I have no doubt the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the review of this case, and think that ultimately the decision of the California Supremes will be reversed.  Why am I so confident you ask?  It is not that I have confidence in our national Supreme judiciary, it is just that the California opinion is so flawed and illogical, that no even minded jurist, would let this opinion stand.  Further, all that is needed to overturn the decision is five justices.  I feel confident that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer would vote to overturn.  All that is needed is one justice out of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Roberts to vote against this horrible decision, and I believe at least one of them will do just that.

Why do I feel that this decision of the California Supreme Court is so bad?  And why do I think that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn this decision?  Mainly, because the Dissent, written by Justice Werdegar, joined by Justice Moreno, is right on the money in its analysis.

Before discussing the dissent, first the main opinion.  The court used three cases, United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218, United States v. Edwards (1974) 415 U.S. 80, and United States v. Chadwick (1977) 433 U.S. 1, to resolve the issue of  whether the search of Diaz’s text message folder was valid as a search incident to a lawful arrest. Diaz argued that the search “was too remote in time” to qualify as a valid search incident to his arrest.

Robinson, was the case involving the search of a cigarette pack and Edwards dealt with the search of the defendant’s clothing after an arrest.  The court distinguished those cases from Chadwick, where a footlocker was searched some 90 minutes after an arrest.

The court reasoned that a cell phone on the person of the defendant, is akin to a cigarette pack and that of a personal search of clothing, that it (the cell phone) was personal property … immediately associated with [his] person.

The dissent, however, rightly focused more on the device itself and its ability to hold large amounts of personal information, unlike a cigarette pack.  Justice Werdegar wrote that the majority opinion would allow police, with no showing of exigency, to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that could be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee’s person.  Therefore, the court has sanctioned a highly intrusive and unjustified type of search which met neither the warrant requirement nor the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested and denied bail today in London, on rape charges in Sweden. The controversial Assange, who, through his website WikiLeaks.com, released hundreds of thousands of previously secret documents from the U.S. Government, detailing the planning and behind the scene politics of the Iraq and Afghan Wars, as well as secret diplomatic cables that are embarrassing to the U.S. and its allies, will have to remain in custody in London until extradition proceedings are completed.

While some folks believe the charges are politically motivated, and are being brought only to retaliate against Assange for his “subversive” activity, what is interesting to me at this point is the actual charges from Sweden.

In essence, Mr. Assange is charged on two separate occasions in August 2010 of having sexual relations with two different women, without a condom. Reuters writes:

One charge over Miss A is that Assange “sexually molested her” by ignoring her request for him to use a condom when having sex with her.

Another charge relates to “Miss W,” who alleged Assange had sex with her without a condom while she was sleeping on August 7.

Apparently, in Sweden, having sexual intercourse without a condom when requested is a sexual assault. It is called, “Sex by surprise”. How odd. In both situations stated above, neither woman complained that Mr. Assange contacted them sexually without their consent. It seems based upon the allegations, that these women had “post-sex regret”, a somewhat common condition, especially after a heavy night of quaffing your favorite libation.

Can these charges be real? I mean having consensual intercourse without a condom, and then the female has second thoughts because no condom was used? That is not rape. That is not sexual assault. That is Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest.

Rape, by definition, involves a component of consent, or more aptly, the lack thereof. It seems in this case, Mr. Assange was asked by Miss A to use a condom, but he didn’t use one. Now, here is the important part: Did Miss A then tell Mr. Assange that she did not want to engage in sexual intercourse with him without a condom, or did she consent either verbally or by assent, to continue with the coitus? If there was consent after the condom use was not to be forthcoming, then Sweden is in the curious position of criminalizing sex without a condom.

Obviously, very little details are being made public at this time concerning these allegations, and maybe there is more to the story, but from what is known now, I am sure the sales of Trojans in Sweden is skyrocketing!

The matter concerning Miss W is a little different. Miss W allegedly claims that Mr. Assange had sexual intercourse with her while she was asleep, without a condom. Having sex with someone while they are asleep can by rape, because consent could be lacking. I say “could” because the circumstances maybe that consent was by assent, for instance, the two had sexual intercourse that night, and then in the morning Mr. Assange was feeling frisky and did the roll over. Under those circumstances, it would be unlikely for rape charges to be filed in California. So there might be more to this story as well, but I am still curious because in all the reports the “without a condom” is tagged on.

