I've been living in my Mary Jane style Crocs (that's the style pictured on the right) all this spring and summer. When I'm not working, that is. Funny that they are appropriate everywhere from poolside to garden to store to barbeque to bank to super market, yet I think they would be hole-ee inapporpriate to wear to approach a witness for an interview. Which makes me sad, since they are nearly the only shoes that don't hurt my left foot these days. Though I don't wear them when I'm out pounding the pavement for interviews, they are great to wear while report writing (easy in, easy out), and I think they'd work well for photo shoots and examining crime scenes (especially those involving liquid).
Crocs have swept the nation this year, well really since 2003 according to the company. Even George Bush has a pair (which almost makes me want to give mine up). They are about to come out with a high end line of women's shoes, so perhaps the new line will include some good gum shoes for interviews too.
Cros was started by three Boulder, Colorado outdoor enthusiasts/business people. You might think they look like your typical cheap plastic shoes made in China, but they are slip resistant, anti-macrobial, odor resistant AND have a non-marking sole. Not to mention they are water proof. Oh, and the sales person told me they even float. I can't say they are unbreakable: my dog accidentally ripped one of my back straps off the other day, but I never use the back straps anyways.
Check out the Crocs fan site. There are testimonials from people who got married wearing Crocs, to physicians who wear them in the surgery room. But, tesimonials from fellow criminal defense investigators, or any legal professionals for that matter, are suprisingly absent. Which is why I thought it would be a good thing to let my readers know how wonderful these $30 plastic shoes really are.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Sara Caplan Relents and Testifies Against Former Client
X
This just appeared in the Los Angeles Times:
Ex-Spector lawyer relents, testifies on possible evidence
Sara Caplan, who had been held in contempt, tells the jury that she saw a defense scientist pick up an object at the scene of actress Lana Clarkson's death.
By Michael Muskal, Times Staff Writer
3:32 PM PDT, July 12, 2007
A former lawyer for Phil Spector today relented and testified in the music producer's murder trial, where she told the jury that she saw a top a defense scientist pick up an object at the death scene.
A day after the state's top court denied her final appeal to stay off the stand, Sara Caplan told jurors that she saw famed forensic scientist Henry Lee pick up an object.
"There was something white," she said, "about the size of my entire fingernail. I do not know what it was. I called Dr. Lee's attention to it. He picked it up and put it in the vial."
Under sharp cross-examination by defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden, Caplan repeated that she had no idea what the object was and said she had no idea what happened to it or even if Lee took the object from the scene.
Caplan's testimony had been much anticipated because it raised questions about how the defense, specifically Lee, handled what the prosecution considers to be important evidence.
Caplan fiercely fought through the courts to avoid testifying, arguing that she could not speak against a former client. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler had held her in contempt for refusing to tell the jury what Caplan had said in an evidentiary hearing with the panel absent.
The jury doesn't know about the legal battles surrounding Caplan or that she has already testified twice about the object at an evidentiary hearing. Nor does the jury know about questions surrounding Lee's actions. Without that background, it was unclear how the jury could evaluate Caplan's unhappy 35 minutes on the stand today.
Her testimony "will be put into context at a later time," Fidler told the jury after Caplan left the stand. Fidler said he will supply "instructions at a later time."
Significantly, the prosecution did not rest its case after Caplan testified. It had been expected to formally end its presentation in the murder trial that began in earnest in late April.
Spector, 67, is charged with shooting Lana Clarkson, 40, on Feb. 3, 2003. Clarkson was found in the foyer of Spector's Alhambra mansion.
The prosecution argues that a drunk Spector shot Clarkson, whom he met hours before at the House of Blues, where she worked as a hostess in the VIP area. The defense contends that Clarkson, despondent over personal and professional woes, accidentally shot herself.
The defense is in the seventh day of its case. It has presented witnesses who have testified that Clarkson was depressed.
Today the defense also called witnesses who tried to undercut one of the women who testified for the prosecution that Spector would threaten women with a gun when he got drunk.
Caplan, along with Lee and others then on the defense team, examined the death scene the day after Clarkson's body was found in 2003.
