A day to celebrate, a day to remember

As we gear up for parades and barbeques and fireworks today, let us never forget the bravery and courage of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence 233 years ago today. Every man who signed it was, in essence, signing his own death warrant.

Here is that most extraordinary document:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

---

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

The bogeyman of illegal immigration

The Houston Police Department, playing on the death of one of its own, is asking the mayor to allow them to ask residents about their immigration status.

“We need to reinstate the (cadet) classes, reinstate the overtime that’s making up for the 1,200-officer shortage, and back off this immigration policy so our officers can be safe. Quit handcuffing our officers so they can identify these criminal aliens, and get them off the street before they can kill police officers.” - Gary Blankinship, Houston Police Officer's Union

It is not against the law for someone from another country to be in the United States without permission. It is against the law for an employer to hire them. It is against the law to use forged paperwork to obtain a job. It is against the law to be here on an expired visa. It is NOT against the law to be here.

With the exception of the Native Americans, we are all the sons and daughters of immigrants - some legal and some not. My ancestors came here from Ireland before the Civil War and made their way down south. I have no idea whether they were here legally when they stepped off that boat. Furthermore, I don't care.

Emma Lazarus' beautiful poem The New Colossus greets those who go to Ellis Island to see the Statue of Liberty. Lady Liberty speaks and proclaims for all to hear:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Nowhere does it say only if they have a green card or a visa or some other document giving them "permission" to be here. The United States is unique. We've never erected walls or barriers to prevent people from leaving. People want to come here. People want to be here.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal." The word "citizen" is nowehere to be found in the Bill of Rights.

Go celebrate the Fourth of July. Celebrate freedom. Celebrate liberty. Celebrate Emma Lazarus' words. Celebrate this long-standing experiment in democracy. Celebrate those who gave their lives for this country. Celebrate that your ancestors were welcomed to this land.

Psst, brother, can you spare a million or two?

U.S. District Judge David Godbey of Dallas told R. Allen Stanford that he would be glad to release millions of dollars to cover his defense fees -- if Mr. Stanford could prove that the money wasn't tainted by his alleged fraud. Mr. Stanford had requested $10 million to be placed in escrow to cover his mounting legal expenses.

Mr. Stanford's attorney, Dick DeGuerin told U.S. District Judge David Hittner of Houston that he had yet to be paid for his work on the case. Judge Hittner apparently was concerned about Mr. Stanford having no cash to hire an attorney.

Across downtown at the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center, however, not much concern is shown for those who can't afford to retain counsel. The rule of thumb is if you can get yourself bonded out, then you can certainly afford to hire an attorney. I've heard one judge tell defendants to sell their cars and pawn anything of value and then, if they can't raise enough cash to hire a lawyer, he would consider their requests for appointed counsel.

“We have not received a penny yet,” DeGuerin said Thursday. He also pointed that out to senior U.S. District Judge David Hittner, who presides over the criminal cases in Houston, during a hearing earlier this week.

“I’ll remind the court that the lawyers haven’t been paid either,” DeGuerin said, after noting that the freeze left his client with “zero, zip, nothing.” Hittner said it was a serious concern that a defendant has no cash for a defense.

As to Mr. DeGuerin's concern about his fee -- that's why we collect it up front. I always consider the down payment to be my fee and anything the client pays after that to be found money.

Court tells jurors to say no to cell phones

The Michigan Supreme Court has banned all electronic communications by jurors during trial. As a result of complaints from prosecutors, judges will begin instructing jurors on September 1, 2009 that they are not to use any hand-held devices while in the jury box or during deliberations.

Prosecutors apparently were worried that some jurors weren't paying attention during trial and that others were using their phones to pull information about the case off the internet.

While I find it interesting that prosecutors called for the ban in Michigan, I agree that Web 2.0 presents a problem in the courtroom. Text messaging, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and e-mail can all taint the jury process.