Consensual sex without a condom, and extraditable offense? A sexual assault? In the United States, the use of a condom during a rape has been used as a defense for rape, sometimes successfully, most of the time not successfully. On one occasion, the victim asked her attacker to use a condom, which he did. The attacker is now in prison. So the lack of the use of a condom as a sexual assault is just a further extension of unlawful sexual intercourse seems to be bit absurd. If that is the case, why are not both parties charged? Is it the lack of a contraceptive the issue? If so, Sweden has one upped China’s One Child Policy.

Put simply, our justice “system” is broken.  No matter how hard people try to fix, or manipulate it to become more sensible or fair, it inevitably ends miserably.  It ends in politics.  It ends in increased punishments, rather than looking at the causes of the anti-social behavior.  It ends with politicians standing up and praising themselves for being “tough on crime”.  What a load of hogwash!

Exhibit A:  The Medical Marijuana Law, which was passed by the voters as Proposition 215 in 1997, and then codified in statute, with the curious number, SB 420, would seem to be the sensible approach to marijuana use that so many people would like to see from the criminal justice system.

But hold on a second.  That is the California law.  Under Federal Law, marijuana use, sales, and cultivation is still illegal, as it has been since 1937.  So in California, one can be in compliance with state law, but be in violation of Federal Law.  Now that is a great criminal justice system!

Just this month, the brilliant Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal Court) upheld the 5 year prison sentences for a husband and wife who legally operated a Medical Marijuana Dispensary under California law.  Attorney, Dale Schafer and his physician wife, Marion “Mollie” Fry, grew marijuana and operated a dispensary on their property in El Dorado County, after Marion was diagnosed with breast cancer and began undergoing chemotherapy treatment.  She received a doctor’s recommendation for marijuana in 1998 to help alleviate the pain from the chemotherapy treatments.

All was proceeding as expected:  The couple was able to grow, sell and use marijuana under the existing California Law.  They even received the proverbial thumbs up from the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department in 1999, who they later learned, were also working undercover for the Feds.  Things seemed to be going well for the couple and their new business, that was, until the Feds knocked on their door, or in reality, knocked down their door in 2001, armed with a search warrant.

The DEA seized their plants, marijuana and other “evidence” of a grow operation so they could be prosecuted under Federal Law.  Not only was the couple a “national threat” because they were legally providing patients with marijuana, but the Federal government apparently must have considered them an imminent threat to the security of the country, because the search warrant was executed on September 28, 2001, only 17 days after 9/11.  I am not insinuating that the Federal Government, and more specially the DEA, should have stopped investigating criminals immediately after 9/11, but remembering what life was like then, you would think the DEA had a lot more important investigations to complete rather than barging down the doors of two professionals who were aiding people with “medicine”, under the California law.  But, I guess I am wrong.  The DEA had nothing more important to do 17 days after terrorists entered our country through the biggest drug tunnel in the world (Mexico) and proceeded to fly planes into our financial headquarters, our military headquarters, and almost our political headquarters.

What is wrong with this picture?  Has our justice system gone insane?  In short, yes, but it has been in the loony bin for quite a while, and probably always was in a straight jacket but we all were drinking too much of the political kool aid to notice.

Continuing with the story, the couple then gets indicted in 2005; it “only” took the Feds 4 years to prosecute?  That’s a record!  Then two years later, they were found guilty in a Federal trial in Sacramento, mainly because the judge refused to allow them to use the defense of medical necessity (that they possessed marijuana because it was proscribed by a doctor) because the courts have ruled that a Schedule I controlled substance, which marijuana is, along with PCP and GHB (date rape drug), has no medicinal qualities.  The Court of Appeal wrote:

“Despite the opinion held in some medical and scientific circles that marijuana can be effectively used for medicinal purposes, such a defense would directly contradict congressional findings dating back to 1970 that marijuana, as a Schedule I drug, has no medicinal use. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, 1247-49.”  (However, the Court failed to mention the 1972 National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, more commonly known as the Shafer Report, after the then Governor of Pennsylvania, which was initiated by President Nixon.  The conclusion of the report was, “Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety”, which President Nixon immediately ignored and embarrassingly distanced himself from.)