The prosecution has argued the object that Caplan saw Lee pick up was part of an acrylic fingernail. The fragment would support the prosecution theory that Clarkson could have been trying to fight off Spector.
Caplan today said she had no idea what the material she saw Lee put in the vial was. At the request of the defense, she drew a picture of the fragment and seemed to throw cold water on whether it could be the right size to be a fingernail.
Lee has insisted that he never pocketed any material and has called the dispute a prosecution move to discredit him. He was expected to be a key defense witness, however, in recent interviews, including one with the Associated Press, Lee has downplayed his role and has said he plans to travel in Asia in the coming weeks.
Caplan had argued that because she was a former attorney, it would not be proper for her to repeat her testimony at the evidentiary hearing to the jury in open court. Fidler rejected her claim and said she had waived any privilege by previously testifying.
Fidler eventually ruled Caplan in contempt and ordered her jailed unless she testified. Caplan fought the case to the state Supreme Court, which denied Caplan's petition Wednesday.
This morning, Caplan relented and said she would testify.
michael.muskal@latimes.com
Times staff writers Peter Y. Hong and John Spano contributed to this report.
This just appeared in the Los Angeles Times:
Ex-Spector lawyer relents, testifies on possible evidence
Sara Caplan, who had been held in contempt, tells the jury that she saw a defense scientist pick up an object at the scene of actress Lana Clarkson's death.
By Michael Muskal, Times Staff Writer
3:32 PM PDT, July 12, 2007
A former lawyer for Phil Spector today relented and testified in the music producer's murder trial, where she told the jury that she saw a top a defense scientist pick up an object at the death scene.
A day after the state's top court denied her final appeal to stay off the stand, Sara Caplan told jurors that she saw famed forensic scientist Henry Lee pick up an object.
"There was something white," she said, "about the size of my entire fingernail. I do not know what it was. I called Dr. Lee's attention to it. He picked it up and put it in the vial."
Under sharp cross-examination by defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden, Caplan repeated that she had no idea what the object was and said she had no idea what happened to it or even if Lee took the object from the scene.
Caplan's testimony had been much anticipated because it raised questions about how the defense, specifically Lee, handled what the prosecution considers to be important evidence.
Caplan fiercely fought through the courts to avoid testifying, arguing that she could not speak against a former client. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler had held her in contempt for refusing to tell the jury what Caplan had said in an evidentiary hearing with the panel absent.
The jury doesn't know about the legal battles surrounding Caplan or that she has already testified twice about the object at an evidentiary hearing. Nor does the jury know about questions surrounding Lee's actions. Without that background, it was unclear how the jury could evaluate Caplan's unhappy 35 minutes on the stand today.
Her testimony "will be put into context at a later time," Fidler told the jury after Caplan left the stand. Fidler said he will supply "instructions at a later time."
Significantly, the prosecution did not rest its case after Caplan testified. It had been expected to formally end its presentation in the murder trial that began in earnest in late April.
Spector, 67, is charged with shooting Lana Clarkson, 40, on Feb. 3, 2003. Clarkson was found in the foyer of Spector's Alhambra mansion.
The prosecution argues that a drunk Spector shot Clarkson, whom he met hours before at the House of Blues, where she worked as a hostess in the VIP area. The defense contends that Clarkson, despondent over personal and professional woes, accidentally shot herself.
The defense is in the seventh day of its case. It has presented witnesses who have testified that Clarkson was depressed.
Today the defense also called witnesses who tried to undercut one of the women who testified for the prosecution that Spector would threaten women with a gun when he got drunk.
Caplan, along with Lee and others then on the defense team, examined the death scene the day after Clarkson's body was found in 2003.
The prosecution has argued the object that Caplan saw Lee pick up was part of an acrylic fingernail. The fragment would support the prosecution theory that Clarkson could have been trying to fight off Spector.
Caplan today said she had no idea what the material she saw Lee put in the vial was. At the request of the defense, she drew a picture of the fragment and seemed to throw cold water on whether it could be the right size to be a fingernail.
