When the Witness Woofs

When a New York teenager had to testify against her father, claiming he raped and impregnated her, she shared the witness box with a helper.  According to The New York Times, that helper was Rosie, a specially trained golden retriever who comforts and encourages traumatized or stressed individuals.  Rosie has a highly developed sense of empathy, and will nuzzle, snuggle or lean against someone who is experiencing stress or trauma.  Psychologists sing the praises of service dogs like her, and courts in several states have ruled that witnesses who are especially vulnerable, such as children in sexual abuse cases, may be accompanied by canine helpers.

As you might imagine, approval of Rosie and dogs like her is not universal.  Everyone agrees that Rosie is adorable, but therein lies part of the alleged problem.  Defense attorneys fear that Rosie gives credibility to the child witness that may or may not be justified.  One of the public defenders in the case, David S. Martin, protested that each time the child witness stroked the dog’s fur, “it sent an unconscious message to the jury that she was under stress because she was telling the truth,” adding “There is no way for me to cross-examine the dog.”  Although the lawyer for the prosecution in this case refused to comment about Rosie for the article, Ellen O’Neill-Stephens, a Seattle prosecutor who is a proponent of dog-helpers in court, said “Sometimes the dog means the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.”

The past several decades have seen a great deal of discussion about the difficulty of dealing with child witnesses in a criminal trial, and there have been many judicial experiments – some effective and some not. 

Continue ReadingWhen the Witness Woofs

Trying to Hire a Hit Man? Don’t Answer Your Cell Phone

A new Seventh Circuit decision underscores the jurisdictional breadth of the federal murder-for-hire statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a). Although solicitation to commit murder would seem a prototypical state offense, it can be prosecuted federally if money was involved and a “facility of interstate commerce” was used. And it takes very little indeed to satisfy the latter element.

For instance, in the new Seventh Circuit case, United States v. Mandel (No. 09-4116), the defendant planned a hit on his business partner with one of his employees, who turned out to be a confidential informant. A jury convicted Mandel on six counts of violating § 1958(a). In four, the “use of a facility of interstate commerce” was a cell phone conversation with the c.i. (three of which were actually initiated by the c.i.). In the other two, the “use of a facility of interstate commerce” was driving around in a car with the c.i. while the hit was discussed.

In all of these counts, what triggers federal jurisdiction seems only incidental to the offense; it is not the use of a cell phone or a car that made the defendant’s conduct dangerous and his intentions blameworthy. Mandel would merit no less punishment if he had communicated with the c.i. by sign language or smoke signals, or if he had gotten around by roller-skating. It is this lack of a meaningful connection between the jurisdictional element and the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct that gives federal prosecution such an arbitrary character in so many cases. But, for better or worse, that is where we are in the modern world of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. (Note, though, the Supreme Court’s efforts to maintain some sort of principled limitations on federal criminal jurisdiction in its interesting decision last term in Fowler v. United States.)

Mandel contested the jurisdictional issues on appeal, but to no avail.

Continue ReadingTrying to Hire a Hit Man? Don’t Answer Your Cell Phone

Florida’s “Strict-Liability” Drug Law Found Unconstitutional

Are there any constitutional limits on the power of a legislature to restructure state-of-mind elements as affirmative defenses? The Supreme Court has suggested that such limits do exist, but has not clearly delineated what they are. However, an interesting habeas case now moving through the lower federal courts may provide a good opportunity to clarify this uncertain area of the law.

The case has emerged from a tug-of-war between the Florida legislature and the courts over the state’s basic drug-trafficking offense. Although the offense did not include any express state-of-mind element, the Florida Supreme Court held as a matter of statutory construction in 1996 that the state was required to prove knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance involved in the offense. The legislature responded in 2002 by amending the statute and clearly indicating that knowledge was not required; rather, the legislature specified, lack of knowledge must be proved by the defendant as an affirmative defense. (Apparently, only one other state, Washington, similarly dispenses with a state-of-mind element for drug trafficking.) Now, a federal district court has ruled on a habeas petition by a defendant convicted under the Florida statute, holding in Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (No. 6:07-cv-839-Orl-35-KRS) that the new version of the offense facially violates the Due Process Clause.

I’m sympathetic to the idea of constitutional limits on the legislature’s ability to create strict-liability crimes, but the court’s reasoning in Shelton strikes me as something less than compelling.

Continue ReadingFlorida’s “Strict-Liability” Drug Law Found Unconstitutional
Newer Posts
Older Posts