Really?  No medicinal uses?  So the California law, which states that marijuana does have medicinal uses, is just a fabrication?  It just must be those looney West Coast wackos, who smoked too much of their own medicine.  Or is it that these Feds, have a stake in keeping marijuana criminal, really the issue?  The stuffed shirts and buffont hairdo’s in the Federal system, get paid a lot of money to put away these criminals and charlatans who are trying to pervert “their” country with this hippie voodoo, that marijuana is medicine!  Not to mention the billions that the DEA receives every year.  We need some heads on a platter every once in while to show to Joe and Suzie Zombie citizen that we mean business.  We’ll show them for violating Federal law, while observing California law!   They were shown the way too; sentenced to 5 years in prison.  And in the Federal system, 5 years is 5 years.  No good time there; it is all hard time.

So Mr. Schafer and Ms. Fry appealed their conviction (and the judge allowed them to remain free on bail, pending their appeal; gosh, what a nice guy!) to the Ninth circuit, which is to most legal pundits, the most liberal of all Courts of Appeals in the country.  Earlier this month, over 9 years after their home was raided by rabid DEA agents, their sentence was affirmed.  They plan to appeal to the U.S Supreme Court, where the hopes of the overturning the sentence there are about as good as Obama inviting me over to Pennsylvania Avenue for dinner.

What can be taken from all of this?  First, don’t screw with the Feds.  Second, don’t screw with the Feds. Lastly, don’t screw with the Feds.  Seriously, should the Federal Government have that kind of power over California residents who are only following the law that was passed by the voters of California, and then passed through the legislature and signed by the governor in 2003?  How is that possible that the new Governor of California and current Attorney General of California, can allow two of his residents to be sent to Federal prison for abiding by state law?  Should we even bother with local laws now?  Are they obsolete?  Only when they run counter to Uncle Sam, the idiots would say.  It is time then for us to either completely give up and stop the whining and give in to the bastards, or …..Yeah, go to prison for 5 years.  Not a great option.  More to come.

Well, in that factual pattern, it may not matter that Sammy the Snorter lab tech was “jonesing” for a score, but it does matter concerning the reliability and the credibility of the lab itself, especially one that is directed by the County of San Francisco.

So one gram may not matter in the big picture, but can the public rely on the findings of a crime lab, whose technicians snort, shoot, smoke, and smack the substances they are hired to safe keep and test?

To make matters worse, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, delayed in prosecuting the lab technician accused, and only initiated a criminal complaint against her when the allegations leaked out to the Defense bar from the police department.  Yes, the District Attorney was trying, in her best way, to cover-up the sins of a lab tech, while at the same time, jeopardizing the constitutional rights of hundreds of defendant’s, who relied on the testing of their evidence from a lab tech, who the DA’s office knew was unreliable at best, and a drug addicted tweeker at worst.

Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo determined that prosecutors “at the highest levels of the district attorney’s office knew that (Deborah) Madden was not a dependable witness at trial and there were serious concerns regarding the crime lab.”

Hey, we all have our issues, and I am sure the lab tech had her issues that drove her to violate her ethical duties and responsibilities.  I am sure she will be severely punished for her “issues”, probably more so than she deserves.  However, nothing can excuse the lack of foresight and downright contempt of the District Attorney concerning this matter.  How they have handled this matter, on through to how they handled the hundreds of cases that this lab tech worked on, is downright embarrassing at best, and criminal at worst.  When the public can no longer trust the government that supposed to serve them, the public must respond and get a new government.

Assemblyman and candidate for Attorney General, Pedro Nava

Whereas this “idea” is not new, a candidate for State Attorney General thinks expanding the law, that makes it a misdemeanor to fail to contact the police when a person witnesses a violent crime against children under 14, will help more folks come forward voluntarily. Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, a former prosecutor and current candidate for attorney general, authored a bill that would strike the age limit requirement, so that a misdemeanor will result for failure to report any violent crime, regardless of the age of the victim.

Is this guy serious? He is running for Attorney General? If elected, the citizens of California could be in for some serious trouble.

This brainstorm was in response to the October 2009 rape of a 16-year-old Richmond girl outside of her high school dance. It has been reported that many people, including adults stood by and watched the rape and assault of the girl without anyone contacting the police. The behavior by the “bystanders” is truly atrocious and cowardly, to say the least, making them into criminals over it will not solve the root of the problem: that being the violent crime itself.

In ordinary circumstances, most people who witness a violent crime contact the police. We feel it is our obligation as a good citizen and as a moral person. However, in some parts of the world, or even in some parts of our State, contacting the police is not looked upon as good citizenship or being a moral person. In fact, it is strongly discouraged, to the point that one’s life is put in jeopardy. There are already laws against retaliating against a witness, and we also have the witness protection programs, so this is not a new issue. There are very legitimate reasons why some potential witness might not want to contact the police, especially when the police are not necessarily looked upon as the good guys in the white hats.