Lee has insisted that he never pocketed any material and has called the dispute a prosecution move to discredit him. He was expected to be a key defense witness, however, in recent interviews, including one with the Associated Press, Lee has downplayed his role and has said he plans to travel in Asia in the coming weeks.
Caplan had argued that because she was a former attorney, it would not be proper for her to repeat her testimony at the evidentiary hearing to the jury in open court. Fidler rejected her claim and said she had waived any privilege by previously testifying.
Fidler eventually ruled Caplan in contempt and ordered her jailed unless she testified. Caplan fought the case to the state Supreme Court, which denied Caplan's petition Wednesday.
This morning, Caplan relented and said she would testify.
michael.muskal@latimes.com
Times staff writers Peter Y. Hong and John Spano contributed to this report.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Kevin Mitzner rocks. Thanks for getting it.
I came across this on the internet the other day:
"Criminal Defense Investigator
By Kevin Mitzner
We all know about Private Investigators. The classic stereotype evokes images of guys in seedy clothes, toting cigarettes, coffee cups, donuts, and six-shooters. They're the guys who run the shadows of law enforcement, who seek out criminals in shady alleyways and sneaky backwater pubs. In reality, of course, P.I.s aren't anything like that, but the classic Humphrey Bogart image has gained them an infamy that cannot be erased from the consciousness of society. Detectives are the "bad boys" of law enforcement, and will do whatever it takes to bring criminals to justice.
Despite the stereotype, there actually exists a breed of private investigator that would greatly surprise Bogart fans out there. They are known as Criminal Defense Investigators, and specialize, as their name implies, in helping defend the accused parties in judicial courts.
C.D.I.s are usually employed by criminal defense lawyers and/or their clients, the accused parties, to gain evidence for court cases to prove the innocence of the accused party standing trial. They work together against the prosecution to defend their cases. The lawyers, of course, take care of the legal defense procedures in the actual court hearing, but the C.D.I.s are the ones who do the back-end legwork, who gather information and evidence to prove the innocence of their clients.
They operate in the same manner as normal P.I.s, employing methods such as surveillance, information gathering, getting testimonies, speaking with law enforcement officers at the scene of the crime, interviewing witnesses (and bringing in those same witnesses to testify in court), doing background checks on all sources of information, and obtaining physical objects to act as hard evidence. The only difference is that they're working for the defending parties in court, those who stand accused of crime, not for the prosecution as is usually the case with the archetypical P.I.s. To further bolster their client's claims of innocence, they even work alongside regular law enforcement officers who are involved in their various cases to help uncover the truth of what actually occurred at the scene of the crime. The same applies to other law enforcement related groups such as the fire department, search and rescue teams, paramedics, and forensics officers.
One thing that differentiates C.D.I.s from regular P.I.s is that if they obtain enough evidence to prove their client's innocence early on, they can use this information to help their clients make out of court settlements before an actual court case is filed, thus avoiding any scandals and the tarnished reputations that usually accompany someone's getting accused of a criminal act. This is very important to their clients, as a person's reputation tends to suffer from such accusations even in those cases where innocence is proved. Finding a way to determine a client's innocence before the case even reaches the courts is extremely relevant for C.D.I.s in particular, because oftentimes the clients they take are what society at large would consider to be hard cases - accusations involving rape, murder, homicide, drug dealing, arson, and grand theft. Needless to say, even standing accused of any of the above crimes would be detrimental to a person's standing in society, no matter the outcome of the court case.
This may set the various imaginations of paranoid people out there on fire; images of Evil P.I.s being hired to help mafia bosses clear their cases and such... This is far from the truth, however. The core credo of C.D.I.s is to uncover the truth behind a criminal case, and to present their findings, wether positive or negative, to the defense lawyers who they're working with. In cases where the proof actually shows guilt, the defense lawyers can at the very least use the evidence to plead guilty and appeal for a lighter sentence. More often than not though, for the cases that show innocence, the defense party can use the gathered material to help strengthen their case substantially and clear the name of their innocent clients.
