Prison Secretly Video Recording Meetings of Inmates and their Attorneys

ABC News

Defense attorneys who represent inmates at a privately run federal prison in Kansas were livid after learning that their meetings with clients had been recorded on video, despite repeated assurances from the penitentiary that the conversations were private.

The recordings that came to light this month had no audio, but the complaints raise the question of whether nonverbal interactions such as body language or the exchange of legal documents are protected under attorney-client privilege.

"We never had any idea we were being recorded," said Laine Cardarella, a federal public defender in Missouri whose clients include detainees at the Leavenworth prison. "This has had a chilling effect."

A federal judge said the recordings might have violated the Sixth Amendment rights of hundreds of inmates and ordered them stopped.

The company that runs the prison, Corrections Corporation of America, insists that silent video recordings of inmate-attorney meetings "are a standard practice" throughout the country and are used solely to enhance the prison's safety and security.

Unlike prisons controlled by the federal Bureau of Prisons, which generally forbids any recording in attorney-client meeting rooms, private facilities set their own standards.

Concerns about prison recordings of attorney-client conversations are not necessarily new, but nobody has a real grasp of the extent of the problem, said Barry Pollack, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

"I certainly hope that this sheds light on a situation that has not gotten sufficient attention and is an impetus for change," Pollack said. "Criminal defense attorneys have been aware of this problem for years, but it's a difficult one to address." [MORE]

Clinton's foundation woes pale compared with Trump's

Orlando Sentinel 

Even the most ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton must concede that the latest revelation regarding her connection to the Clinton Foundation — that numerous big donors to the charity appear to have had ready access to her when she served as secretary of state — doesn't reflect well on the Democratic nominee for president. It's entirely possible that many of these affluent individuals and business owners would have gotten into her office anyway, but the appearance of "pay to play" exists nonetheless.

Such ethical entanglements seem to have dogged Clinton rather consistently — whether it's taking large speaking fees from Wall Street banks or using a private email server... while serving as President Barack Obama's top foreign-policy adviser. None have produced the proverbial "smoking gun," a clear case of quid pro quo (or an offense worthy of prosecution), but enough of them have stacked up to raise serious questions about her judgment.

The problem with this pattern of behavior is that, particularly in the context of the ethically murky world of Washington insider politics, it's not so cut and dried. What the latest report from the Associated Press revealed is that at least 85 of 154 people with private interests who met with her at the State Department had either given or pledged large sums to her charity.

Add that to email exchanges that demonstrate that her aides were looking out for the interests of foundation contributors is more than a little embarrassing.

Trump is a miserly billionaire who gives little to charity

NPQ

Donald Trump toyed with a Republican presidential run, then hinted at becoming a third-party candidate, then played political footsie with Newt Gingrich, and then finally endorsed Mitt Romney to be the Republican standard-bearer in November. But despite Trump’s characteristic bombast, one never hears much or anything about his charitable or philanthropic giving. During his putative campaign run, while he demanded disclosure of President Obama’s birth certificate and college records, Trump himself never disclosed his tax return, though he promised to do so when President Obama authorized the release of his birth certificate, so we don’t know exactly how much of “the Donald’s” taxable income was reduced by charitable deductions. 

 

But we do know what the Trump Foundation does and where it gets its money. The Smoking Gun calls Trump a “miserly billionaire,” noting that the foundation’s 2010 990 shows that he has donated just $675,000 to his foundation in the past five years,including nothing in the past two years.  In fact, the interesting aspect of the Trump Foundation is that its most significant source of contributions hasn’t been Trump, but Vince McMahon of Worldwide Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). Over the years, Trump has hosted WWE WrestleMania events at his properties in Atlantic City. He has also participated in WrestleMania events (such as appearing in the corner of a wrestler whose opponent had McMahon in his corner in a hair vs. hair event) and story lines (such as purportedly buying WWE Raw from McMahon). The $5 million in donations from WWE to the Trump Foundation is by far its largest source of income and rumored to be a tax-avoiding payment from McMahon to Trump for Trump’s involvement in a 2006 WrestleMania event. Out of a little more than $1 million in grants in 2010, the foundation gave $110,000 to the American Heart Association, $100,000 to the American Red Cross and that same amount to his son Eric’s foundation.  

 

We looked at a couple of the previous years’ 990PFs for the Donald J. Trump Foundation just to check the pattern spotted by the Smoking Gun. In 2009, the largest donation by far was $1 million from WWE. No donations were listed from Trump himself. Out of total grant making of $926,750, the foundation’s six-figure grants went to the Police Athletic League, the Tiger Woods Foundation, the William F. Clinton Foundation, New York Presbyterian Hospital, and the Arnold Palmer Medical Center Foundation. In 2008, the largest donations to the foundation were $250,000 from the Willard TC Johnson Foundation and $150,000 from the Celebrity Fight Night Foundation; Trump was listed as donating $30,000 to his foundation. Its only six-figure grant that year (out of $731,000 in total grants) was $107,000 to the Gucci Foundation. 