The fine Assemblymen wants to criminalize those potential witnesses, why? So they know better the next time they witness a violent act? Or is it so that they will be compelled to testify in that case as a convict? Most defense attorneys will make mincemeat of that witness without much trouble, thus accomplishing what again?

If the Assemblyman is serious about finding why some people report violent crimes and why some do not, he need only speak with police, district attorneys and defense attorneys and they will tell him why. It is because they don’t want to end up dead!

Once again the despicable case in Richmond shows us that making laws based upon one situation usually makes for a bad law. Presumably that case was not your typical case where witnesses don’t come forward because they feared for their safety. The attacked seems to have been a random act, not planned or premeditated, so those who witnessed this and did nothing, probably did so because of their own moral shortcomings. To make them into criminals over that does not solve their problems. Their problems can only be solved by looking deep into their souls and seeking to change what they see.

Criminalizing witnesses will not make people report violent crimes they witness. It will only make those witnesses into criminals and make it harder to prosecute the violent criminal.

In the case In Re H.H. (2009), the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial courts (Alameda County) ruling on a motion to suppress.  The basic facts were that H.H., a minor, was riding his bicycle at night without a head lamp.  A police officer stopped him and asked  the minor to remove the backpack he was wearing.  After doing so, the minor said, “I am not on probation”, which caused the officer to be concerned that the minor might be armed and dangerous.  The minor then told the officer that he did not consent to any search of the back pack or himself.  This refusal, coupled with the prior remark, raised “red flags” in the officer mind, so he conducted a pat down search of the minor for weapons.  Lo and behold, the officer found a revolver in the minor’s jacket.

In court, the minor filed a motion to suppress based upon the pat down search that was expressly not consented to by the minor.  The trial court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to search the minor even after the refusal to give consent, saying, “the officer‟s specific articulated reasons for conducting the pat-down search under the circumstances were reasonable[.]” 

The Court of Appeal reversed, thank goodness.  They actually read the litany of cases, starting with Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, that held that an officer may conduct a pat down search only when a reasonably prudent person in the totality of the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety was in danger.  

The issue in this case was whether the minor’s refusal to consent to search, or to put it in a positive context, whether the minor’s invocation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from warrantless search and seizure, is sufficient reasonable suspicion for a reasonable prudent person to believe he was armed and dangerous.  Like I said above, thank goodness the court ruled that invoking your Fourth Amendment right does not give an officer a right to conduct a pat down search.  Otherwise, there would be no Fourth Amendment, which I know would make some prosecutors and some judges very happy (until they or there family was involved).  

Some of you might be saying, “well, the cop was right, the minor did have a gun; his suspicions proved correct”.  Well, the Constitution is not about looking at the end result and then justifying.  No, our Constitutional principles look to what is known at the time.  To do differently would be disastrous, which unfortunately is creeping, well maybe more accurately, jogging, into our case law presently.  This Court of Appeal, applied the law and the facts correctly, even though they knew the end result.  That is what has to be done in every case, in order for us to have and live in a just, free, democratic society.

So I applaud the Court of Appeal in this case.  However, if they went the other way, we would be in big trouble.

Det. Longmire has taken a lot of heat for his handling of the investigation.  In my view, it is very difficult for people unfamiliar with how the police must interact with the citizens in this 21st century world we live in, to understand how police must work within the confines of the law.  Whether Det. Longmire’s relationship with Bey was as a mentor, as some suggest, or was purely for “work” purposes, only Longmire knows.  However, either way, one cannot point blame at Longmire for pursuing this relationship.  That is how police work; that is how crimes get solved.  People talk; information is gold to the police, or “leads” as they might term them.  

The big mistake Longmire made, and OPD even more so, was to allow him to be the lead investigator in the murder of Mr. Bailey.  Det. Longmire should have recognized the “appearance of impropriety” and asked to be taken off the case, and his superiors should have recognized it as well, and not assigned him to the case.

We will never know how things would have been different had another investigator interrogated Bey, Broussard and Mackey in that early stage of the investigation.  Would that other investigator have handled the case differently?  Probably so.  Would there be more information for prosecutors to work with?  Maybe, maybe not.

