Lowering the Bar

Partner Strips at Press Conference to Show Detainee Mistreatment

2008-07-18T08:47:56-07:00

I have the utmost respect for the work David Remes, a partner at Covington & Burling, is doing in defense of detainees at Guantanamo. And I think the strategy of dramatically illustrating how they are mistreated is not a bad one, even if that involves disrobing to demonstrate how humiliating a body search can be.

I'm just not sure I would have done so at a press conference.

Remes removed his pants at a press conference in Yemen, where he had gone as part of his representation of 15 Yemeni detainees. In addition to the normal miserable conditions of confinement, he said, detainees are also now subjected to constant body searches in the course of which they must drop their pants. "And that's what I was trying to dramatize," he said.

Remes told the Wall Street Journal that he hoped his point would not be overlooked despite the publicity surrounding his action. "I wish people paid as much attention to the suffering and torment in Guantanamo as they paid to the way I sought to dramatize it," he said. That is a fair point, and so -- also in accordance with long-standing policy here not to show pictures of attorneys in their underwear -- the dramatization will not be depicted again here.

Link: Law Blog - WSJ.com

UPDATE: Police Chief Says Low Pants Are Probable Cause for Search

2008-07-18T00:18:01-07:00

It appears that Chief of Police David Dicks is still pursuing his campaign to keep pants from sagging in Flint, Michigan, as he announced back on June 25. Dicks described the wearing of low pants as "immoral self-expression" (which makes you wonder what he would call the wearing of no pants), and issued a memo directing officers to enforce the disorderly conduct ordinance against such miscreants.

Recently a reporter from the Detroit Free Press did a ride-along with Dicks as he patrolled his city on the lookout for immoral waistlines. "Some people call it a fad," the chief told him. "But I believe it's a national nuisance. It is indecent and thus it is indecent exposure." Actually, he clarified that only in particular circumstances is it "indecent exposure." According to the report, Dicks said that offenders would be penalized for indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, or let off with a warning, based on certain scientifically based criteria that a Free Press artist depicted as follows:

A Class C offense, exposing a portion of the undergarment but no skin, will result in a warning.

A Class B offense involves a sag below the gluteal curve, but one that similarly exposes only the undergarment.

Class A violations are those in which the sag of pants and/or undergarment results in any exposure of the rear cleavage.

Both the latter offenses could result in a year in jail.

During the dramatic ride-along through Flint, which as the article noted has been called "one of the most violent cities in America," Dicks spotted and detained several people based on their underwear. This included one young Class C offender, who Dicks pulled over with lights flashing. "Did you hear about the new [low-pants] law?" the chief asked the man, who admitted he had. "I'm gonna issue [you] a warning," said Dicks. "I need you to get a belt because it's indecent exposure," which, under Dicks' own interpretation, it isn't. Chief Dicks then frisked the man.

Yes, he then frisked the man he had stopped for letting the waistband of his underwear show under his pants. It seems that Dicks, whose name I have somehow avoided making fun of in either of my posts on this issue, asserts that because "sagging" is a crime, it provides probable cause for police to search those who are stopped for sagging. There is such a thing as a "stop-and-frisk" under Terry v. Ohio, or a "search incident to arrest," but I doubt that either of those justifications would have applied to this stop, which was carried out because a policeman could see someone's underwear.

Flint may have the third-highest homicide rate in the country, but at least its waistlines are also rising.

Link: Detroit Free Press
Link: Lansing State Journal

Poorly Faked Heart Attack Fails to Result in Mistrial

2008-07-16T12:44:05-07:00

This story shows the importance of proper training before appearing in a courtroom, even (well, especially) if one has decided to represent oneself. And depending on the strategy, acting lessons may be a good idea.

Keison Wilkins may have thought he could ignore these principles since he successfully defended himself once before, in 2005. This case also involved felonious-assault charges, apparently based on the attempted murder of a man in Dayton, Ohio. Whatever Wilkins' legal strategy was this time around, it wasn't going very well, and Wilkins increasingly resorted to "antics" designed to disrupt the proceedings and force a mistrial. The judge did have to clear the courtroom frequently, but the trial went on.

This happened often enough that by the time Wilkins tried to fake a heart attack during closing arguments, nobody was even paying attention anymore.

In this highly entertaining courtroom video footage, deputies react to Wilkins falling over, but other than that it is clear that no one is buying the act for a second. The judge is shown shuffling papers as Wilkins clutches his chest. Note also the lack of any reaction whatsoever by the attorney in the front row. The judge has Wilkins checked by a nurse, who finds nothing wrong with him, but Wilkins tenaciously sticks with his plan -- even after being put back in his chair and then showing an obvious reaction to an ammonia stick placed under his nose. The video is worth 3 minutes and 41 seconds of your time.

There will be plenty of time to get fake medical care for that fake heart condition, since Wilkins, a repeat offender, was sentenced to 42 years in prison.

Link: Dayton Daily News

Gay Italian Wins Lawsuit for Driving-Test Discrimination

2008-07-15T23:15:37-07:00

A 26-year-old Italian man who was told he had to retake a driving test because he is homosexual has been awarded $150,000 in damages. A court in Sicily ruled that the government agencies involved had discriminated against Danilo Giuffrida after they learned about his sexual orientation.

Apparently, defense ministry officials learned this fact during a medical examination for military service (because he told them, not because they have a test for it). For some reason, they passed this information on to the transport ministry, which then told Giuffrida he would have to retake his driving test because of his "sexual identity disturbance." What that supposedly means, and especially why it might call somebody's ability to drive into question, was not explained.

Giuffrida again took the test and passed it, but was given a license for only one year rather than the usual 10, apparently for the same reason. He sued. On July 12, the judge hearing the case ruled that the ministries had discriminated against Giuffrida and ordered them to pay him 100,000 euros ($157,000). The judge also found that the incident had left Giuffrida with "a grave sense of mistrust towards the state," although if he trusted the state before this, he hasn't been paying very close attention.

Link: Reuters

UPDATE: Church Answers Lawsuit of Fallen Man

2008-07-15T10:10:02-07:00

We learned last month about the Knoxville man who sued his church claiming he had been injured in a fall caused by the holy spirit. (It wasn't capitalized in the complaint). Matthew Lincoln did not blame the spirit, however (let alone sue it), instead arguing that the church is liable for negligent supervision because the "catchers" it employs for such situations did not do their job.

The story appeared again in many news outlets on July 10, likely after the church's lawyers had filed an answer to the complaint. The only additional detail provided by the AP report is the claim that other congregants saw Lincoln laughing after his fall, at a time when he says he had just injured his head and back.

But in an interview by WATE-TV in Knoxville, Lincoln said he had trusted the catchers to be there if the spirit took him because they had always been there on prior occasions, and that he is still in constant pain a year later. "There's no amount of money that can compensate for what's happened to me," he said, although as usual with people who say that kind of thing, he did still suggest an amount ($2.5 million).

Comments on the station's website were not particularly favorable to Lincoln. "If the spirit moved him, I think the spirit should have caught him," wrote one commenter.

Link: AP via FindLaw.com