youthful offender

Here's an idea: stick a GPS on someone's car and track their every movement.

And how about this one: do this without getting a warrant.

That's what the police did to track the movement of drug trafficker Antoine Jones, and their shortcut around the United States constitution is probably going to cost them a conviction.

It may seem obvious, but when negotiating a plea deal on a drug possession charge, you will want to make sure you tell the judge what drugs the defendant possessed. It is also important to make sure the judge gets that information right.

Otherwise, you might find the judge has accepted a plea deal and sentencing recommendation, only to take it back on his own motion to revise and revoke. And a judge won't take kindly to a prosecutor's claim that the judge is trapped in his decision based on a mistake.

Apparently the justices of the Supreme Court like to have their cake and eat it too. Or, so it seems from today's opinion on identifications in criminal cases.

In an eight-to-one opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States today limited a criminal defendant's right to challenge an eyewitness's claim that he saw the defendant commit a crime. The case, Perry v. New Hampshire [pdf], involves a pre-trial procedure challenging an eyewitness identification through a motion to suppress.

Motions to suppress identification have the effect, if granted, of preventing evidence of an out-of-court identification from ever reaching a jury at a trial. At times, they may even have the effect of preventing an eyewitness from identifying a defendant during the trial as the perpetrator of the crime.

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Supreme Court added to its list the case of Jardines v. Florida [pdf].

This means that the Supreme Court must decide whether using a drug-sniffing dog on the outside of a person's home without a warrant violates the right to be safe from unreasonable searches, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Brent Kendall of the Wall Street Journal summarized.

What do you do when you think your client does not understand her case? The answer might be that you should do a better job counseling her. But sometimes you might find that you have done an excellent job explaining the charges and the proceedings, but your client still does not understand. Or, you feel she cannot make a rational decision about how to proceed in her case. Perhaps you are working with a very young client. Or, you represent someone suffering from mental retardation. Or you represent a psychotic client.

In any case, you have done your best to work with your client to help her understand her case to no avail. If you believe your client simply cannot understand the trial or make rational decisions about how to proceed, despite your best efforts, you are duty-bound to raise an issue of competency to stand trial. Once you do so, your client will need to undergo an evaluation. And you will need to explain some very important things to your client before she does. There are six things you absolutely must tell your client.