C.D.I.s are not there to help criminals avoid justice and their deserved punishment. They are there to uncover the truth, and to defend those who stand wrongfully accused of crime, to help innocent people avoid condemnation and subsequent legal reprisals. They are there to gather information primarily in the defense of those innocents, that they may clear their names without a shadow of a doubt from the stain that inevitably follows getting a criminal record. Innocent until proven guilty is more than just a classic line we've all heard from movies and media. It is the very backbone of society's judicial system.
The C.D.I.s are the enforcers of this credo."
Well said!
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kevin_Mitzner
"Criminal Defense Investigator
By Kevin Mitzner
We all know about Private Investigators. The classic stereotype evokes images of guys in seedy clothes, toting cigarettes, coffee cups, donuts, and six-shooters. They're the guys who run the shadows of law enforcement, who seek out criminals in shady alleyways and sneaky backwater pubs. In reality, of course, P.I.s aren't anything like that, but the classic Humphrey Bogart image has gained them an infamy that cannot be erased from the consciousness of society. Detectives are the "bad boys" of law enforcement, and will do whatever it takes to bring criminals to justice.
Despite the stereotype, there actually exists a breed of private investigator that would greatly surprise Bogart fans out there. They are known as Criminal Defense Investigators, and specialize, as their name implies, in helping defend the accused parties in judicial courts.
C.D.I.s are usually employed by criminal defense lawyers and/or their clients, the accused parties, to gain evidence for court cases to prove the innocence of the accused party standing trial. They work together against the prosecution to defend their cases. The lawyers, of course, take care of the legal defense procedures in the actual court hearing, but the C.D.I.s are the ones who do the back-end legwork, who gather information and evidence to prove the innocence of their clients.
They operate in the same manner as normal P.I.s, employing methods such as surveillance, information gathering, getting testimonies, speaking with law enforcement officers at the scene of the crime, interviewing witnesses (and bringing in those same witnesses to testify in court), doing background checks on all sources of information, and obtaining physical objects to act as hard evidence. The only difference is that they're working for the defending parties in court, those who stand accused of crime, not for the prosecution as is usually the case with the archetypical P.I.s. To further bolster their client's claims of innocence, they even work alongside regular law enforcement officers who are involved in their various cases to help uncover the truth of what actually occurred at the scene of the crime. The same applies to other law enforcement related groups such as the fire department, search and rescue teams, paramedics, and forensics officers.
One thing that differentiates C.D.I.s from regular P.I.s is that if they obtain enough evidence to prove their client's innocence early on, they can use this information to help their clients make out of court settlements before an actual court case is filed, thus avoiding any scandals and the tarnished reputations that usually accompany someone's getting accused of a criminal act. This is very important to their clients, as a person's reputation tends to suffer from such accusations even in those cases where innocence is proved. Finding a way to determine a client's innocence before the case even reaches the courts is extremely relevant for C.D.I.s in particular, because oftentimes the clients they take are what society at large would consider to be hard cases - accusations involving rape, murder, homicide, drug dealing, arson, and grand theft. Needless to say, even standing accused of any of the above crimes would be detrimental to a person's standing in society, no matter the outcome of the court case.
This may set the various imaginations of paranoid people out there on fire; images of Evil P.I.s being hired to help mafia bosses clear their cases and such... This is far from the truth, however. The core credo of C.D.I.s is to uncover the truth behind a criminal case, and to present their findings, wether positive or negative, to the defense lawyers who they're working with. In cases where the proof actually shows guilt, the defense lawyers can at the very least use the evidence to plead guilty and appeal for a lighter sentence. More often than not though, for the cases that show innocence, the defense party can use the gathered material to help strengthen their case substantially and clear the name of their innocent clients.
C.D.I.s are not there to help criminals avoid justice and their deserved punishment. They are there to uncover the truth, and to defend those who stand wrongfully accused of crime, to help innocent people avoid condemnation and subsequent legal reprisals. They are there to gather information primarily in the defense of those innocents, that they may clear their names without a shadow of a doubt from the stain that inevitably follows getting a criminal record. Innocent until proven guilty is more than just a classic line we've all heard from movies and media. It is the very backbone of society's judicial system.