Maybe it means we should redefine the instructions we give jurors when they report for jury duty. It's very possible that this notion that a juror should not discuss the case outside deliberations or conduct any research on his own is as useful as the Maginot Line. If we go back 15 years we wouldn't be having this discussion -- the technology didn't exist and it was more realistic to expect a juror to remain insulated. And what good does it do to prohibit the use of the devices during testimony and deliberations when a juror is just as likely to hit the internet at home?

Maybe it's time to request questionnaires in ALL cases, including the most basic misdemeanor cases. Ask the jurors whether they use social media or blog. If they do, ask them what name they use on social media sites or on blogs. Then request time to research each site listed to see if there is anything on the web that could generate a challenge for cause.

What do you think?

Vampires expected to be out in force over the Fourth

How ironic that Harris County is gearing up for another "No Refusal" weekend between the hours of 10pm and 6am on both Friday and Saturday nights. How ironic that on the weekend that we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence - one of the most revolutionary of documents - 233 years ago.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

On the very weekend we commemorate a document that indicted the King of England for his trampling of individual rights and liberties, the Harris County District Attorney's Office and our local criminal (in)justice system are ready to ride roughshod over the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Turning a traffic stop into something more

I came across an interesting article written by Joe Buckley, president of John E. Reid and Associates, in The Police News this morning as I tooled around the Galveston County Courthouse and the county jail. For those of you not familiary with John E. Reid and Associates, they are the developers of the Reid Technique of interrogation.

"The officer conducting a roadside interview is in a unique position to develop incriminating information. Because the initial stop is for a traffic offense, Miranda warnings are not required. Most of these stops are made when the officer sees a violation occur so the driver already knows that he or she has been caught doing something wrong and this awareness makes it easier to acknowledge other transgressions. Finally, the driver is and car occupants are caught off guard without the opportunity to create a credible alibi or dispose of incriminating evidence that may be in the vehicle."

A DWI case begins, usually, as a simple traffic stop. Of course, the task force officers are just looking for any justification to stop the driver, and, if you watch long enough, someone's going to do something wrong. In the same context, it never ceases to amaze me how many people consent to a police search of their car knowing full well that the officer is going to find something that shouldn't be there. Do you really think that officer who found the cocaine in the center console is going to let you walk because you consented to the search?

"It must be remembered that people stopped for traffic violations are, for the most part, guilty of the offense for which they were stopped and will certainly exhibit symptoms of anxiety as a result of being caught. In this sense, persons stopped for a traffic violation are "guilty" of the violation. However, they may exhibit behavior symptoms of guilt or deception because of involvement in some unrelated criminal activity or because they lied to the police officer's questions..."

When an officer starts questioning a motorist after a traffic stop he's not only interested in what the driver has to say -- he's just as interested in how the driver says what he says. It's something to think about as more states are pushing the police to enforce seatbelt laws. If an officer sees you driving without wearing your seatbelt, he's got as good a reason as any to pull you over... and thus it begins again.

"Persons with nothing to hide pull to the side of the road when the officer turns on lights and siren; when at home, they answer the door when the officer knocks on it and respond to questions without objection. Conversely, it is a classic symptom of guilt for a person to run from the police in response to an effort to stop his vehicle or question the suspect at his home."

Of course it must also follow that only the guilty person is interested in exercising his constitutional rights and demanding that he be afforded the protections found in the Bill of Rights. Maybe we could dispense with the entire trial system and convict people on their willingness to talk to the police.

"Communicating with one's hands occurs when a person is confident and sincere in his statements. Illustrators reinforce the credibility behind the spoken word. The lack of illustrators can be a significant behavior symptom of possible deception. The classic description of a guilty person going through a border stop is that the subject's hands are cemented to the steering wheel at the 11 and 2 o'clock positions and his eyes stare straight ahead at the road. Simiarly, when questioning a child who has done something wrong, the child will hide his hands by putting them in his pockets."

This is the essence of the Reid Technique - the nonverbal cues that either jibe with what's being said or are in stark contrast to the spoken word. Where is someone looking? What are they doing with their hands? How is someone standing?