We as the public cannot have it both ways.  We cannot say we want our police to be active in the community and be active with the youth, but when things go wrong in the community, not to use those relationships and ties to solve crimes.  Sure, from what we know now, Longmire should have stepped down from the investigation, but at that time, the public was clamoring for the case to be solved.  What better person to “solve” the case than the investigator with the closest ties to the foremost suspect?

With the recent grand jury indictments, I am sure we have not heard the last about this case, nor with Det. Longmire’s actions in it.  What I am sure of, is that the State of California, through the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, will do everything it can to prosecute those responsible for the murder of Mr. Bailey.  I am also sure that those charged in his murder, Bey IV, Broussard, and Mackey, will need very competent and qualified legal counsel to insure they receive a fair trial in what will undoubtedly be a highly publicized trial.

The killer in this case, Lovelle Mixon, was wanted for a parole violation when he was stopped by the Oakland P.D.  This parole violation, was the reason given by all in the media, as the reason Mixon executed two officers and killed two more while hiding in a closet.

Mr. Mixon was previously convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in an attempted carjacking in San Francisco.  He served six years in prison as a result of that conviction.  Mr. Mixon failed to report to his parole officer in February, which resulted in a warrant for his arrest.  As a result, the maximum Mr. Mixon would have been facing was 1 year in prison, but more than likely, he would not have done more than 6 months for failing to report.  Mr. Mixon had previously violated parole in 2008 and was sent back to prison.  During that time, Mixon was under investigation for a murder in Oakland, that is still unsolved.  Mixon was the only suspect in that case.  

So based upon this information, our Attorney General, the infamous Jerry Brown, gets on the soap box and rails on about how the parole system seems to be broken and that is underlying reason for these officer’s horrible deaths.  

Does Mr. Brown take us all for fools?  The Attorney General of the State of California, former Mayor of Oakland, former U.S. Presidential nominee a dozen or so times, and former Governor of the State of California, has the audacity and gall to blame the parole system for the murder of these officers???  Just for making that statement, Mr. Brown should be forced out of office, let alone all the other reasons why he should not be in office.

While the parole system in the State of California is atrocious, to blame these murders on that problem is like blaming the gun manufacturers for shooting a victim.  Oh, wait, bad example.  It’s like President Obama and the rest of the elected officials in the House of Representatives and Senate, blaming “Wall Street” for the financial crisis.  Of course “Wall Street” is partly to blame for the economic crisis, but President Obama and Congress have a lot to answer for as well.  Same as Jerry Brown.  Mr. Brown has zero responsibility in the brutal murders of these fine officers.  However, his “Johnny Come Lately” routine to the ills of the parole system is laughable, if it wasn’t so serious.

To make matters even worse for Mr. Brown, when he blamed the parole system for these murders, he was referring to the outstanding warrant mentioned above, for the reason Mr. Mixon probably killed the officers; so he wouldn’t have to go back to prison for 6 months?  A few days later we learned, that Mr. Mixon’s DNA came up involving the forcible rape of a 12 year old.  That crime occurred sometime in February 2009.  The DNA positive “hit” came to the police’s attention two days before the murder, although it is still unknown at this time if any of the officers were aware of that rape investigation.

So now instead of Mr. Mixon wanting to escape from 6 months in prison for a parole violation, it is highly likely, and rather probable that he was afraid of going back to prison for a very long time for the rape of a 12 year old.  His actions, make much more “sense” if that is possible, knowing what Mr. Mixon knew of his situation that fateful day.

So what are we to make of Jerry Brown?  Was he just using the opportunity to comment on the brokenness of the States parole system?  Or did he once again stick his foot, firmly in mouth?

My analysis is Yes and Yes.

The fact that parolee’s commit more crime percentage wise than non-parolees is nothing new.  The fact that parolee’s have a high percentage of revocations, is also not new.  The fact that a large segment of parolees are unaccounted for, is also not surprising.  These problems have been with us for years, but the politicians, like Jerry Brown, don’t seem to want to do anything about them, accept make it harder for a convicted felon, who has served time in prison, to make an honest living once released back to the community.  Jerry Brown did not have to use the murder of four courageous police officers to make the point that the parole system is broken.  Shame on him for diverting attention away from the culprit in this case, Mr. Mixon.