The C.D.I.s are the enforcers of this credo."
Well said!
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kevin_Mitzner
Monday, July 02, 2007
Curbside Mentor
For the most part, I don't know if I would recognize the vast majority of my former witnesses if I passed them on the street tomorrow. And vice versa, I'm sure. After almost 17 years of doing the work, most of my witnesses' faces and stories escape me.
Sometimes, however, I make a strong connection with someone in the course of their time as my witness. These are the folks who pop into my head from time to time as I'm driving in my car or trying to go to sleep. The ones I'll never forget, the ones whose story got under my skin.
There's one young man in particular, we'll call him Solomon. I met him in the course of a murder investigation. I remember being immediately struck by his commanding presence, and then by how easy he was to talk to and laugh with. In general, just how much this guy, 15 years my junior, had going on. Solomon was born poor, raised only by his grandmother, on one of South Central's most notorious blocks. Solomon was involved with gangs, which is what brought me to his door step as a witness. There are tons of Solmons out there: individuals who would have much different lives had they been given the opportunity.
Solomon is actually one of the lucky ones. He's smart, and he's still alive. And, he has a mentor. His mentor is an African American man who runs the business where Solomon works. His boss is determined to save Solomon from the neighborhood and death that surrounds them. Last I spoke to Solomon, he was going to a junior college with some money he had won from a wrongful arrest lawsuit against the police. I still periodically check to see if he is in custody. He was a couple of months ago, but it was for something small time, and now he's out.
The bad thing about being an investigator, is that you are at the end of the line of the criminal justice system. At least if I was a teacher, for instance, I'd be meeting the Solomons of the world in a capacity and at a critical juncture in their life, where I could make a difference. But, the truth of the matter is that it's never too late in someone's life to offer them a helping hand or a kind word. There are lots of "save the children" causes, but what about the cause of young adults who struggle to make it in life?
Recently, another criminal defense investigator I know was considering whether it was not time for her to mentor another investigator. That got me thinking about whether I should do the same. I meet people from time to time who I think would make great criminal defense investigators. I count my friend Solomon among them.
Sometimes, however, I make a strong connection with someone in the course of their time as my witness. These are the folks who pop into my head from time to time as I'm driving in my car or trying to go to sleep. The ones I'll never forget, the ones whose story got under my skin.
There's one young man in particular, we'll call him Solomon. I met him in the course of a murder investigation. I remember being immediately struck by his commanding presence, and then by how easy he was to talk to and laugh with. In general, just how much this guy, 15 years my junior, had going on. Solomon was born poor, raised only by his grandmother, on one of South Central's most notorious blocks. Solomon was involved with gangs, which is what brought me to his door step as a witness. There are tons of Solmons out there: individuals who would have much different lives had they been given the opportunity.
Solomon is actually one of the lucky ones. He's smart, and he's still alive. And, he has a mentor. His mentor is an African American man who runs the business where Solomon works. His boss is determined to save Solomon from the neighborhood and death that surrounds them. Last I spoke to Solomon, he was going to a junior college with some money he had won from a wrongful arrest lawsuit against the police. I still periodically check to see if he is in custody. He was a couple of months ago, but it was for something small time, and now he's out.
The bad thing about being an investigator, is that you are at the end of the line of the criminal justice system. At least if I was a teacher, for instance, I'd be meeting the Solomons of the world in a capacity and at a critical juncture in their life, where I could make a difference. But, the truth of the matter is that it's never too late in someone's life to offer them a helping hand or a kind word. There are lots of "save the children" causes, but what about the cause of young adults who struggle to make it in life?
Recently, another criminal defense investigator I know was considering whether it was not time for her to mentor another investigator. That got me thinking about whether I should do the same. I meet people from time to time who I think would make great criminal defense investigators. I count my friend Solomon among them.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Loose lips sink ships
Most legal bloggers (bLAWgers) can't write whatever is on our mind or plate, because we have obligations to our clients, past and present. Sometimes I wish I made my living as a janitor and could give you all the dirt. Or that I worked as a citrus grower and could give you all the juicy details. You get my point.. It wouldn't make my profession look bad, I assure you, but it would make my posts more interesting and a whole lot more regular.
