This morning's LA Times reports that Donovan Jackson, the teen in the beating video, was hit twice by Officer Jeremy Morse's partner before he was even arrested.

Dozens of protesters in gathered in LA yesterday to demand Officer Morse be criminally charged for his misconduct. ``No justice, no peace, no racist police,'' the protesters chanted.

Jackson's attorney denies the version of the incident police put in their report. He claims that all four Inglewood officers "took turns" beating Jackson before the tape rolled.

In another twist to the case, as the cops were driving away from CNN with newly arrested Mitchell Crooks (the bystander/videotaper) in the car, Crooks was heard screaming, "Help, Me, Help Me."

Crooks was taken to the grand jury and then supposed to go to jail for his outstanding warrants. They had to take a detour to the jail. To the hospital. Seems there was a new altercation at or after Crook's grand jury appearance.

Crooks was taken to the jail ward at the LA County -USC hospital for "a sprained shoulder, a cut finger, numbness in his hands and bruises." Crooks' lawyer says Crooks believes the DA's investigators beat him up in retaliation for making the tape.

So what started this entire incident? According to the same LA Times article,

"The encounter occurred last Saturday evening when Jackson and his father, Coby Chavis, were at an Inglewood gas station and two sheriff's deputies stopped to investigate Chavis' expired vehicle registration tags. Jackson was leaving the station's market, holding a bag of potato chips, when he saw the deputies talking to his father.

Jackson tried to get into his father's car, ignoring deputies' commands to wait while they questioned Chavis, according to the officers and deputies."

All this over a teen eating a bag of potato chips who doesn't want to sit in a cop car cause he hasn't done anything wrong.

How often does this happen? Where can you learn more about police brutality, with a state-by-state reference guide. Check out CopCrimes which says its database is "the largest online resource for collecting information on law enforcement corruption and dishonorable deeds."

Yesterday we had a question about the true author of the famous line, "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music." We thought it was George Clemenceau while Ernie the Attorney thought it was Groucho Marx.

Update: Tonight we heard from MadKane, currently a humor columnist, who wrote:

"I've worked as a musician (oboist) and as a lawyer, so your question got me curious. While not definitive, these two sources attribute the quote to Groucho Marx:"

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/
quotes/g/q100232.html

http://www.musicthoughts.com/t/514

"Of course the comparison isn't quite fair, since I can think of some good examples of military music -- Chopin's Military Polonaise, for instance. And even Beethoven wrote some military music. But as for good examples of military justice, I'm at a loss. Still, it's an amusing line and sure sounds like Groucho."

Ok, but we still aren't convinced because a google search had at least 70 attributions of the line to Clemenceau. Including, The New York Review of Books, 2/14/2002, Military Tribunals on Trial by Aryeh Neier, who wrote (about President Bush's tribunals order) "As written, the order violates, in different ways, the rights of all four categories; it recalls Clemenceau's famous comment about the Dreyfus case that "military justice is to justice as military music is to music."

Some others: The Introduction to a book called Military Law in Canada and a 1997 International Herald Tribune article by Mary Blume ("Military music bears the same relation to music as military justice does to justice, Georges Clemenceau famously remarked, weary perhaps of the sound of cunningly plangent regimental brass."

On the other hand, we also found a site that attributed the quote to Groucho while attributing this to Clemenceau: "War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military."

Someone must know the answer to this. Please, clue us in.

Mike Krause of the Independence Institute wrote a column today "Just Say No to National ID Cards.

The bill before Congress is HR 4633, the ìDriverís License Modernization Act of 2002," now sitting in the House Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards. You can look it up on Thomas, the Federal Legislation Server. Under the bill, "The DMV would be changed from an agency which licenses qualified drivers, to one which validates our existence and holds centralized control over anything requiring identity verification."

We like it when we can agree with a right-leaning organization --and on privacy issues we often do. Like Michael says,"We still donít need no stinkiní National ID card."

Press Release June 12, 2002, from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:

Washington, D.C.--Saying that the Bush Administration is incorrect in its interpretation of legal issues ranging from venue to the power of the president as commander in chief, state and federal criminal defense bar groups today filed an amicus curiae brief calling on the government to follow the law by giving accused "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla a lawyer and a chance to face his accusers in court.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and its New York State affiliate, the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, filed the brief on behalf of Padilla in a civil action brought by Padilla's counsel in the federal court for the Southern District of New York.

Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr., co-chair of NACDL's Military Law Committee, says that the government's contention that President Bush's actions as commander in chief are above the law are unfounded. "Washington and Jefferson both rejected this argument during their terms. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that absent a declaration of martial law, citizens may not be imprisoned by our military."

If the government claims that Padilla is acting on behalf of an enemy, he should still be afforded, under the Geneva Conventions, a hearing as to whether or not he is entitled to prisoner of war status, says Rehkopf.

He also argues that the government cannot circumvent jurisdiction of the court by moving Padilla to another location, and that there is no legal justification for not allowing him to have contact with legal counsel.

The case is Padilla v. Bush, et al, SDNY No. 02-Civ-4445 (MBM).

Here is a summary of the brief .

We have a difference of opinion as to who coined the phrase, "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music."

We think it was George Clemenceau. Ernie the Attorney says it's Groucho Marx.

If anybody knows, let us know. We've had it attributed to Clemenceau on our Terrorism Trial Page ("Military Tribunals, Courts and Detainees" section) for months.