 

This Washington Times article by “the Donald” extols Romney’s Trump-like virtues as a tough-minded businessman and suggests Romney is best suited to do battle with China, Trump’s bête noire that he says is “cleaning America’s clock.” With his, Trump adds, “Mitt Romney does have his shortcomings: He’s never built a Mitt Romney Tower in New York City or 12 Mitt Romney championship golf courses. Not everyone can be a Donald Trump.”

 

What Trump didn’t add is that Romney, as the NPQ Newswire has detailed, uses a significant portion of his wealth for charitable and religious contributions. Whether one likes Romney’s choices or not, there’s no denying that he tithes to his religion and gives millions to public charities. It would appear that Donald Trump the businessman might have a little to learn from Mitt Romney the businessman philanthropist. —Rick Cohen

Jury Awards $1 in Damages to Family of Black Man Assaulted by Cops in Mistaken Identity Case

Atlantic BlackStar

The family of a Black man assaulted by police in a case of mistaken identity is outraged after a jury awarded them just $1 in damages stemming from the traumatic incident.

Four years ago, three police officers unlawfully entered the South Bend, Indiana home of DeShawn Franklin, 22, in search of a domestic violence suspect sporting dreadlocks.

According to the Indianapolis Star, officers roused Franklin from his sleep and repeatedly punched him in the face and upper body. They also used a Taser to subdue him. Franklin, who was just 18 at the time, was then handcuffed and detained in the back of a squad car for the whole neighborhood to see.

Officers quickly saw their mistake, however, realizing that they had the wrong guy.

Franklin’s family later filed a civil suit alleging excessive force, unlawful entry and false imprisonment among other things. Just this month, a federal jury in Fort Wayne found the officers liable for the unlawful entry and unlawful seizure of the Franklin’s home. However, the family’s pain and suffering was determined to be worth $1.

Per the Indy Star, each officer who ignored the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment was ordered to pay a dollar to Franklin and each of his parents for each rights violation. The family was awarded $18 in total.

The paper also reports that the city is requiring Franklin’s family and their attorney to shell out roughly $1,500 for expenses incurred by the city in defending their case. Thanks to an ambiguous federal law, the city can collect money due because the jury award was less than a settlement offered to the Franklin family.

“I think that’s shocking. I think that’s a travesty of justice,” said Rev. Mario Sims, a local pastor and activist in South Bend. “It creates a very difficult environment when you deal with African-American people you tell them to trust the system, and this family did all the right things, they did trust the system, and essentially, even though the jury found their rights were violated, the jury didn’t value those rights.” [MORE]

Psychopathic White man runs red light, causes accident, shoots black woman to Death (12 times) - had her hands up

Early Saturday morning, Deborah Pearl, a 53-year-old African-American mother and employee of a Cleveland area Harley Davidson Diner in Northeast Ohio, was on her to way work.

At 7:20 a.m., as she was driving her Ford Taurus, she had no idea that she was living her very last moments on this Earth. Matthew Ryan Desha, a 29-year-old white man, ran a red light at an intersection and hit Pearl's car with his Jeep.

After his car flipped many times and hers was pushed into the intersection, what happened next was like something out of a horror movie.

As Deborah Pearl got out of her car to assess the situation, Matthew Desha did as well. Except he also grabbed his 5.56-millimeter high powered assault rifle. According to witnesses, Pearl then proceeded to put her hands in the air in attempt to save her life from the armed stranger who had narrowly avoided killing them both in the crash just seconds earlier.

It mattered not to Matthew Desha. A witness who called 911 reported hearing him fire off at least 12 shots. At first, they appeared to be random. The 911 caller heard Deborah Pearl, who was a sitting duck at that point, begin screaming. Desha then began aiming and firing at her. While it has not yet been released how many times she was hit, when police arrived at the scene, Deborah Pearl was found on the pavement mortally wounded and bleeding out.

Devastated and shocked, her husband and other family members came to the scene, and, understandably so, could not even muster the words to explain how they were feeling.

Matthew Desha was arrested near the scene. Early Monday morning he was charged with the murder of Deborah Pearl. Police have not mentioned a motive for the brutal murder, but the entire scene is riddled with awful implications. [MORE]

As Donald Trump Repels Non-White Voters, G.O.P. Fears Its Future in the West

NY Times

Republicans in Western states fear that Donald J. Trump could imperil their party for years to come in the country’s fastest-growing region as he repels a generation of Hispanics, Asians and younger voters who have been altering the electoral map.

Mr. Trump, with his insult-laden, culturally insensitive style of campaigning, is providing fuel for the demographic trends that are already reshaping the political composition of this once-heavily Republican territory. And now many Republicans are contemplating the possibility that states like Colorado or Nevada could soon become the next California: once competitive but now unwinnable in presidential contests.