Other blawgers have written about their decision making process with regard to how they decide what is okay to post. Before I make any post, I envision a judge confronting me with the post in open court. Could it in any way be used against a client? Taken wrong? Funny, it's always the same judge I picture. I also ask myself whether the defense attorneys I work for would be comfortable with the post. The later is more of a post killer.
Sometimes I wonder why I write my blog anonymously. I've always seen Anita Witness as a kind of a public servce announcement to make the greater world understand why criminal defense investigators do what we do. Still, I sometimes find myself haunted by the phrase, "Loose lips sink ships."
The following is courtesy of www.phrases.org.uk:
Loose lips sink ships:
Meaning:
Unguarded talk may give useful information to the enemy.
Origin
This phrase was coined as a slogan during WWII as part of the US Office of War Information's attempt to limit the possibility of people inadvertently giving useful information to enemy spies. The slogan was actually 'Loose Lips Might Sink Ships. This was one of several similar slogans which all came under the campaigns basic message - 'Careless Talk Costs Lives'.
The slogan was in use by 1942, as this example from the Maryland paper The News, May 1942 shows:
At countians [attendees at the local county school] registered in the high school lobby before the opening of the meeting, they were surrounded on all sides by placards bearing such admonitions as "Loose Lips Might Sink Ships", "Defense On The Sea Begins On The Shore", "Defense In The Field Begins In The Factory" and patriotic creeds and slogans.
Copyright © Gary Martin, 1996 - 2007
So, for now, my alter ego Anita Witness, trudges on. Our oceans are polluted enough without my contribution.
Other blawgers have written about their decision making process with regard to how they decide what is okay to post. Before I make any post, I envision a judge confronting me with the post in open court. Could it in any way be used against a client? Taken wrong? Funny, it's always the same judge I picture. I also ask myself whether the defense attorneys I work for would be comfortable with the post. The later is more of a post killer.
Sometimes I wonder why I write my blog anonymously. I've always seen Anita Witness as a kind of a public servce announcement to make the greater world understand why criminal defense investigators do what we do. Still, I sometimes find myself haunted by the phrase, "Loose lips sink ships."
The following is courtesy of www.phrases.org.uk:
Loose lips sink ships:
Meaning:
Unguarded talk may give useful information to the enemy.
Origin
This phrase was coined as a slogan during WWII as part of the US Office of War Information's attempt to limit the possibility of people inadvertently giving useful information to enemy spies. The slogan was actually 'Loose Lips Might Sink Ships. This was one of several similar slogans which all came under the campaigns basic message - 'Careless Talk Costs Lives'.
The slogan was in use by 1942, as this example from the Maryland paper The News, May 1942 shows:
At countians [attendees at the local county school] registered in the high school lobby before the opening of the meeting, they were surrounded on all sides by placards bearing such admonitions as "Loose Lips Might Sink Ships", "Defense On The Sea Begins On The Shore", "Defense In The Field Begins In The Factory" and patriotic creeds and slogans.
Copyright © Gary Martin, 1996 - 2007
So, for now, my alter ego Anita Witness, trudges on. Our oceans are polluted enough without my contribution.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
A Brave Act by Defense Attorney Sara Caplan
Sara Caplan, one of record producer Phil Spector's former defense attorneys, had a rough day in court yesterday as she refused to testify against her former client.
I'm very proud to see a defense attorney stand up for the attorney client priviledge, depsite the threat of jail and public scrutiny.
This post, along with my heartfelt respect and compassion, goes out to Ms. Sara Caplan. Bravo.
.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Gratuitous Pirate Post
One of my favorite things about criminal defense work is the constant reminders that real life is often stranger than fiction. People never cease to amaze me, nor do the situations they find themselves in. This "you tube" video illustrates the same point (about the bizarreness of life, or at least I'm hoping it does because I wanted some excuse to post this hilarious video). It features Johnny Depp in Japan while promoting Pirates of the Caribbean. I have not laughed this hard for a long time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