Law Professor L.H. LaRue says in footnote #2 to an article "What Is the Text in Constitutional Law: Does it Include Thoreau?", 20 Ga. L.Rev. 1137 (1986),

"'Military Justice is to Justice, as Military Music is to Music.' This saying is commonly attributed to Georges Clemenceau, but there is no proof that he actually said it. "

John Walker Lindh is in the news today.

A hearing on his motion to suppress statements is set for next week.

We highly recommend Thomas Sullivan's Think First, Execute Later in today's National Law Journal.

Sullivan served on Illinois Governor George H. Ryan's Commission on Capital Punishment. The Commission issued a report recommending 85 reforms. Sullivan calls the report "a wake-up call for every state with the death penalty."

Mr. Sullivan outlines some of the reforms, concluding with:

"Regardless of one's views about capital punishment, we can all agree that its imposition should be fair, just and accurate. But this requires a nationwide commitment. The findings of the Illinois commission provide a well-researched guide for reforms."

In other death penalty news, the states are beginning to revamp their laws as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling that only juries can determine facts necessary to impose the death penalty. Some will pass constitutional muster (for now) and others will likely fail.

Colorado is in the forefront of taking the safe route and returning to a unanimous jury system. We don't often agree with Governor Bill Owens, but we praise him for taking this position. Of course, he did it because he wanted a new law that allows Colorado to resume legally killing people as soon as possible. We want the death penalty abolished, but since it appears we are going to have one for a while, let's make it as fair as possible and that means putting the fact-finding and decision in the hands of a jury for a unanimous decision.

Yesterday a federal judge in the Southern District of NY ruled that the Government's detention of potential grand jury suspects under the material witness statute is constitutional. Another judge in the same district had ruled it unconstitutional in April.

Judge Judge Shira Scheindlin has taken a lot of heat for finding the material witness statute (read it here) facially ambiguous and in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizures.

Next step will be an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, stay tuned.

In keeping with the LA cops' usual sense of contrition, John Barnett of Orange, CA, the lawyer for officer Jeremy Morse who was shown beating a teen on video, said today Morse's actions were justified. The lawyer actually said that Morse was "restrained" in his use of force.

He didn't volunteer that Morse has been accused of misconduct in at least six other incidents.

Worse than that, or maybe just about equal, the cops then arrested Mitchell Crooks, the cameraman/tourist who filmed the video--on minor charges.

Seems the police and prosecutors were anxious to get their hands on the video (remember it had only been aired on tv) so they had a subpoena issued for Crooks and his video. Crooks was reluctant to go. He was afraid the police would hurt him for filming the video.

Crooks and Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Curt Livesay ended up on the same radio show in the afternoon, the DA in the studio and Crooks calling in by phone--here's part of their exhcange:

"Mitchell, let me assure you that there is a grand jury subpoena for you, and I suggest you honor it," Livesay told Crooks. "You show up at the Criminal Courts Buildingóthat's downtown, 210 W. Temple [Street] and be there promptly ... at the grand jury."

"Yeah, well I hope the city rallies behind me," Crooks replied. "They're coming after me because I shot the video. I fear for my life."

"Mitchell, this is Livesay," the prosecutor shot back. "We want you before the grand jury, not in a cell somewhere. We want you before the grand jury and we want that original tape."

Crooks hung up. Later, he was outside the offices of CNN (good guess this is where the actual video was being kept) when the police swung by to arrest him on outstanding warrants from another county for petty theft and driving under the influence with a hit and run.

In our view, he tried to be a good samaritan and help out a kid being beaten by police by creating a record of what happened and look what hot water he landed in. And you wonder why more people don't intervene to help people in trouble ?

Here's the text of the civil rights lawsuit the teen filed against the cop.

Why is this story so under-reported here?

From Dan Dodson, Media Affairs Director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:

"Of perfect irony, a reporter in Liberia has been "detained" as an "unlawful combatant," accused of aiding a "terrorist organization" and is being held incommunicado! The U.S. State Department has issued a statement, but apparently not much more.

In a related news story, the Liberian Government's "defense" is that they are treating Bility [the reporter] the same as the US is treating "unlawful combatants" and so, cannot understand the fuss.

Who's covering the story here? As far as we can tell, only the Christian Science Monitor. Reuters has covered it a little, and Agence France-Presse is on top of it."

As further evidence of the failure of racial profiling as a law enforcement tool or to make us safer, consider this:

The Government has announced that out of 1100 people detained after Sept. 11, all but 74 have been deported or released from custody, and 38 of those remaining are about to be deported. That leaves 36 detainees in custody. So 95% have been released, and not one was charged with a terrorism offense related to September 11.

Of those who were deported, Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the Newark branch of the ACLU, said "Obviously they're not terrorists because you don't deport terrorists."

Joyce Purnick has a good update in today's New York Times on the dissension between Gov. Pataki and the Democratic Assembly on changing the draconian Rockefeller drug laws in New York.

Seems Pataki, as a campaign promise 7 years ago, and in a bid to capture the hispanic vote in NY, promised reforms. But his reforms are not substantial enough. The democratic assembly's proposed changes go much further, and the two sides are scheduled to meet again. Pataki's compromise solution may cause him trouble: relief for the longest sentences now, changes in the future. Not good enough say the dems (and we agree.) If no substantial, across the board reduction is reached, Pataki will have failed to live up to a big campaign promise, and it could cost him in the election.

Among the groups opposed to Pataki's plan: the Mothers of the Disappeared - a group of former offenders and relatives of those still imprisoned.