In few places are the party’s woes over their nominee more immediate than here in Arizona, a state that has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate only once in the last 68 years.

Recent polls show Hillary Clinton is close to tying Mr. Trump here. And her campaign has responded by teaming up with local Democrats on a statewide get-out-the-vote operation, which has grown to 160 staff members across 20 offices.

While flipping Arizona has been a Democratic fantasy for years — and one that Clinton supporters acknowledge remains quite difficult — their efforts to register and recruit voters are part of a longer-term plan to capitalize on the Republican Party’s vulnerabilities with younger and minority voters.

Nonwhites are growing as a share of the electorate faster in the West than they are elsewhere. For the first time, minorities in 2012 accounted for at least 30 percent of the eligible voting population in Arizona, Nevada and Alaska — all states where Republicans currently hold top statewide offices. Colorado, where Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is so confident of a victory now that it has has no plans to buy advertising time through Election Day, is also approaching 30 percent.

The demographics were already daunting. But many Republicans now say Mr. Trump is only accelerating the flight of minority voters to the Democratic Party, like dry underbrush feeds an Arizona wildfire.

Asked how fellow Republicans could win election to statewide office in the West, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona offered some blunt advice: “Distance yourself from Donald Trump.”

“That’s difficult,” he added, “but I think we’ve got to do it if we’re concerned not just about this election but elections to come.”

Otherwise, Mr. Flake said, “this will last decades.”

Most demographers did not believe Arizona could be truly competitive for Democrats in a presidential election until 2020 at the earliest. But Mr. Trump’s unpopularity has spawned a demographic double threat that has implications in Arizona and beyond: He is not just weak among Hispanics, but also with with educated white professionals who have moved to places like Denver, Salt Lake City and Phoenix in search of better jobs and a lower cost of living.

The trouble signs for the November election have been building. In Colorado, the percentage of registered Republicans as a share of the electorate has dropped by four percentage points compared with 2012. Democrats, who now have about the same share of registered voters, carried the state in 2008 and 2012.

In Utah, Mr. Trump’s lack of support with Mormons has allowed Mrs. Clinton to come close to catching him in some polls.

And in Arizona, new voter registration numbers show Democrats have been registering people at a faster rate than Republicans this year. Registered Republicans, however, still outnumber Democrats over all.

“Arizona is on the cusp,” said Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress, who studies the political implications of population shifts. “And if it is on the cusp this fast, I think that means these other states become even farther out of reach.”

The entire West Coast is already a wasteland for Republicans. The last time one of the coastal states — with the exception of Alaska — went to a Republican nominee was California in 1988. Moreover, losses in Arizona and possibly Utah would leave Republicans safe in just Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Alaska. The peril for Republicans is evident looking at the Electoral College: Those states only have a combined 13 of the total 538 electoral votes. And even in the likely event that Republicans continue to carry Utah, a win in November would yield only six more electoral votes.

And even Alaska might not be safe for very long. Because of growth in the Asian, Hispanic and Alaska Native populations, the state’s eligible voting population is projected to be more than 40 percent minority by 2032, according to a report from the Center for American Progress, the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute.

Every month for the next two decades, 50,000 Hispanics turn 18 and become eligible to vote, according to Resurgent Republic, a Republican research group. But low rates of registration have kept Hispanics from becoming as potent a political force as they could be.

Recognizing that the participation gap is part of what has kept states like Texas from becoming more Democratic — despite a voting age population that is 28 percent Hispanic — Democrats in Arizona have undertaken an aggressive registration drive.

“Phoenix is already a majority-minority city, but our voting numbers don’t really reflect that,” said Seth Scott, the Clinton campaign’s Arizona director.

Democrats are putting more resources behind their efforts than they did in 2012 when there were telegraphing similar — though ultimately misplaced — optimism about Arizona.

The Clinton campaign said it invested hundreds of thousands of dollars this month in a coordinated program with the Arizona Democratic Party to win races up and down the ballot, a commitment the Obama campaign decided not to make in 2012. Together they are targeting 450,000 people they have identified as likely Democratic voters whom they hope to place on the state’s early voting list.

The party receives frequent updates from local post offices on which people have sent back their early registration forms. “And if they haven’t, we go knock on their doors and remind them to,” said Sheila Healy, executive director of the party.

One afternoon this week Ms. Healy was overseeing about 20 staff members and volunteers in a campaign office in the middle-class Phoenix suburb of Glendale. The space, in a former strip mall boutique called In Your Dreams, was humming with optimism.

“We’re not going to settle for purple,” said one volunteer, Marguerite Mahalek, as she spoke to a potential Democratic voter on the phone. “We’re going navy blue all the way.”

