Roman Polanski & Sex Charge Conviction

February 28, 2009

The famous movie director, Roman Polanski, failed in his attempt to overturn his 30 year-old conviction for having sex with a minor.  Los Angeles, California, Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza decided against Polanski but said he would reconsider if Polanski returned to the United States to appear before the court by May 7th.  Polanski fled to France in 1978 and has been gone ever since.

Polanski is now 75 years old.  He is famous as the director of such movies as “Rosemary’s Baby”, “Chinatown”, and “The Pianist.”

Polanski, in his attempt to overturn his conviction, claims the judge to whom he pled guilty in 1978 improperly coached the prosecutor in the case.  There might be something to that claim.  Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney David Wells spoke of his contacts with that Judge, who is now deceased, in the documentary film “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.”  Judge Espinoza in deciding against Polanski last Tuesday even said, “”It is hard to contest that some of the conduct portrayed in film on that documentary was misconduct.”

But there is a roadblock before getting to the merits of Polanski’s claim.  That roadblock is Polanski’s absence.  Indeed, prosecutors have successfully argued that Polanski has no right to challenge anything or be heard by the court on any matter because he has no “standing” before the court.  This is a long-standing concept still very much alive in the courts.  One must have standing to be heard on the matter at hand, and Polanski’s having fled and never returned vitiates his standing before the court.

The same is true in Oklahoma today.  If a defendant escapes or runs off while a criminal charge is pending before the court, the court would not hear a lawyer on that person’s behalf until the person surrender to the court, submitted to the court’s personal jurisdiction.  Prosecutors typically refuse to negotiate about a case when the defendant is at large for the same reason. Until the defendant comes before the court, no deals.

Polanski was originally indicted on six charges, including rape, for having sex with a 13-year-old girl after plying her with champagne and drugs.  He insisted the sex was consensual but pleaded guilty to a single count of having sex with a 13-year-old girl, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.  He put his faith in the judge to give him a fair sentence, and spent 42 days incarcerated for psychiatric evaluation in 1978.  He then fled before the judge could sentence him because he became convinced the judge intended to send him back to prison, contrary to a plea agreement he had made with prosecutors.

Polanski is a citizen of his France, where he resides, and cannot be extradited to the United States.  However, he faces arrest if he ever returns to the United States, and he is obviously trying to clear that up.

Polanski’s attorneys had sought to disqualify the entire Los Angeles County court system from hearing this matter, but that request was rejected earlier this month by a California appeals court.

Polanski has an interesting past for other reasons.  His mother was killed in the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz.  Polanski also has a link to Mr. “Helter Skelter”, Charles Manson.  It was Roman Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate, while pregnant, who was attacked in their Beverly Hills home by the Charles Manson gang in 1969, while Polanski was out of town on business.  They wrote “Helter Skelter” in blood on the walls of the home.  Polanski directed four actors to Oscar-nominated performances: Ruth Gordon, Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, and Adrien Brody.  Polanski himself won the Oscar for his direction in 2002 for “The Pianist,” which he made in Europe.  Polanski’s friend, Harrison Ford, flew to Paris to present the award to Polanski, who continued to stay out of the United States to avoid being arrested.

“Safe” Taser Guns Cause Deaths in Arrests

February 26, 2009

The use of Taser guns is increasing. Police departments continue to buy more and more of them. Just in the month of December, 2008, police departments in Maryland, Florida, New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania purchased new electric stun guns. Meanwhile, the police in Durham, N.C., plan to double their existing inventory of Tasers from 110 to 235, and a police chief in the Atlanta metro area hopes to add 1,000 more stun guns.

The Taser stun gun is the most common brand of CED, conductive energy device, which fires 50,000 volts of electricity through its target [person] from as far away as 35 feet. This causes uncontrollable muscle contraction and temporary immobilization.

Tasers are considered safe by the police, a safe alternative to guns or other types of force such as nightsticks, perhaps safer for the police than their having to use of physical force to enforce restraint in various situations including arrests of criminal suspects. “Tasers generate a lot of volts but not a lot of amps,” Deputy Sheriff Dan Deering, a Taser trainer for the Jackson County (Michigan) Sheriff’s Office, said. “It’s not the volts that kill you. It’s the amps.”

Others say the stun gun is dangerous. The City of San Jose, California, paid $70,000 to the widow and child of Edwin Rodriguez after police in 2005 fired Rodriguez with a Taser. Family members had driven Rodriguez to the hospital when he suffered an attack of his chronic schizophrenia. However, when he resisted the treatment at the hospital, police pinned him to the ground and stunned with a Taser, allegedly four times. He died in less than an hour, the fifth person to die in San Jose from being shocked since San Jose Police were issued Tasers in 2004.