The Reid Technique also involves an interrogator putting himself in the suspect's shoes and trying to imagine a scenario in which the suspect would feel justified in doing that which he allegedly did. For instance, if a man is suspected of murder, his interrogator may be able to lead the suspect down the path of self defense in an attempt to convice (coerce?) the suspect into admitting he killed the victim. In David Simon's Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, the Baltimore detectives referred to this particular technique as the light at the end of the tunnel.

The lesson, as always, is to pay attention when that officer tells you that you have the right to remain silent.

Next we'll tack on a portion of the electric bill as a court cost...

I was down in Missouri City Municipal Court this morning with a couple of traffic scofflaws. The judge came out and explained to those gathered in the courtroom what was going on. He informed those in the gallery that today was set for pre-trial conferences and that they would try to work out as many cases as possible but, if for one reason or another a case couldn't be worked out, it would be set for trial. Fair enough, nothing unusual in any of those remarks.

Next he told the court that in a jury trial on a traffic case the jury would decide two things: (1) whether the motorist was or was not guilty and (2) the fine to be assessed. Then he informed those in attendance that should they select to go to trial and they lost, the court costs they would be assessed would include the overtime pay for any officers subpoenaed to appear as well as the jury fee.

It seems as if Missouri City has finally found a stick to beat folks into submission and discourage them from exercising their constitutional right to a trial by jury in any criminal matter. The Sixth Amendment affords criminal defendants compulsory process in any criminal proceeding and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure outlines the manner in which a defendant may exercise that right.

If Missouri City really wants to prevent people from exercising their rights, maybe the city counsel should consider making all traffic offenses administrative matters. That way city prosecutors wouldn't have to worry about proving their cases beyond a reasonable doubt -- a hearing officer could be appointed to rubber-stamp the tickets and anyone wishing to challenge the word of the city lackey would be forced to appeal the decision to the municipal court where the city's burden would be a preponderance of the evidence.

Once again our rights are slowly eroding.

Madoff to spend the rest of his life behind bars

Bernie Madoff's sentence of 150 years (read: life) in prison may satisfy his victims' psychological need for revenge but it certainly won't get them their savings back.

According to prosecutors, Mr. Madoff swindled his investors out of some $170 billion over the course of the Ponzi scheme. In December, Madoff's books indicated a total of $65 billion was currently "invested."

Mr. Irving Picard, the trustee charged with winding down Mr. Madoff's affairs has thus far only been able to collect $1.2 billion to return to his victims.

Now, don't get me wrong, some sanction is required in this case. I just don't know if burying Mr. Madoff beneath the jail is it. With today's sentencing, the same folks whose "investments" paid for Mr. Madoff's lavish lifestyle will once again be paying to house him in prison.

Clear as mud

Over the past week details have begun to emerge about Harris County D.A. Pat Lykos' plan to offer pretrial diversion on first-time DWI offenders:

• The candidate must be a true first offender (or at least someone who understands the importance of expunging those criminal records).
• The DA's office will consider all first DWI offenders - even if there was an accident involved. Of course, the severity of the accident will be considered.
• The DA will screen candidates for eligibility. Should the candidate be approved, an evaluation would be ordered. The exact way in which this evaluation would be conducted has yet to be decided.
• The candidate must agree to a "punishment" as part of the contract. This "punishment" would be applied should the candidate fail to complete the program successfully.
• The program would require the installation of an ignition interlock device (regardless of whether or not there was a breath test) for a minimum of six months.
• The program itself would be for a period of one-to-two years, depending on the facts of the case. No criteria for determining the length of the program has been defined at this point.
• All treatment programs would be paid for by the candidate. According to Ms. Lykos' office, the county will provide treatment for indigent candidates.
• In the event that the candidate "violated" the terms of the agreement, the court will impose a punishment based on the "punishment schedule" that was set up as part of the candidate's entry into the program. Consequences would be "swift" and the candidate would waive his or her right to litigate the issue.
• The candidate would have to agree to a one-year waiting period before he or she could ask the court for an expunction. That expunction would be the same as any other expunction -- all records related to the arrest and prosecution of the candidate would be destroyed. That is, except for DPS driving records. Any "DWI contact" would be forever part of the candidate's driving record.