Predictions that Arizona would turn blue have been wrong before. Many believed the state was on the verge of going irreversibly Democratic in 2010 — much the way California did after voters there approved Proposition 187 in 1994, which was intended to deny public services like schools and hospital care to undocumented immigrants. Arizona’s Republican-led Legislature passed a measure in 2010 known as the “show me your papers” law, which required law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect the person might be in the country illegally.

Despite anger over that law, Mitt Romney won the state in 2012 by 10 percentage points.

Democrats insist that even if their efforts do not pay off now, they will in the long term as the voting population becomes more Hispanic. But the Trump campaign says it is not leaving anything to chance. Mr. Trump’s staff members were scouting locations in Arizona this week for a speech he is expected to give on immigration.

And campaign officials said they have begun a phone bank program called “Trump Tuesdays.” They said they made more than 18,000 calls this week to rally support for his candidacy.

Still, even his supporters acknowledge what they are up against in Arizona and across the West. “I am concerned about my party going forward,” said Sean D. Reyes, Utah’s attorney general. Mr. Reyes is a Republican and backs Mr. Trump. He is also part Hispanic, Japanese and Filipino, and a Mormon.

So he was naturally taken aback when he heard Mr. Trump insult Filipinos this month. Mr. Trump told a crowd in Maine that the United States had to stop letting in “animals” from “terrorist nations,” among them the Philippines. Mr. Reyes said he called the campaign to register his displeasure.

I talked to the Trump campaign and said, ‘Look, if I’m going to support Donald Trump, we’ve got to fix that,’” Mr. Reyes said. To the campaign’s credit, Mr. Reyes added, Trump staff members agreed.

All the Ways Your Wi-Fi Router Can Spy on You

City dwellers spend nearly every moment of every day awash in Wi-Fi signals. Homes, streets, businesses, and office buildings are constantly blasting wireless signals every which way for the benefit of nearby phones, tablets, laptops, wearables, and other connected paraphernalia.

When those devices connect to a router, they send requests for information—a weather forecast, the latest sports scores, a news article—and, in turn, receive that data, all over the air. As it communicates with the devices, the router is also gathering information about how its signals are traveling through the air, and whether they’re being disrupted by obstacles or interference. With that data, the router can make small adjustments to communicate more reliably with the devices it’s connected to.

But it can also be used to monitor humans—and in surprisingly detailed ways.

As people move through a space with a Wi-Fi signal, their bodies affect it, absorbing some waves and reflecting others in various directions. By analyzing the exact ways that a Wi-Fi signal is altered when a human moves through it, researchers can “see” what someone writes with their finger in the air, identify a particular person by the way that they walk, and even read a person’s lips with startling accuracy—in some cases even if a router isn’t in the same room as the person performing the actions.

Several recent experiments have focused on using Wi-Fi signals to identify people, either based on their body shape or the specific way they tend to move. Earlier this month, a group of computer-science researchers at Northwestern Polytechnical University in China posted a paper to an online archive of scientific research, detailing a system that can accurately identify humans as they walk through a door nine times out of ten.

The system must first be trained: It has to learn individuals’ body shapes so that it can identify them later. After memorizing body shapes, the system, which the researchers named FreeSense, watches for people walking across its line of sight. If it’s told that the next passerby will be one of two people, the system can correctly identify which it is 95 percent of the time. If it’s choosing between six people, it identifies the right one 89 percent of the time.

The researchers proposed using their technology in a smart-home setting: If the router senses one person’s entry into a room, it could communicate with other connected devices—lights, appliances, window shades—to customize the room to that person’s preferences.

FreeSense mirrored another Wi-Fi-based identification system that a group of researchers from Australia and the UK presented at a conference earlier this year. Their system, Wi-Fi ID, focused on gait as a way to identify people from among a small group. It achieved 93 percent accuracy when choosing among two people, and 77 percent when choosing from among six. Eventually, the researchers wrote, the system could become accurate enough that it could sound an alarm if an unrecognized intruder entered.

Something in the way? No problem. A pair of MIT researchers wrote in 2013 that they could use a router to detect the number of humans in a room and identify some basic arm gestures, even through a wall. They could tell how many people were in a room from behind a solid wooden door, a 6-inch hollow wall supported by steel beams, or an 8-inch concrete wall—and detect messages drawn in the air from a distance of five meters (but still in another room) with 100 percent accuracy.

(Using more precise sensors, the same MIT researchers went on to develop systems that can distinguish between different people standing behind walls, and remotely  monitor breathing and heart rates with 99 percent accuracy. President Obama got a glimpse of the latter technology during last year’s White House Demo Day in the form of Emerald, a device geared towards elderly people that can detect physical activity and falls throughout an entire home. The device even tries to predict falls before they happen by monitoring a person’s movement patterns.)

Beyond human identification and general gesture recognition, Wi-Fi signals can be used to discern even the slightest of movements with extreme precision.