Amnesty International reports that 334 people have died in the United States between 2001 and August, 2008, after being stunned by Tasers, including 55 people in California and 52 in Florida.

Police like to point out that the mere display of a Taser often accomplishes compliance. Likely this is true. But critics believe the very confidence police have in Tasers may cause the police to underestimate their potentially lethal power. According the Associated Press, the Taser Company claims their stun guns cannot kill. The Amnesty International report concedes that most of the 334 deaths were attributed to other medical factors such as drug intoxication, but the report included coroners’ conclusions that Taser shocks did in fact cause or contribute to at least 50 of the deaths.

Researchers commissioned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation also concluded that over time, Tasers can begin to malfunction and fire with up to 50 percent more power than their manufactured limits. The study found even stun guns firing at expected electrical levels carry some risk of inducing cardiac arrest.

Injustice for sale — Judges jail children for money

February 24, 2009

Two judges pled guilty in Pennsylvania last week to putting children in jail for money. The Judges accepted more than $2.6 million from a private youth detention center in Pennsylvania in return for giving hundreds of youths and teenagers to unnecessarily long sentences.

Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan, Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, pled guilty in federal court in Scranton, Pennsylvania, pursuant to plea bargains with the United States Attorney’s office. They admitted that they had accepted payoffs from PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare between 2003 and 2006. They are each facing up to seven years in prison.

The scam worked like this: The judges sent juveniles to the detention center so the company running the facility received money from the county government to pay costs of the incarceration. Thus, as more children were sentenced to the detention center, PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare received more money from the government.

The judges sentenced the children to more severe sentences that required incarceration in order to generate more money. Teenagers who were sentenced by Judge Ciavarella in juvenile court were sentenced to detention centers for minor offenses that ordinarily would have been classified as misdemeanors, according to the Juvenile Law Center, a Philadelphia nonprofit group. One seventeen-year-old boy was sentenced to three month’s detention for being in the company of another minor who was caught shoplifting. Others were given similar sentences for simple assault in which the charges stemmed form a scuffle in the school yard, and these would ordinarily merit only a warning.

Although the juveniles were guaranteed the right to a lawyer in court, many of them appeared before Ciavarella without an attorney because the probation service personnel told them that their charges were so minor that they didn’t need an attorney.

The chief counsel of the Juvenile Law Center, Marsha Levick, estimated that of approximately 5,000 juveniles who appeared before Judge Ciavarella from 2003 and 2006, between 1,000 and 2,000 received excessively harsh detention sentences. She said the center intends to sue the judges, PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare to obtain money damages for their juveniles victims.

Prosecutors were quoted as saying “That judges would allow their greed to trump the rights of defendants is just obscene.” That is always so, but it is especially so here where the defendants were so young and vulnerable. This is an extremely vicious crime because it strikes at the integrity of the system, but it appears even more vicious when considering how young lives may have been damaged so severely, taken from school and parents, put into a detention center where there are likely young predators waiting for someone to prey on.

The judges tried to hide their ill-gotten income from this scheme by creating false records and rouging payments through intermediaries. “Your statement that I have disgraced my judgship is true,” Ciavarella wrote in a letter to the court. “My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame.” Conahan had no comment to make.

Ciavarella and Conahan were removed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as judges when the charges were filed in federal court, and the Supreme Court appointed a judge to review all the cases involved.

Again, we have an instance where innocent people are falsely persecuted. It certainly indicates the need for a defense lawyer who can be the legal advocate in protecting the rights of the accused, even for something that seems minor, at first blush. It’s very possible that many of these children sentenced did not have an attorney because it seemed their situation was such a minor offense but that just made it easier for the judges to get away with this injustice.

Consequently, it’s always advisable to seek advice from a competent criminal attorney, when you or your child is charged with any kind of criminal, even petty, act. Get educated on how to choose the best lawyer and discover how to avoid common mistakes by going to my website at

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Judge De-frocked, What Goes Around Comes Around

February 20, 2009

When a jury trial results in a conviction, or for any reason one of the parties in a criminal case wants to seek reversal of the trial judge’s decision on a matter, the issue must be taken to and decided by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. That is the highest court, the court of last resort, for criminal matters in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is one of only two states in which appellate criminal matters are decided by court dedicated to criminal matters. Texas is the other state. In all other states, all issues of last resort are heard by the same court as the court that decides civil matters, usually called the state supreme court.

The five members of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals are appointed by the governor. Every four years of their term, their names appear on the retention ballot for decision by the voters. The voters of Oklahoma have never failed to retain a judge on the retention ballot.

For all these reasons, Judge Steve Lile had a job that was secure. He was one of the five judges who sat on the Court of Criminal Appeals. He could rule against every defense lawyer who brought a legal issue to the Court of Criminal Appeals for his decision. He could overrule every motion any lawyer urged on his defendant client’s behalf. He could rubber stamp practically every conviction brought to his court for review, and find no legal merit in any reason to overturn a conviction. And he did.

