Unauthorized (and unethical) practice of law.

Just another day dealing with the bull that goes on in Jackson County. Shelley called our client's wife to talk with her, and was told that Marilyn from the Prosecutor's Office told her that she was not allowed to talk with us without prosecutors being present. Now, Marilyn presided over the prosecution mob in Monday's riot in the Courthouse. Now she's giving legal advise to witnesses. Makes me cringe to see my taxpayer dollars at work!

Another day. Another courthouse assault.

So, after yesterday's riot, it turns out that although four were arrested, no charges were filed! Guess it's o.k. to assault people in court, as long as you're invited by the prosecutors. One concussion, one with stitches, four to hospital for an assault ON VIDEO and no charges filed. Dan Ross covers something before Judge Sauer (same floor as yesterday's assault) and as he walks out of the courtroom, baby's mama (State's witness) attacks with a high heel shoe (certainly an article or substance capable of causing serious physical injury in the manner in which it was used). I arrive later and ask the deputy on duty if he was present. Yes. Did you arrest her? No. The escalating violence by prosecution fans is out of control. The police don't step in when it's an assault, and from past experience we know it will be worse on the street than in the courthouse.

Prosecution mob causes riot in court

Prior to arraignment, brother of victim had pointed gun at my client's mom and brother on two separate occasions. Of course, the police did nothing, even though victim's brother on felony probation. So, I show up for arraignment and the prosecution has gathered an impressive mob. The "victim advocate" has a group of about 50 in the courtroom, and my client's well-dressed, professional family and friends are woefully outnumbered. I let the sheriff's deputy know that we need more security, and she notes my client's name by writing it on her hand. Judge Torrence comes out, admonishes the crowd to be civil, calls our case first, and everything is fine. There's a big crowd outside, and another deputy offers to walk me out the back way. As we are about to the door, we hear the eruption in the hall and both go outside. It's a riot. My client's family and friends are getting a beat down, blood and hair flying, and there is no end in sight. The sheriff calls for backup, I move to break up one group and a female comes in with fists flying. I run into the courtroom and yell for more sheriffs. When I come out, the prosecution mob has my client's step dad down on the ground. He's not moving and they're stomping on his head. Still only one sheriff, and he's not doing anything. Back to the courtroom yelling for an ambulance. Attorney Dave Suroff comes out and starts yelling for people to stop, with a volume that was the "voice of god" and it had some effect. This had been going on for about 10 minutes, and a plain clothed detective sheriff came up from the 1st floor, and started telling people to calm down. I think the prosecution mob was just getting tired and running out of people to beat up. About that time, the elevator doors open and about a dozen KCPD officers come out, responding to an call for "officer assist." Only the shouting remained. And the blood. And teeth. And hair. And shoes. And other debris. My client's step-dad wasn't moving and was bleeding from his ears. He got up, in his work uniform, and was covered with blood. Uncle had a nasty gash on his cheek with blood everywhere. Even my client's mom--a classy professional--had a cut on her face. Downstairs, I'm told four got arrested, including the instigator. As he was being arrested, he pointed at my client's brother and said he was going to kill him. Lots of talk about getting their guns, etc. Ambulance comes, lots of cops, four arrests, four to hospital.

Attorney Dorothy Savory's Twin Trouble

Attorney Dorothy Savory is in the news for showing up at a preliminary hearing for her client Darrel White, Jr. with his twin brother, Darrel White instead. Mark Morris's story in the KC Star is a good one and has a catchy headline: "Double trouble for KC lawyer who appeared with client's twin." Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker said she is duty bound to report Savory to the Missouri Bar. "That's a responsibility I take very seriously and one I'm heavily reviewing under these circumstances." Russ Ptacek did a nice follow up for KSHB and reported that Savory had also made the news in the Baby Lisa saga and been accused of "fraud" and "mockery" in a custody battle.

23 year old gets 23 years. Go figure.

What do you say to a 23 year old client who gets sentenced to 23 years in prison?
It could have been worse. or You'll still be younger than me when you get out. or Maybe they'll change the 85% rule to 65% and instead of 19.5 years you'll only serve 15 years.
How do we justify a 23 sentence for a 23 year old?
This sentence will deter others. or This shows that we don't tolerate killing. or Next time, I bet you'll think before getting a gun?

All too frequent murder case. Bouncer kicks client out for something client didn't do, disrespects client, client gets gun and kills bouncer, another gunslinger shoots client in the balls.
Bouncer has wife, family, friends -- absolutely no sense in killing.
Client has strong family, many friends -- absolutely not in character to kill.
Sister of victim asks for forgiveness. Client apologizes (genuinely) to victim's family.
Plea agreement to a range of 10 to 23 years and Judge Youngs gives 23 years. (Might have to rethink pleading to a lid in Division 6.)

We spend a bazillion dollars on locking people up, but no one asks (and certainly doesn't attempt to answer) a pretty important question: How much time should we make someone spend in prison?
You would think that an informed answer to this question would be somewhat important. Each year we lock someone up, we taxpayers chip in about $25,000.00. As of June 2008, there were 2,310,984 people in prisons and jails. That comes to about $57,774,600,000.00 per year. $57 Billion dollars still seems like a lot to me.
Back in the day, people were interested in important things like recidivism (the liklihood that someone would re-offend), rehabilitation (hey-most are getting out some day), deterrence (how much punishment deters others), and other such things.
No more. Lock 'em up.
But for how long?
If, for example, we lock people up for a year more than is "necessary" then we've made a multi-billion dollar boo boo. Of course, maybe we should lock them up longer, but this lock-em-up-and throw-away-the-key approach doesn't seem to have been very effective over the past 30-40 years.