A system called “WiKey” presented at a conference last year could tell what keys a user was pressing on a keyboard by monitoring minute finger movements. Once trained, WiKey could recognize a sentence as it was typed with 93.5 percent accuracy—all using nothing but a commercially available router and some custom code created by the researchers.

And a group of researchers led by a Berkeley Ph.D. student presented technology at a 2014 conference that could “hear” what people were saying by analyzing the distortions and reflections in Wi-Fi signals created by their moving mouths. The system could determine which words from a list of lip-readable vocabulary were being said with 91 percent accuracy when one person was speaking, and 74 percent accuracy when three people were speaking at the same time.

Many researchers presented their Wi-Fi sensing technology as a way to preserve privacy while still capturing important data. Instead of using cameras to monitor a space—recording and preserving everything that happens in detail—a router-based system could detect movements or actions without intruding too much, they said. [MORE]

The Leslie Jones hack [racists] used all the scariest tactics of Internet warfare at once

WashPost

What happened to Leslie Jones happened quickly: In an instant, hackers infiltrated the actress’s personal website and replaced it with a public invitation for online abusers to try to destroy her.

Their call to arms began with a racist insult, and then came the pictures of identifying documents, phone numbers and passwords that appeared to belong to her. They stole nude photographs and posted those too. The Department of Homeland Security is now investigating the matter.

But what happened to Leslie Jones has been happening online for a long time, long enough that each of the tactics used has a name: doxxing, revenge porn, hacking. What is slightly unusual about what happened to Jones is that every single one of these tactics was used against her at once.

“It was everything they could do to her,” said Shireen Mitchell, the founder of Digital Sisters and Stop Online Violence Against Women and an expert in online diversity and safety. “It was every tactic in the playbook.”

What happened to Leslie Jones can happen to anyone, experts say. But the danger of it happening to you — and what it will look like if it does — isn’t the same for everybody.

“Women of color are the canaries in the coal mine. They get both the racism and sexism,” Mitchell said. “Online, almost every vocal woman of color I know has been attacked and harassed in some way.”

Two days later, we don’t know who doxxed and hacked Jones, or why the Department of Homeland Security — and not the FBI — are the ones investigating it. But two things are clear about the people who did this to Jones: First, they were extremely motivated to do the worst they could possibly do to her. It was not a casual act. And second, the stated justification for what they did is, essentially, they were angry about a tweet: the hacked page displayed a screenshot and a link to one of Jones’s tweets, where she told one of her trolls she was going to “retweet your hate” for all her followers to see and respond to.

Jones was no stranger to being a target of racist harassment online, but the release of the “Ghostbusters” reboot in July seemed to inspire a new wave of vitriol from those who hated the film, and hated that she was in it. Jones began to retweet and screenshot just a small sample of what was coming her way, including a wave of comparisons to Harambe, the gorilla who was killed in the Cincinnati Zoo this summer. Her hackers repeated that racist, menacing comparison, embedding an image of Harambe at the top of her website when they took control of it.

It takes very little time to write and send a menacing or threatening tweet. What happened to Jones took dedication and skill, but not enough of either to be a deterrent for someone who is motivated to destroy someone online. With enough time, anyone can steal, collect and distribute private information and photos about their enemies to try to ruin their reputation or shame them off the Internet. “Being able to aggregate people’s personal information is very easy,” Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at the University of Miami and legislative and tech policy director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, said. “We put pieces of ourselves online without really thinking about it.” [MORE]

The 5th Amendment is (Allegedly) Also for the Innocent: Law Scholar Says 'Don’t talk to cops—except to tell them, respectfully, that you will not answer any questions without a lawyer'

LA Times

Someday soon, when you least expect it, a police officer may receive mistaken information from a confused eyewitness or a liar, or circum­stantial evidence that helps persuade him that you might be guilty of a very serious crime. When confronted with police officers and other government agents who suddenly arrive with a bunch of questions, most innocent people mistakenly think to themselves, “Why not talk? I haven’t done anything. I have nothing to hide. What could pos­sibly go wrong?”

Well, among other things, you could end up confessing to a crime you didn’t commit. The problem of false confessions is not an urban legend. It is a documented fact. Indeed, research suggests that the innocent may be more susceptible than the culpable to deceptive police interrogation tactics, because they tragically assume that somehow “truth and justice will prevail” later even if they falsely admit their guilt. Nobody knows for sure how often innocent people make false confessions, but as Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski recently observed, “Innocent interrogation subjects confess with surprising frequency.”

It happens especially in cases when the suspect is young and vulnerable. An analysis of 125 proven false confes­sions found that 33% of the suspects were juveniles at the time of arrest, and at least 43% were either mentally disabled or ill. Another study of 340 exonerations found that 13% of adults falsely confessed compared to 42% of juveniles. And nearly half of the exonerated children were put behind bars because of something they said to police without an attorney present.