As I have said before, the idea behind the program is a good one. There is something wrong with a system that allows a court to place a murderer on deferred adjudication but does not afford the same opportunity for a person charged with a first-time DWI. However, the program obviously was not fleshed out prior to Ms. Lykos' announcement and some of the provisions are very troublesome.

Anyone contemplating taking part in the program should still consult an experienced DWI attorney to discuss the benefits and the consequences of the program as they will be asked to waive some of their most basic rights under our Constitution.

Kent resigns, for real

Disgraced Federal judge and convicted felon, Samuel Kent, tendered his resignation from the bench effective June 30, 2009, on the eve of a trial in the Senate.

Earlier this month, upon being sentenced to 33 months in prison, Mr. Kent submitted his resignation from the bench effective June 1, 2010. Outraged, members of Congress put his impeachment on a fast track.

With Kent's resignation, the list of federal judges removed from office remains at seven:

• John Pickering, Massachusetts - convicted and removed from office, 1804
• West H. Humphreys, Tennessee - convicted and removed from office, 1862
• Robert W. Archbald - convicted and removed from office, 1913
• Halsted L. Ritter, Florida - convicted and removed from office, 1936
• Harry E. Claiborne, Nevada - convicted and removed from office, 1986
• Alcee L. Hastings, Florida - convicted and removed from office, 1989
• Walter L. Nixon, Mississippi - convicted and removed from office, 1989

Supreme Court upholds right of confrontation

The U.S. Supreme Court today strengthened a citizen's right to confront the witnesses against him in a criminal trial. In a 5-4 decision, the Court rebuked a Massachusetts law allowing the state to enter affidavits of laboratory analysts to prove up both the type and amount of a drug at trial in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusets (No. 07-591, decided June 25, 2009).

"But the Constitution guarantees one way: confrontation. We do not have license to suspend the Confrontation Clause when a preferable trial strategy is available." Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.

Back in 2001, Boston police received a tip that, Thomas Wright, a Kmart employee was "engaged in suspicious activity" and set up surveillance in the Kmart parking lot. They saw Mr. Wright get into a car and waited until he returned. Upon exiting the car, the police arrested Mr. Wright and the two men in the car, one of whom was Luis Melendez-Diaz, after recovering four bags of what appeared to be cocaine from Mr. Wright.

At trial the state introduced the bags recovered from Mr. Wright and from the car along with "certificates of analysis" from forensic analysts. Mr. Melendez-Diaz objected on the grounds that he was not afforded his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him because it was impossible to cross-examine a piece of paper. The court overruled his objection and Mr. Melendez-Diaz was convicted on drug charges. The state Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, held that the certificates at issue were testimonial in nature and therefore subject to the dictates of its decision in Crawford v. Washington. The Court pointed out that the sole purpose of the affidavits under Massachusetts law was to provide "prima facie evidence of the composition, quantity and net weight" of the substance in question.

“To be sure, the Clause’s ultimate goal is to ensure reliability of evidence, but it is a procedural rather than a substantive guarantee. It commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. . . . Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36, 61-62 (2004).

The practical effect of the Melendez-Diaz decision is that a citizen's right to confrontation is denied when the state is allowed to introduce any evidence that is "testimonial" in nature without affording the defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the testifying party. It would seem that the state's ability to introduce evidence at trial in the form of a business records affidavit has been greatly reduced.

“Various formulations of this core class of testimonial statements exist: ex parte in-court testimony orits functional equivalent—that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonablyexpect to be used prosecutorially; extrajudicial statements . . . contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions; statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would beavailable for use at a later trial.” - Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (2004).

The fight to determine what is "testimonial" may have just begun.

No kidding

Are these signs really necessary on the front door of the Galveston County Courthouse?

Mexico to decriminalize minor drug possession

The Mexican legistlature has voted to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs ranging from marijuana to heroin to methamphetamine. Supporters of the measure say that if Mexico is to rid itself of the large-scale drug violence sweeping the country, it must use its resources wisely - and that means going after the large-scale producers and distributors.