Mr. Brown, by commenting the way he did, and not waiting for more details to emerge as to the potential motivation of Mr. Mixon, also looks like a complete fool.  Mr. Mixon did not shoot the officers because of his minor parole problems.  It is highly likely that he shot the officers, execution style and then barricade style, because he did not want to go back to prison for probably the rest of his life, as a convicted child rapist and/or as a potential murderer.  By jumping at the opportunity to score political points, Jerry Brown got egg on his face when the full situation arose as to motivations of Mr. Mixon.

So, in my opinion, Jerry Brown is an opportunistic fool.  But let’s hope that this fool will push forward to revamp the broken parole system here in California.  If he doesn’t, he will not just be an opportunistic fool, he will be a coward and a failure.

The biggest problem I have with this whole situation is that Mr. Blagojevich is only “accused” of committing a crime, (see my previous post on Plaxico Burress) and most people have written him off as another criminal politician, in the likes of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.  Sure, a Governor can be impeached in Illinois without having committed any criminal acts, but the only reason these spineless, hypocritical Senators from Illinois brought the impeachment process up was because of the pending, I say pending, criminal charges.  If he was so bad, why did they wait 6 years to impeach him?  That is the question those Senators will have to face in the coming months, especially if Mr. Blagojevich is successful in his criminal trial in Federal Court, which from what has been brought out in the press, is very likely.

Believe me, I am no Blagojevich supporter by any means.  He was a career Chicago political hack; of course he did things the old way; “you scratch my back, I will scratch yours”.  But the good people of Illinois, for whatever reason, elected him into office twice.  He should at least been given the opportunity to continue on as Governor until the results of his criminal case were final.  I mean, the new Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris, the man Blagojevich tabbed to fill President Obama’s vacant seat,  what happens with him now?  The answer of course is nothing.  Blagojevich made, by all accounts, a competent choice to fill the vacant seat, the seat which caused the impeachment furor.  

It was obvious to anyone, other than the power hungry, ravenous wolves, in the State Senate, that Blagojevich could continue on as Governor without much of a problem.  It was probably to the benefit of the people of the state of Illinois, since Blagojevich knew he was under a microscope, everything he did had to be crystal clear, without the hint of impropriety.  He probably could have done a lot of good work in the coming months for the people of Illinois under those conditions.   However, those “do gooders” in the Senate had to step in to fix the mess.  Somehow I believe they are walking into a bigger mess.

But once again, the wonderful free press in this country, has already convicted Blagojevich of these “crimes”.  For anyone to think otherwise, the press will tell you, is uninformed and doesn’t know all the facts.  Exactly!   Neither does the media.  That is what a criminal trial is all about.  To have all the facts presented, in the proper context, with lawyers on both sides arguing their case to a fair and impartial jury.

When will the media just report the known facts of a story, and stop the speculating?  I guess that train has already left the station years ago, but we can only hope.

According to the news reports, the defendant smeared feces on his lawyer and then threw some feces at the jury who had been empaneled to hear his case concerning a home invasion burglary in 2007.  The defendant smuggled in the feces in a bag that he had hidden on his person.  The defendant was in custody at the time.

So to get the record straight, the man rubbed excrement on his lawyer, the person who is defending him from going to prison for a long time, and then throws excrement at the jury, the same jury that will/would decide if this man is guilty or innocent of the charges.  This defendant is either so full of …himself, or he just had a really bad day and he had enough … stress for the day.  The other possibility is that he just has … scrambled eggs for a brain, which seems the most likely scenario.

The judge was forced to declare a mistrial, obviously, but in the second most controversial move of the day, (nothing can top the defendant’s actions) the judge increased the defendant’s bail from $250k to $1 million.  Judges are supposed to set bail at an amount that will protect the public and insure the defendant appears in court.  Judges are not allowed to set bail in amount as a punishment to the defendant, only to protect the public and to insure the appearance.  Apparently, this defendant chose not to bail out at the $250k amount previously set for the last two years, probably because he did not have the money.  There was no reason for the judge to increase the bail in that case; the defendant was not going anywhere.  It is apparent that the judge increased the bail because of what the defendant did in his courtroom, as a form of punishment.  

Now what the defendant did, is obviously gross, disgusting, inhuman, etc. etc.  It is also illegal, and I am sure he will be facing new charges on the feces smearing and throwing incident, where a new bail amount would have to be set anyway.  It just seems the judge acted on his emotion, rather than on law, in this particular situation, which, probably is understandable under the circumstances.  

The ironic part of the story is that the defendant, who was looking for a new attorney , and the judge denied his request, will get what he wanted:  a brand new attorney, whom I assume, will keep his distance.