In Oakland, police isolated and interrogated a 16-year-old named Felix in the middle of the night without a lawyer and denied his requests to see his mother. Eventually he gave them a detailed, videotaped confes­sion to a murder, allegedly filled with numerous specifics only the real killer would have known. At that point, it looked like there was little chance this young man would be able to avoid a conviction; when a jury hears that someone has confessed, they are almost certain to convict. But fortunately for young Felix, it was later revealed that he had an airtight alibi: He had been locked up in a juvenile detention facility the day of the killing. The charges were dismissed, and he was released from jail.

Eddie Lowery was a 22-year-old soldier stationed at Ft. Riley, Kan., when he was interrogated for an entire workday about a rape and murder he never committed. Like a typical innocent man, he persisted for hours in emphatic assertions of innocence. Like typical police officers, the inter­rogators acted open-minded and unconvinced. Perhaps, he foolishly hoped, he might persuade them of his innocence if he repeated his story over and over again at greater and greater length. After the daylong interrogation, he was worn out and gave them a detailed confession. He served more than 20 years in prison until he was recently released, after evidence proved that he was actually innocent.

So why in the world did Lowery confess to such a terrible crime, when we now know that he was innocent all along? He explained the mindset of someone who has been broken down by seven hours of relentless interro­gation: “I didn’t know any way out of that, except to tell them what they wanted to hear, and then get a lawyer to prove my innocence…. You’ve never been in a situation so intense, and you’re naive about your rights. You don’t know what [someone] will say to get out of that situation.”

One analysis of 44 proven false-confession cases revealed that more than a third of the interrogations lasted six to 12 hours, many lasted between 12 and 24 hours, and the average length was more than 16 hours. The longer you speak to police officers, the more likely it is that you will confess to some crime that you did not commit—isn’t that enough of a reason to avoid speaking to them?

Don’t talk to the police—except to tell them, respectfully, that you will not answer any questions and that you would like a lawyer.

James Duane is a professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach, Va. This essay is adapted from his book “You Have the Right to Remain Innocent,” forthcoming from Little A in September.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood [white man] defends discredited forensic experts, harasses defense attorneys instead

WashPost

Yesterday, The WashPost posted article about a crazy deposition from last April in which longtime Mississippi forensic expert Michael West went wildly off the rails. West was profane, belligerent, and openly contemptuous of the fact that anyone would dare question his expertise. The remarkable thing is that this was a deposition for a post-conviction hearing in a death penalty case. And in that case, West is the star witness. His testimony was the only physical evidence putting defendant Eddie Lee Howard at the crime scene.

Once in post-conviction, these cases are handled by the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office. You might think that the Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood would be embarrassed by West’s antics. The actions from his office after the deposition indicate that that you’d be wrong.

The deposition occurred on April 16. On April 25th, in anticipation of the evidentiary hearing that followed in May (that hearing went down about the same way as the deposition — the judge has yet to rule on the matter), Tucker Carrington of the Mississippi Innocence Project sent a letter to assistant attorney general Jason Davis. In it, Carrington again pointed out that since Howard’s trials West has been widely discredited. He pointed out that in the deposition itself, West contradicted his testimony at trial. And he pointed out West’s wholesale failure to take any of this seriously — he failed to prepare for the deposition, his failed to produce the appropriate documents and records, and he of course showed an appalling lack of professionalism and reverence, particularly given that a man’s life is at stake. Carrington again requested that the AG’s office drop the charges.

The next day, Davis and Hood filed a motion requesting a hearing to assess the competency of Howard’s legal team. It’s an astonishingly brazen reaction. Faced with an embarrassing performance in which the state’s already-discredited primary witness in a death penalty case came completely unhinged, Hood chose instead to attack the credibility of Eddie Lee Howard’s lawyers.

My sources in Mississippi tell me that Hood’s office has using this tactic for a while now. The motion was based on Rule 22 of the Mississippi’s Rules of Appellate Procedure. The intent behind that rule is sound: It gives the state’s courts a mechanism to ensure that defendants in capital cases are getting adequate legal representation in their appeals. These are complicated and consequential cases. You don’t want death penalty appeals and post-conviction petitions handled by fresh law school grads or washed up schlubs. [MORE]

B-More PDS: No more secret surveillance on Baltimore citizens

Baltimore Sun

The Baltimore City Police Department, with direction from the FBI, has engaged in a practice of using machines that act as cell phone tower simulators to spy on its own citizens, in secret, and sometimes illegally. These cell site simulators are portable and allow the police to electronically connect with all cell phones in a given area — temporarily disconnecting them from their providers — in an attempt to locate a particular phone.

If you try to call 911 while the police are searching your cell phone (or your child's) you will not know why the phone is not working. Last year, Detective Emmanuel Cabreja testified in a hearing in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that this technology was used approximately 4,300 times during the past eight years — far from a small infringement on the privacy of Baltimore's citizens.

