Law & Law Enforcement

Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck Update: An Integrity Test For The Lynch Mob

/ Jack Marshall / 46 Comments

As Emily used to say, “Never mind!” Al? Spike?

The news coverage of the  emerging evidence in the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman was slow in coming this week, perhaps because it makes the news media look bad. Reluctantly, however, it is finally getting out, though perhaps not with the breathless urgency the media mustered when it was actively manufacturing fake evidence—-a doctored 911 tape, a grainy film showing no injuries to Zimmerman’s head—so Martin’s shooter could be pronounced a killer-racist before he was even charged.

ABC News, perhaps attempting to atone for its disgraceful coverage of the case in March, released a through report on its website of latest developments, revealing that:

  • “Two police reports written the night that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin said that Zimmerman had a bloody face and nose”
  • “Zimmerman seemed to have a battered nose and bloodied face…and the back of his clothing was soiled with wet grass…Zimmerman was also bleeding from … the back of his head.”
  • “Two witness accounts appear to back up Zimmerman’s version of what happened when they describe a man on his back with another person wearing a hoodie straddling him and throwing punches.”
  • “The documents state that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight.” Continue reading →

Bizarro World Legal Ethics Update….

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

This just in:

You know that aneurysm-inducing defense in the case of the Republican consultant who created a robocall designed to trick black Democrats into not voting on election day?

It worked. Continue reading →

Criminal Defense Ethics: The Aneurysm-Inducing Argument

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Darrow would understand.

Apoplectic stand-up comic Louis Black has a classic routine in which he describes how a snippet of a conversation he over-heard at an IHOP nearly killed him. The statement, “If it hadn’t been for that horse, I never would have spent that year in college,” made no sense to him at all and kept going around and around in his brain, threatening to cause a fatal aneurysm.

I know exactly how he feels.

A week ago, I read a news account of the election fraud trial of one Julius Henson, a former campaign consultant to ex-Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich. This was the second trial arising out Ehrlich’s dirty and unsuccessful campaign in 2010 to win re-election over Democrat Martin O’Malley. In the first one, Ehrlich’s campaign manager, Peter Schurick, was convicted of election fraud for approving an election day robocall that went out to African-Americans in Maryland who were registered Democrats, suggesting that they “relax” and stay home, because O’Malley had already won. In the article, it said that Henson’s attorney had offered the defense that the call, which was created by Henson with his wife’s voice on the recording, was not designed to suppress the black vote for O’Malley. It was, argued Edward Smith, intended to prompt them to go to the polls and vote for Erhlich through the use of “reverse psychology.”

WHAT??? Continue reading →

Elizabeth Warren and an Affirmative Action Flashback

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

Over at Popehat, Patrick, the more flamboyant of the libertarian performance artists who blog there, has erected a harsh condemnation of Elizabeth Warren’s attenuated Native American pose, as well as her subsequent defense of it. A sample:

“The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that, when she chose to call herself a Cherokee Indian, she failed to consider that she might one day be called on her claims. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that her decision to call herself a Cherokee Indian, at a time when she thought no one would ever call her on her claim, was more revealing of her character than all of her actions since becoming a politician in the spotlight. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that she will lie about her background for professional advantage when she thinks that she can get away with it. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that it is only now dawning on her that lying about one’s race in order to gain affirmative action benefits is considered, by many, to be no different from lying about one’s college diploma, or lying about winning the Congressional Medal of Honor. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that she is no more deserving of a seat in the United States Senate than she is of a seat on the Cherokee Nation’s tribal council.”

I more or less agree with Patrick on all points, and the criticism of his post from commenters has reinforced that conclusion. For the most part, their protests boil down to “but she’s a liberal/Democrat/ ally of the 99% and running against a Republican, and that’s what matters, not her character!” If it hasn’t already become obvious, the official position of Ethics Alarms is that if the public chose its elected officials on the basis of demonstrated virtues like  integrity, courage, honesty, fairness and responsibility rather than partisan affiliation, single issues and official policy positions, the nation would be far better served. Patrick’s post, however, following on the heels of my own, also sparked a flashback to a conversation I had almost 40 years ago, when I was working in the administration of Georgetown Law Center. Continue reading →

The Curse of the Honest Vice-President and the Evolving President

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

“EEEK! The President is EVOLVING!!!”

Vice-President Joe Biden sent Washington, D.C.’s pundits into a tizzy when he told  NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday that he was“absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriage. It is amazing, when Biden has lapped all previous Vice Presidents in goofs, mistakes, outrageous statements and embarrassments that this statement—honest, reasonable and forthright—should be regarded as a serious blunder. What did he do wrong this time? As Dana Milbank of the Washington Post put it, Biden “committing the classic Washington gaffe of accidentally speaking the truth.”

And why is it a gaffe for this Vice President to tell the truth by stating his support for a position strongly favored by the majority of Democrats, and increasingly the public as a whole? Why would Biden be off message by embracing a core cause of the gay, lesbian and transgendered community, which is overwhelmingly in the Obama camp? The answer is that he has embarrassed the President by calling attention to the fact that President Obama has conspicuously avoided making such a clear and unequivocal statement on the issue, because he wants to avoid being open, honest, direct and truthful about his views on gay marriage until after the election. Continue reading →

“Show Boat” Ethics: Defining Deceit

/ Jack Marshall / 37 Comments

I frequently discuss the concept of deceit in ethics seminars, and my favorite example, which I have also used on Ethics Alarms, is the famous “Does your dog bite?” gag from “The Pink Panther Strikes Again!” This morning I was reminded of an even better example, though not so funny, while watching Turner Movie Classics. TMC was showing the 1936 Hollywood adaptation of “Showboat,” the black-and-white version directed by James Whale of “Frankenstein” fame, that is richer and more faithful to the original Oscar Hammerstein-Jerome Kern Broadway musical than the later, color version starring Ava Gardner, Kathryn Grayson and Howard Keel. Continue reading →

New Passengers on the Roger Clemens Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Hey Andy! Listen to that guy behind you…you won’t believe what he’s saying about you!

