreign visitors to the U.S.

"In a high-tech strategy against terrorists, the government will soon begin comparing foreign travelers with digitized photographs and will consider plans to encode their travel documents with personal data that can be read electronically."

"Starting this month, the State Department will relay digital images of foreign travelers to U.S. ports of entry. For the first time, immigration officials will be assured that they are comparing the travelers who stand before them to authentic pictures taken when they applied to visit the United States."

"In addition, Congress may approve legislation to mandate unique, personal identifiers -- such as digitized fingerprints -- on visas that the State Department grants to foreign nationals who wish to travel in this country, as well as on the passports of 29 nations. The bill passed the House on Dec. 19 and enjoys broad support in the Senate. "

Get involved. Oppose the Total Information Awareness Program. (TIA)

The ACLU explains why you should Stop the Government Plan to Mine our Privacy and provides you with a free fax to send to President Bush asking that he reject this latest assault on our privacy rights.

Here are the ACLU's reasons why TIA should be renounced:

"Law-abiding people should be protected from government snooping. It has been a hallmark of American democracy that our individual privacy is protected against government intervention and snooping as long as we are not guilty of wrongdoing. This new system would obliterate these protections -- the government would simply collect data on everyone so as to be able to investigate any one of us if and when they so decide to do so. Doing so would make us all suspects and in effect eliminate our personal privacy."

"In searching for terrorists, we must not investigate everyone. It has been suggested that searching for terrorists in our midst is like looking for a needle in a haystack. If this is true, then it certainly makes no sense to make the haystack even bigger by creating the means to investigate hundreds of millions of law-abiding Americans rather than focusing in on real suspects."

"We must not sacrifice our freedom and liberty in order to prosecute the "War on Terrorism." As Americans, we have every right to be proud of our constitutional rights and freedoms. And in being proud of these rights, we must make every effort to promote and enlarge our privacy rather then sacrifice it in a time of anxiety and concern."

Too often we forget that many people are languishing in jails for crimes they did not commit whose wrongful conviction cannot be detected by DNA testing. The New York Times today reports on such a case:J udging a Mother for a Crime by Someone Else

"Tabitha Pollock was sleeping when her boyfriend killed her 3-year-old daughter. For failing to anticipate that crime, Ms. Pollock was convicted of first-degree murder and has served 7 years of her 36-year sentence."

"Last month, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned Ms. Pollock's conviction, saying the prosecution's theory -- that she should have known that her boyfriend, Scott English, who is serving a life sentence, was going to murder her child -- has no basis in the law. Barring something unusual, she will be released from the prison here in the next few weeks."

"Ms. Pollock's first appellate lawyer gave up her case as hopeless in 1999 and declined to appeal it to the State Supreme Court. Ms. Pollock will go free only because "a student plucked her letter from among the 17,000 that the law school clinic at Northwestern University receives every year, and the clinic persuaded the Supreme Court to hear an appeal filed after the deadline had passed. The court reversed the conviction outright rather than order a new trial."

"Illinois and many other states accept the notion that parents may be held legally accountable for the deaths of their children when they have witnessed or otherwise know of grave threats to their safety. Ms. Pollock's case differed in that she was held responsible on what lawyers call a negligence theory — that she should have known of the potential danger, even if she did not. A negligence standard is seldom used in the criminal law. "

Ms. Pollack's conviction is especially egregious considering that at trial, the prosecution produced no witness who had suspected her boyfriend of prior abuse. "How could I have known he would murder my precious baby girl?" Ms. Pollock wrote. "I did not know, yet I received 36 years in prison for not being a mind reader."

Innocence Project Clinics have been formed at law schools in several states in recent years. It is important that these new clinics accept not only cases where factual innocence can be proven by DNA testing, but also cases where the conviction was wrongfully obtained, such as through a false confession, incompetent counsel, police or prosecutorial misconduct, or the lone word of a jailhouse informant.

We couldn't help thinking as we read of Ms. Pollack, how many more prisoners like her are out there, serving double-digit or life sentences, who have no lawyer or law or journalism student to raise these claims?