When applying to a court for authority to use this technology, Department of Justice guidelines require law enforcement personnel to disclose to the judge the disruption of service that occurs for those affected by the simulator. This is not the practice in Baltimore. Instead, in 2011, city police, prosecutors and the FBI have all agreed to not disclose any information related to the use of cell site simulators — not even in court documents or proceedings. Only with written approval from the FBI can Baltimore City reveal certain information about this surveillance practice, according to the agreement, which was revealed in response to a Maryland Public Information Act request made by the state Office of the Public Defender last year.

Earlier this year, in a criminal case involving defendant Kerron Andrews who was represented by the Office of the Public Defender, a Baltimore Circuit Court judge and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals found that use of such technology to target and search Mr. Andrews' phone violated the 4th Amendment.

Judge Leahy, writing for the appellate court, addressed the nondisclosure agreement: "We observe that such an extensive prohibition on disclosure of information to the court — from special order and/or warrant application through appellate review — prevents the court from exercising its fundamental duties under the Constitution," he wrote, and is "inimical to the constitutional principles we revere."

What type of law enforcement practice could be legitimate when it hinders judges from following the law? And how many other Baltimoreans have been secretly surveilled by this technology?

Now, 16 months after the tragic death of Freddie Gray, police practices in Baltimore have been under particular scrutiny. On August 10th, the Department of Justice issued a comprehensive report criticizing aspects of the Baltimore Police Department including its use of excessive force, illegal street stops and discriminatory practices against African-Americans. Not a word, though, was mentioned about the secret and prevalent surveillance by the Baltimore police of its own citizens. Could it be because the FBI, an agency of the Department of Justice, is directing local law enforcement to continue this practice, instead of promoting transparency in policing?

As the Baltimore Sun reported last week, a number of civil rights groups filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission alleging violations of federal law in regard to the Baltimore police's widespread disruption of phone service for city residents. The complaint alleges that this practice is most prevalent in minority neighborhoods where the police most frequently use these cell site simulators. This administrative complaint will, I hope, shed further light on this secret practice by the police.

Government derives its "just powers from consent of the governed," as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, and the citizens of Baltimore never consented to these practices. All of us suffer when citizens are secretly watched by their own government. This is particularly true in poor and minority neighborhoods, which are always disparately impacted by inappropriate police practices. For our communities, for our children, for our city, this widespread secret surveillance should cease immediately.

David Walsh-Little is the chief attorney of the Felony Trial Division of the Office of the Public Defender in Baltimore; his email is DWalsh-Little@opd.state.md.us.

Ohio Supreme court rules prior juvenile charges cannot be used to increase sentences

Jurist 

The Ohio Supreme Court [official website]ruled [opinion, PDF] Thursday that courts cannot use prior juvenile charges to enhance the sentence of an adult criminal offender. In a 4-3 decision, the court held that using prior juvenile charges to enhance sentencing for adult criminals is unconstitutional and "fundamentally unfair." The majority relied primarily upon two arguments. First, juvenile cases are handled in civil court and are therefore meant to help children avoid a life of crime, while criminal cases for adults are meant to punish the wrongdoer and provide retribution to society. Second, juvenile proceedings do not grant children a right to a jury trial. The dissent argued that a portion of Ohio's criminal code clarified this issue, allowing courts to use earlier juvenile convictions to enhance an adult criminal's sentence.

This case is the most recent in a series of attempts to reform the criminal justice system, a campaign spearheaded by President Barack Obama. Last year US President Barack Obama spoke at the NAACP Annual Convention and urged [JURIST report] Congress to reform the criminal justice system by enacting legislation that would enforce criminal laws fairly and reduce sentencing disparities. Earlier that week Obama commuted the sentences [JURIST report] of 46 drug offenders in what he said was part of an effort by his administration to remedy the unfairness of the criminal justice system. In 2014 the US Department of Justice announced support for reducing the sentences of nonviolent drug offenders in federal prisons after the US Supreme Court relaxed [JURIST reports] sentencing guidelines on drug dealers earlier that year. In 2013 the American Civil Liberties Union published a study [JURIST report] finding that 3,278 Americans are currently serving life sentences without parole for nonviolent offenses.

Navajo Nation Sues EPA Over Gold King Mine Disaster

IndianCountry

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is among several defendants named in a lawsuit brought by the Navajo Nation alleging that the Gold King Mine spill in August 2015 could have been prevented, and seeking damages. 

When three million gallons of mining wastewater were let loose last August by EPA contractors attempting to remediate the site in Silverton, Colorado, it gushed into the Animas River, then the San Juan, prompting it to be declared off-limits for agriculture and drinking for several days. Even today, the tribe is still seeing fallout.

“For nearly two days, the USEPA did not call, alert or notify the Nation that this toxic sludge had been released and was headed into their waters and land,” the Navajo allege in the complaint. “Now, a year after one of the most significant environmental catastrophes in history, the Nation and the Navajo people have yet to have their waterways cleaned, their losses compensated, their health protected, or their way of life restored.”