First, an Ethics Train Wreck recap, before we get to yesterday’s developments:

The Roger Clemens ethics train wreck officially started rumbling down the tracks in 2008, when Major League Baseball’s Mitchell Report, itself something of a train wreck to begin with, revealed that Roger Clemens’ trainer, a rather shady character named Brian McNamee,  had told the investigative commission that he had injected the pitching great with banned performance-enhancing drugs, or PED’s. In rapid succession there was ethics carnage everywhere. Clemens, under the pretense of inquiring about the health of his former trainer’s child, who was gravely ill, tried to get the trainer to admit he was lying. Congress, absurdly, called a special hearing on the matter. Clemens visited select Congressional offices beforehand, which tainted the objectivity of questioning. The Congressional committee, rather than seeking to illuminate the Clemens dispute or the status of PED’s in baseball, instead decided to take sides, with Republicans defending Clemens (a Bush-supporting Texan) and the Democrats seeking his scalp—facts had nothing to do with it. Clemens, meanwhile, made several dubious statements, and showed his class by telling the world that his wife, not he, was the PED-user in the family. A few months before, Clemens prevailed upon his friend Mike Wallace, then in his late 80’s and semi-retired, to tarnish his reputation as a tough and objective truth-seeker by tossing soft-ball questions to Clemens on CBS, so the pitcher could deny his drug use to a famously skeptical interviewer who was, in fact, thoroughly conflicted. Continue reading →

The Jack Berghouse Cheating Conundrum: Bad Father? Good Father? Ethics Corrupter?

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

Should we condemn Jack Berghouse for being a good lawyer?

Should a parent defend a bad egg? A cheating bad egg?

Berghouse has intervened to keep his son, a sophomore at Sequoia High School in Redwood City, California, from being kicked out of the honors program for copying his homework assignment from the work of another student. He doesn’t dispute that his son cheated—-his son admits it, and was caught red-handed. Dad is suing the school because he says its policies are conflicting, and thus his son was deprived of due process. He may be right about that. He is also doing it because, as a father concerned about his son’s future, he worries that the blemish on his record will affect his ability to get into an Ivy League college. He’s probably right about that, too.

But is it right—that is to say, responsible and ethical— for parents to use lawyers and the court system to intimidate schools into whitewashing a student’s records? The vast majority say no, which is doubtlessly the reason why Berghouse reports that he is getting hate mail. Continue reading →

Grandparent Ethics: Too Drunk and Stupid To Be Unethical?

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

On the bright side, at least it wasn't a dog...

My parents were intelligent, caring, responsible people. But after they drove my 2-year-old son in their car while he sat on a small, fold-down jump-seat in the back without any seat belt, my wife and I never let them baby-sit him again. It was a generational blind-spot that could have gotten our child killed, and even though this was a source of tension and resentment between us for the rest of my parents’ lives, I didn’t think my wife and I had any other choice. I still feel guilty about it. Luckily, my mother always blamed my wife.

Then there is the case of grandparents Paul and Belinda Jean Berloni, who were arrested over the weekend when a sheriff’s deputy managed not to have a stroke as he watched them tow a plastic Hot Wheels toy car, resembling a Pontiac Solstice, with a 7-year old girl at the wheel behind their SUV. The car was attached to the back by a couple of dog leashes, and the SUV was clocked at between 5 and 10 miles per hour. The child, their granddaughter, was only wearing a swimsuit. Continue reading →

Ethics Dunces: Connecticut Lawmakers

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Hayes and Komisarjevky, the Cheshire, Conn. killers

Good thinking, Connecticut!

  • With home invaders/multiple murderers/ rapists/sadists Stephen Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky duly convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection, the state legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a law making Connecticut the latest state to ban the death penalty.
  • Since a majority of the public, the legislators and virtually everyone aware of the horrendous facts of the infamous home invasion murders that Hayes and Komisarjevsky unquestionably committed think these two creatures deserve to die, the legislators made the law prospective only, meaning that it only would apply to those convicted of future crimes.
  • Despite the legislative intent, the obvious Equal Protection challenge to a law that treats two sets of citizens—current convicted murderers and future ones—differently may save the lives of Hayes and  Komisarjevsky,  the other 9 residents of the state’s death row, and such likely future residents as Richard S. Roszkowski, convicted of murder for gunning down a man, woman and 9-year-old girl on Sept. 7, 2006, but still facing a second death penalty phase trial, after his first one was overturned on a technicality.

It would have shown integrity for Connecticut lawmakers to have the courage of its supposed convictions, and to abolish the death penalty while having in its custody as perfect candidates for capital punishment as have ever been captured, Stephen Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky. In case you have forgotten the details of their June 23, 2007 invasion of the Cheshire, Conn. home of the Petit family, or were lucky enough to miss that horror story until now, here are is a mercifully brief summary. Continue reading →