But then it was his turn.

Steve Lile traveled to attend project conferences, meetings of the Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID) Program offered by the Department of Corrections. He routinely applied for mileage reimbursement for that travel and was paid. But there were no meetings on those dates. Lile was filing false claims to the state so he could visit his illegitimate son, Loran Michael Wilson, in prison. Lile made almost weekly trips between June and October, 2004.

Lile had gotten caught intervening on behalf of his then-loverr, Dawn Lukasik, to get out of drug charges in Lawton. The Lawton District Attorney there dismissed the drug charges for the flimsiest of reasons, obviously as a favor to Lile, and from that incident, the travel claims came to light. Dawn Lukasik is the mother of Loran Michael Wilson, and Lile is his father, Lile later said. Lile had not known Wilson was his son until recently.

When Lile’s behavior came to light a few years ago, Lile resigned rather than fight the efforts of the Attorney General to remove him. Since then, Lile has been a private lawyer, a lawyer representing people accused of crimes, the kind of lawyer for whom Lile had such contempt for so many years.

Now the matter of Lile’s license to practice law has been heard by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. It was an ethical violation for Lile to file those false travel claims, even if he has paid back $1523.64 for false travel claims and paid back $1560.40 for false claims Lukasik made for her personal use under the pretense of using the purchases to remodel Lile’s state judge’s office.

Lile told the Supreme Court that he was regretful and remorseful for his misconduct. He was just not thinking straight, he said. Giving the limpest of possible excuses, Lile urged the Supreme Court to forgive his misconduct, that his conduct merited only a private reprimand.

The Supreme Court found no merit in Lile’s excuses, denials, and minimizations. Lile had sought and accepted an office of the highest responsibility from the sovereign state of Oklahoma. He had taken an oath to follow the law. He should have known better. He betrayed all of these. He does not deserve to practice law in Oklahoma. So decided the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court listened to and considered all of Steve Lile’s arguments. The Court ruled against him, but he received full consideration of his position by the Court. That is all defense lawyers wanted when they appeared before Lile when he was sitting on the bench.

Big Brother is collecting your DNA in the name of fighting Crime

February 19, 2009

The state of Washington is considering a bill that will require the collection of DNA samples from every person arrested of a felony or gross misdemeanor, before a conviction for anything, that is. The state of Washington joins more than twelve other states who have similar laws, while Indiana, Vermont and Texas are now considering such provisions. New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has made the same proposal for that city. In Texas, under a new proposal, which faces an uncertain future in the current budget-cutting climate, DNA would be taken from everyone who is arrested on suspicion of committing Class B misdemeanors up to the most serious felonies.

Currently in the state of Washington, DNA samples can be taken from anyone convicted of a felony and from those arrested for particularly violent crimes such as aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping and murder. This is typical of most states, like Maryland.

Washington’s law provides that police would have to obtain a search warrant before forcing the arrested person to give a DNA sample via mouth swab, or the police could obtain a sample of they could obtain a person’s “voluntary permission” to do so. The law provides that the DNA information would be destroyed if the arrested person were found not guilty or not charged.

Where would the DNA information be sent before the state authorities destroyed it? Perhaps the FBI records? Of course, no one expects the federal authorities ever to disgorge any information, they have acquired. They never do.

The executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriff’s and Police Chiefs, Don Pierce, says the DNA information is “good technology. It solves crimes. We take fingerprints at the time of arrest, which in many ways is more intrusive.” This may not be so, since DNA evidence is more easily tampered with, however, in that it may be more easily placed at a crime scene. Regardless, there is no doubt the more information about it citizens which the government possesses, the better it can fight crime. If the government could just put video cameras into every single household in the U.S.A., it could put a huge dent in crime. There would be no privacy whatsoever, but the police would be so happy to finally get their chance to really fight crime.

Jack King, staff attorney for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Washington, D.C., said his organization has been fighting similar DNA-collection proposals since 2004. King said he believes that seizing biological evidence before conviction violates constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Shankar Narayan, legislative director of the ACLU of Washington, said the proposal pending in Washington “takes the presumption of innocence and turns it on its head.”

A Chicago study found that requiring DNA upon arrest could have prevented dozens of murders and rapes. In one case, a man who was arrested for felony theft went on to commit a murder and left DNA evidence at the scene six months later. If his DNA had been taken at the time of his theft arrest, Chris Asplen, a DNA consultant from Pennsylvania , said the man would have been caught after the first murder. Instead, he went on to kill 10 women.