Members of Congress representing the region that encompasses the Navajo Nation applauded the move. A statement from the office of U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Arizona, said the EPA’s priority should be to “make the Navajo community whole and mitigate financial risk to Navajo tribal members” and urged the agency to consider a fast settlement so as not to drag the process out. Other Democrats expressed support as well. [MORE]

Counties that use death penalty are plagued by prosecutorial misconduct, bad lawyers & racial bias

Fair Punishment.org

The death penalty in America is dying.

The trends are clear. In 2015, juries returned the fewest number of new death sentences—49—since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.1 The number of death sentences in 2015 has declined by more than 50 percent since 2009, which saw 118 death sentences, and by more than 600 percent since the peak of 315 sentences in 1996.2 Of the 31 states that legally retain the death penalty,3 only 14— or less than half—imposed a single death sentence in 2015.4

When we drill down to the county level, the large-scale abandonment of the death penalty in the country becomes even more apparent. Of the 3,143 county or county equivalents in the United States, only 16—or one half of one percent—imposed ve or more death sentences between 2010 and 2015.5 Six of those coun es are in Alabama (Je erson and Mobile) and Florida (Duval, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade and Pinellas)—the only two states that currently permit non-unanimous death verdicts.6 Of the remaining 10 coun es, ve are located in highly-populated Southern California (Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino). The others include Caddo (LA), Clark (NV), Dallas (TX), Harris (TX) and Maricopa (AZ). As Jus ce Stephen Breyer noted in his 2015 dissent in Glossip v. Gross, “the number of ac ve death penalty coun es is small and ge ng smaller.”

Chicago Dodges Claims of Planned Apartheid

Courthouse News

A Chicago realtor and philanthropist did not prove that the city strategically zoned wealthy, predominately white neighborhoods to promote segregation, the Seventh Circuit ruled.

     "Chicago is, by its own admission, a 'highly segregated city' and has been for more than 50 years," Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote for the three-judge panel Monday.

     Since 1980, whites have lived mostly on the north, northwest, southwest and far south sides of Chicago, while blacks have lived mostly on the west and south sides, census records show.

     Trends like those led Albert Hanna — a realtor, philanthropist and long-time resident of Lincoln Park, an affluent North Side neighborhood — to sue the city in 2011.

     Hanna alleges that Chicago snagged more than $1 billion in federal housing funds by lying to the federal government about its housing policies from 2005 to 2011.

     The city actually increased segregation by administering its funding programs, along with its zoning and land use laws, to place affordable housing in less desirable areas, Hanna claims.

     Those "low-opportunity areas," with over 40 percent of residents living below the federal poverty line, have mostly minority populations, the lawsuit states.

     The city's "areas of opportunity," however, — with "lower poverty rates, good community services and commercial amenities, job opportunities, safe neighborhoods and good schools" — have more whites than blacks and Latinos, compared to Chicago in general, Hanna claims.

     Chicago allegedly used "aldermanic privilege" and "down-zoning" of 5,200 acres of mostly desirable land to prevent or limit new construction of affordable housing.

     But in the 1960s to 1980s, when most projects were not controlled by the city, roughly half of affordable rental housing was located in well-to-do areas, according to Hanna's complaint.

     That statistic allegedly dropped to just 10 percent in the '90s after the city council took over.

     Indeed, 93 percent of the more than 2,600 affordable housing units built from 2005 to 2011 are located in low-income areas, according to the complaint.

     Hanna says that in 2004, then-Mayor Richard Daley's zoning ordinance's stated purpose — to "preserve neighborhood character" — was a smokescreen.

     A federal judge dismissed the amended complaint, and Hanna appealed.

     But the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling Monday, finding that Hanna's complaint gives no information about which regulatory provisions the city allegedly violated.

     "The city has a point," Judge Wood wrote. "Where the allegedly false certification relates to a failure to comply with certain statutory and regulatory provisions, the plaintiff should be able to tell the city which ones it flouted, and how and when."

     This lack of specificity makes it "nearly impossible for the defendant to prepare a defense," according to the ruling.

     Hanna also failed to specify the time, place, and method of the alleged falsification, the ruling states.

     "Beyond the fact that the certifications were made yearly, 'typically in December,' Hanna says nothing more about timing," Wood wrote. "Nor does he allege the place, either the physical location or the specific documents."

     The judge later added that "the documents in question are probably publicly accessible. This may be the real problem with Hanna's case: the [False Claims Act] is meant to encourage whistleblowing by insiders, and Hanna seems to have no insider knowledge."

     Judges Richard Posner and Ilana Rovner rounded out the unanimous panel.

     One of Hanna's attorneys, Michael Allen with Relman, Dane & Colfax in D.C., declined to comment on the ruling.