Salt Lake City Free Expression Permit Application
A demonstration is planned to support activist Jordan Halliday’s right to picket on public sidewalks. However, in order to legally protest the prosecution of this high profile protester (who is accused of violating residential protesting ordinance) a permit is needed. A permit is needed for a form of free expression in Salt Lake City. The “Free Expression Permit Application” only has a fee of $5.00. That doesn’t seem to be a FREEdom anymore.
The United States Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Kentucky Supreme Court, stating, “Because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. Whether he is entitled to relief depends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter not addressed here.” (Padilla v. Kentucky, 2010). Josè Padilla is a longtime legal resident of Kentucky and a Vietnam Veteran who never applied for U.S. citizenship. He pled guilty to drug-distribution charges and faced deportation. His attorney failed to inform him that his plea could easily be paired with automatic deportation, and eventually falsely claimed this his extensive residency in the U.S. would prohibit this from happening. Padilla allegedly would not have entered a guilty plea and proceeded to trial if he was aware of the strong possibility of deportation. His case was brought before the Supreme Court of Kentucky alleging a Sixth Amendment infringement for the failure to have effective counsel; he was shot down. Fortunately the United States Supreme Court saw the importance of the matter and heard the case, overturning the Kentucky ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that deportation of a person living lawfully in the US is definitely a serious enough matter that when connected to a criminal plea it must be explained and understood by the defendant. Padilla’s lawyer was incorrect in his advice as the consequences of Padilla’s please could be read in the removal statute. If you are not a legal resident of Utah, or are lacking citizenship you should obtain the best lawyer possible when being charged in a criminal court so you will not receive poor legal advice and be taken advantage of as Josè Padilla was.
photo: OldOnliner
On January 11, 2010 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers neighboring states like Arizona, Nevada and Idaho & has influence over what the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (which governs Utah Federal caselaw) ruled on the case of the US v. Pinedo-Moreno. In this case evidence was used from a tracking device that was attached to the undercarrage of the Defendant/Appellant’s car. The court stated that the evidence was legally obtained and could be used even though the tracking device was attached to the car when it was parked in the owner’s driveway. This was largely due to the fact that there was no gate or sign barring entry to the driveway and the car was clearly visible from the street.
Since anyone could potentially be on the driveway, look under the car, and you could easily be followed in your vehicle, this car had no “reasonable expectation of privacy” at the location and time of the tracking attachment. This essentially means that police can use tracking devices on your vehicle very easily as the device does not constitute a search. Your vehicle could have a device attached without your knowing.
Your right to privacy concerning your motor-vehicle is continuing to dwindle as the United States Supreme Court has already held that when traveling on public roads a citizen has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Without defense lawyers working hard to protect a person’s privacy rights more and more intrusive evidence may be used in the court of law. Please hire the absolute best Utah criminal defense lawyer you can afford and protect your rights when being charged with a crime.
photo: Felixco, Inc.
Convictions by John Kroger: A Prosecutor’s Battles Against Mafia Killers, Drug Kingpins, and Enron Thieves
I am going to start this review with a disclaimer. I am biased, particularly against prosecutors. I am a public defender, and through years of trench warfare I have wounds enough to have learned to have a healthy skepticism about the difficulty of getting “justice” in the criminal justice system. And I blame a lot of the problems on prosecutors. More than one prosecutor has told me he or she can’t do the right thing, or doesn’t care if my client is innocent, or if the police are lying to make a bad arrest stick.
But in Convictions: A Prosecutor’s Battles Against Mafia Killers, Drug Kingpins, and Enron Thieves, John Kroger reveals his own misgivings about the morality of the federal prosecutor’s job. He writes of a “darker side” of his job and the “ethical obstacle course” that he had to try to navigate. He saw how the FBI kept Mafia members on the government’s payroll and looked away as they continued to commit crimes; and how the DEA allowed a big drug cartel player to stay in business as long as the DEA was allowed to skim ten-fifteen percent off drug money shipments. Kroger discloses how he “secretly grew disgusted” at the moral ambiguity of the job. He became concerned about the vast power the prosecutor wields in the federal criminal system, noting that one federal judge complained that “Congress has cast the federal prosecutor in the role of God.”
Kroger adds, “we want to be idealistic, but in the end we accomplish our jobs through threats. You threaten to send your target to prison for life unless they cooperate; you threaten to send our witnesses to prison if they don’t tell the truth; you threaten your defendant’s spouse with indictment unless your defendant pleads. Over time the suffering witnesses and the suffering you cause begin to change you.”
Kroger’s frank acknowledgment of the ethical problems in the system gives him instant credibility with me. In fact, in the end, there are enough ethical dilemmas explored in the book to justify giving three hours of CLE credit simply for reading Kroger’s book.
There are enough ethical dilemmas explored to justify giving three hours of CLE credit simply for reading Kroger’s book. (more…)
Photo: Ann Althouse
Our criminal justice system is based upon the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Until a jury decides whether they believe you are guilty or innocent, the law treats you as an innocent person. During your trial, the prosecution has the burden of proof to convince a jury that you are guilty. The belief behind this system is that if the government is going to take away your liberty, they must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you in fact committed the crime. If they cannot prove you are guilty, you are allowed to keep your liberty. That is the way the system is supposed to work.
Unfortunately, the system isn’t that perfect. When the news reports that a person allegedly committed a crime, most viewers automatically assume that the person is guilty. If the newspaper reports on a teacher who is accused of having sex with his students, people assume that the teacher is guilty.
Even though our criminal justice system is based on “innocent until proven guilty,” the general public always rushes to judgment. During jury selection, the judge or lawyers will usually ask, “Does anyone believe that because a person is arrested and charged with a crime, they probably committed that crime?” Potential jurors often raise their hands. As a defendant, you wouldn’t want that kind of person on the jury deciding your future.
Because the general public has a difficult time with the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” it is critical that you hire an attorney who can explain this concept to juries. If your attorney can prove that the prosecution cannot prove guilt, then you will be found innocent.
In Trouble? Contact the creator of this blog: Utah Criminal Defense Attorney Clayton Simms at 801-359-0404 
© Copyright 2005 - 2010 Clayton Simms, LLC|submit an article
Contact Salt Lake Criminal Defense Attorney Clayton Simms|rss feed 