So the perpetual ying and yang tension of crime fighting efficiency versus the privacy of the individual continues. Do Americans want their governments to have a storehouse of personal information on every citizen? Great Britain has this. Wouldn’t a national identity card make the job of the police easier? Wouldn’t implants in every citizen make monitoring of citizens easier for the police, like in the science fiction movies, like in 1984 dictatorships?

Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear, we are often told. The police are only going after the bad guys. This is comforting to those who have complete faith in police discretion and fidelity, to those who have not witnessed the short cuts taken, mistakes made, mistakes covered up, rules bent, oaths violated, and lies told by police for various reasons and with various intentions, including “getting the bad guys,” but including many more personal and self-promoting motivations as well.

Great Britain already has the world’s largest DNA database. Anyone arrested in England and Wales is compelled to submit to a DNA swab and the record is kept whether he is convicted or not. In Scotland this rule is restricted to violent and sex offenders, and then for only three years unless an extension is applied for. According the Daily Mail, Home Office Minister Tony McNulty is right to be cautious before treating the entire population as suspects. He and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith should take the same view of equally worrying plans for ID cards, and for intrusive surveillance on travelers to Europe. As the Daily Mail pointed out, “We are not all guilty, and we will lose much more than we gain if we submit ourselves to Big Brother.”

In these days of abuse of power, individuals who are charged with a crime or held as a suspect need to seek expert criminal legal advice. That’s why I urge anyone in that situation to visit my site at to learn how to choose the right lawyer to protect their rights.

DUI’s and Manslaughter Result from Parents acting as “Social Hosts”

February 10, 2009

Fifty-one cities and towns in Oklahoma have enacted so-called “social host” laws. Social host liability laws hold non-commercial individuals responsible for underage drinking events on property they own, lease, or otherwise control.

Such liability has long been the law in civil tort law in some states. Such laws in the law of torts (non contract responsibility) are called Dram Shop Acts. Under such laws, one who gives alcohol to another who is apparently already intoxicated is liable in money damages for the harm caused by the other who drank too much. That would include one who drank too much, then drove his car into an accident injuring or killing someone.

Many laws prohibit furnishing alcoholic beverages to underage persons. In contrast to these laws, social host liability laws (also known as teen party ordinances, loud or unruly gathering ordinances) target the location in which underage drinking takes place.

John and Cheryl Kyle of Tuttle, Oklahoma, are not charged with violation of a social host law. They are facing Second Degree Murder charges for serving at their home a teen who allegedly became intoxicated there and then drove his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, caused an accident and killed a 15-year-old girl. They will appear in Grady County District Court on March 13, 2009, to face those charges.

The Kyles likely wish they were only charged under a social host violation. They are alleged to have given a party on January 11, 2009, in their home. The problem for the Kyles is that one of their guests allegedly did exactly what the social host laws are designed to discourage.

Reportedly, the Kyles admitted to buying $86 worth of alcohol for their party for their 15-year-old son and his friends. The next morning, one of their guests, 16-year-old Lance Davis, left the party. He wrecked his pickup on a rural Tuttle road and killed in the accident was 15-year-old Kaitlyn Mounce of Tuttle. Three other teens were injured, including Lance Davis, who is facing a First Degree Manslaughter charged for allegedly taking the life of Kaitlyn Mounce. First Degree Manslaughter is punishable by not less than four years imprisonment up to life imprisonment.

The City of Edmond was the first city to pass a social host ordinance in Oklahoma in January, 2007. In Edmond, police have made 71 social host arrests during the first year of its existence. The number of arrests has since dropped significantly.

The rationale of the social host laws is to regulate teenage drinking. A 2005 survey of teenagers aged 13 to 18 conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA) found that nearly half of teenagers surveyed reported having obtained alcohol; two out of three teenagers said it was easy to get alcohol from their homes without their parents knowing about it; one-third of teens reported it was easy to obtain alcohol from their own consenting parents; two out of five teenagers said it was easy to obtain alcohol from a friend’s parents; one in four teenagers responded they had attended a party where minors were drinking in front of parents; and for teens who obtained alcohol in the past six months, parents have been the supplier an average of three times in a six-month period.

In contrast to social host liability laws, teen party ordinances make it illegal to host a party where underage youth are drinking. Under this law, the offense is the hosting of the party itself and parents or older friends and siblings can be arrested if they allow a drinking party to occur with their knowledge. Teen party ordinances differ from social host laws in two ways:

• Adults do not need to serve or provide alcohol in order to break the law. It’s enough if alcohol is present at the party.

• It doesn’t require a young person to suffer injury or cause property damages in order to hold the adult host accountable.

Many communities have passed social host and teen party ordinances. For instance, cities in San Diego County, California have either passed or are in the process of passing social host liability laws. Many other cities in states around the country—like California and Connecticut— have also passed teen party ordinances as a way to curb social access to alcohol for young people.