Crime & Federalism

If you're looking for an Illinois or Central Illinois criminal defense lawyer, check out Jeremy Richey.

Why is it so hard for people to lock their doors?  I get into an argument with my wife at least once a week over this. 

I am a large male with extensive training in all sorts of dangerous things.  I lock the door.  So why would a woman who weighs almost half of what I weigh refuse to lock the door?  It's completely moronic.  Idiotic.  Indefensibly stupid.

In Santa Monica, a wealthy beach town, two different people on different days were murdered in their apartments.  There are two killers on the loose.  Both times, the murderer walked in through an unlocked door.

In an affluent area of San Diego, three savages walked into an apartment.  Then then repeatedly raped two college girls.  Again, the apartment's front door was unlocked.

What the Hell is wrong with people?

You walk inside, you turn the dead bolt, you move on.  It's simple.  It takes less than three seconds.  And it's a lot more comfortable than wearing a seat belt.  (You do wear one of those, yes?)

I am all for people buying guns and training their dogs to attack unwelcome intruders.  Heck, keep a machete next to your couch.  But often in life the most effective way to avoid harm is the cheapest and easiest thing you can do. 

Unless you want to be raped or murdered, lock your damned doors.

In United States v. Chapman, (opinion here; via Volokh) a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion joined by ultra-conservative judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, concluded that gross prosecutorial misconduct occurred in a federal trial:

The government egregiously failed to meet its constitutional obligations under Brady and Giglio. It failed to even make inquiry as to conviction records, plea bargains, and other discoverable materials concerning key witnesses until after trial began. It repeatedly misrepresented to the district court that all such documents had been disclosed prior to trial. The government did not admit to the court that it failed to disclose Brady/Giglio material until after many of the key witnesses had testified and been released. Even then, it failed to turn over some 650 documents until the day the district court declared a mistrial and submitted those documents to the court only after the indictment had been dismissed.

The Court of Appeal concluded:

This is prosecutorial misconduct in its highest form; conduct in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution; and conduct which should be deterred by the strongest sanction available.

However, if you read the opinion, you will never learn who these people who deserve "the strongest sanction" are. 

Fortunately, I will say what judges will not say.  According to official court records (here and here), Greg Damm and Kimberly Frayn were the prosecutors who committed "prosecutorial misconduct in its highest form."

Will the Nevada State Bar take notice of this prosecutorial misconduct?  Will Greg Damm and Kimberly Frayn be punished?

I am personally going to mail a copy of this opinion to the Nevada State Bar association.  I will also be following-up with them.

I will let you know whether the Nevada State Bar takes lawyer misconduct seriously.