President Calderon supported the legislation much like his predecessor Vincente Fox - but President Fox caved in to pressure from the Bush Administration and withdrew his support for the measure.

"The important thing is . . . that consumers are not treated as criminals," said Rafael Ruiz Mena, secretary general of the National Institute of Penal Sciences. "It is a public health problem, not a penal problem."

Critics of the plan argue that decriminalizing drugs is giving in to the narcoterrorists who have left a bloody swath across the country over the past decade. These critics worry that Mexico will become a Latin American version of Amsterdam complete with tourists coming in to satisfy their drug habits.

The plan would remove criminal penalities for the possession of up to 5 grams of marijuana, 500 milligrams of cocaine, 50 milligrams of heroin and 40 milligrams of methamphetamine.

Calderon's initial proposal called for mandatory treatment for those who wished to avoid jail time but the bill was changed to call for treatment to be encouraged.

While I understand the need to make better use of limited resources, I also understand that drug trafficking is big business because of the demand for drugs and that any policy designed to eradicate illegal drugs must attack both the supply and demand sides of the equation.

White collar crime and punishment

R. Allen Stanford is just the latest in a long line of accused con men to face the prospect of prison time for his alleged misdeeds. He certainly won't be the last.

My question is whether it makes any sense to put a white collar criminal behind bars in the first place.

Mr. Stanford's alleged crimes include lying to investors and diverting investor funds to his own private bank accounts. Mr. Stanford's firm promised huge returns for those willing to invest in certificates of deposit in his Antigua bank. Of course, as I have pointed out before, it is a law of economics that the riskier the "investment," the higher the return.

Apparently no one questioned why a bank was paying exorbitant interest rates on certificates of deposit. Investors were blinded by greed and neglected to perform their due diligence before handing over large sums of cash to Mr. Stanford's company.

Now, if the allegations are true, I'm not saying that Mr. Stanford didn't do anything wrong. What I am saying is that locking him behind bars for the rest of his life doesn't do anything for the people he allegedly bilked.

I guess there's the lottery for the working poor; casinos for the middle class; and R. Allen Stanford, Bernie Madoff and company for the wealthy.

The two-edged sword of social media in the courtroom

While looking over the newspaper this Father's Day morning, I stumbled across an Op/Ed piece in the Houston Chronicle about the intrusion of social media into the jury system. It isn't the first challenge the jury system has seen, but it may be the most pervasive.

Former assistant US attorney Thomas Melsheimer and Dallas County Civil District Judge Craig Smith remind us of four well-publicized incidents in which jurors brought social media into the jury room:

• During a major federal drug trial earlier this year, the trial came to a screeching halt when eight sitting jurors admitted to obtaining information about the case from the Internet.

• During a political corruption trial in Philadelphia, a juror provided a running commentary about the case on Facebook. The defense objected, but the trial was allowed to continue. The defendant, a former state senator, was convicted.

• In Arkansas, a juror used his cell phone to post Twitter updates during the trial. When revealed, he couldn’t understand what the fuss was about.

• Finally, when a juror in England could not decide on a case, she posted details about the trial and asked readers to vote on how she should rule.

Web 2.0 is in the courtroom and you disregard this reality at your own peril. You have to ask potential jurors if they use Facebook, Myspace or Twitter. You need to know if any of your potential panelists blog. You need to see what they've posted, what they read, who they're fans of, etc. You need to ask the court for additional time to conduct this research before you can make intelligent decisions on who to challenge for cause and on whom to exercise your strikes.

And while you're running checks on the panelists, don't forget to look up witnesses on the internet, too. And it's best to tell your client to lay off the social media until the case is over - you never know who else is lurking in cyberspace.

You also need to know who's in the courtroom watching the proceedings. Are they there to learn the ropes? Are they blogging? Are they "live" tweeting your trial?

While Web 2.0 has given us an infinite amount of useful information at our fingertips, it's also created a field of new dangers for defendants and attorneys alike.