Surprise reversal in "killing and culpability" self-defense case

Judge slams defense lawyer as inept, dishonest 

Four years ago, I presented a reader participation exercise, "On Killing and Culpability," featuring the case of a young working-class man who stabbed a drunken Berkeley fraternity man to death during a street brawl. Even though 20-year-old Andrew Hoeft-Edenfield only pulled out a knife after he was surrounded by a large and hostile crowd that was closing in on him, jurors rejected his self-defense claim and found him guilty of second-degree murder. In a case that later garnered national attention as part of the debate over what constitutes self defense, he was sentenced to 16 years in prison. 

Yesterday, a judge pulled no punches in overturning the conviction, which he described as a product of the defense attorney's incompetence and deceit. The ruling came in response to a state Supreme Court mandate that the case be reviewed for possible attorney misconduct.

It turns out that there was a lot more going on behind the scenes of the legal case than the public was privy to at the time.

Attorney Yolanda Huang demonstrated a "breathtaking level of disingenuousness, evasiveness and apparent dishonesty," wrote Alameda County Superior Court Judge Larry Goodman in his scathing opinion; her lack of qualifications coupled with her "unexplainable arrogance" created "a complex web of deception, misrepresentation, disloyalty, and self-interest."

Huang's son and the defendant were close friends, and Huang accepted the case pro bono. Her ultimate goal, Judge Goodman noted, was to sue the UC Berkeley fraternity system, which she believed was arrogantly undermining the safety and security of Berkeley residents.

She'll get no argument from me on that score. As revealed in a powerful Atlantic expose, tragedies such as this are endemic to the Greek system, which typically escapes culpability for the results of the drunken debauchery that many fraternities promote.

The problem was that her "apparent obsession" with the fraternity system created a profound conflict of interest: If Hoeft-Edenfield admitted culpability by accepting a plea bargain, her chances of a successful lawsuit would be greatly diminished.

Thus, as the judge meticulously delineated in his 56-page opinion, she rejected all efforts to strike a deal, despite her client's wishes to do so and despite a reasonable offer from the prosecution of a 12-year sentence in exchange for a guilty plea to manslaughter.

Her missteps were not for lack of good advice.

In remarkable testimony at a four-day evidentiary hearing last month, two defense attorneys and a prominent jury consultant testified that at a strategy session convened by Huang, they correctly forecasted that her client would be convicted if he did not take the witness stand to explain his actions on that fateful night. When Huang responded that Hoeft-Edenfield, a special education student, was too unintelligent and easily led to testify, prominent defense attorney M. Gerald Schwartzbach advised her to settle the case. Also present at that meeting were experienced homicide attorney Rebecca Young of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office and a senior litigation consultant, Lois Haney.

Judge Larry Goodman

Instead of following the sage advice of these experienced professionals, Huang -- who had never handled a murder case -- barreled ahead to trial, so confident of Hoeft-Edenfield's vindication that she failed to warn her client of the risks. Instead, "she continued to mislead [him] into thinking that the worst possible consequence of going to trial is that he would get a voluntary manslaughter conviction," even going so far as to send his parents to the jail to talk him into proceeding to trial. 

I've made the opinion available online (HERE). By way of full disclosure, I've known Judge Goodman from way back in my days as a newspaper reporter and have always found him to be a straight shooter.

The Alameda County District Attorney's Office now has 30 days to decide whether to offer Hoeft-Edenfield its original 12-year plea deal; otherwise, the case could proceed to a retrial for second-degree murder. (The jury acquitted the defendant of first-degree murder.) Meanwhile, the State Bar of California will review Judge Goodman's findings to determine whether Huang should face discipline.

* * * * *

Thanks to Henry Lee of the San Francisco Chronicle for breaking the news. My prior reports on the case include:

• Killing and culpability: A reader participation exercise (April 14, 2010) 
• Race, class, and self defense: Berkeley fraternity case spotlighted (July 21, 2010) 
• "Killing and culpability" sentences handed down (June 16, 2010)

(c) Copyright Karen Franklin 2014 - All rights reserved

Amnesty issues scathing report on prolonged solitary confinement

Critique follows lawsuit alleging psychological torture at infamous Pelican Bay  

Tucked away in a remote corner of Northern California is one of the most brutal behavioral experiments of the modern era: Upwards of 500 men housed for more than a decade straight in tiny, windowless, concrete tombs.

Pelican Bay, which opened in 1989, was specifically designed to foster maximum isolation. Prisoners are denied phone calls, contact visits, and recreational or vocational programming. But the designers did not plan for the sensory deprivation to be perpetual; stays in the "SHU" (Segregated Housing Unit) were originally intended to last 18 months or less.

Now, in a scathing report, Amnesty International has lambasted conditions in the SHU as "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" punishment that violates international law on the treatment of prisoners.

California holds more than 3,000 prisoners in SHU's, with more than 1,000 at Pelican Bay. No other U.S. state is believed to have held so many prisoners for such long periods in indefinite isolation, the Amnesty International investigators found.

A spokesman for the prison system responded with the rather outlandish nonsequitur that California has no solitary confinement, because SHU prisoners are able (if they have funds) to buy televisions and watch cable channels, including ESPN.

The Amnesty report follows on the heels of a class-action lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Law on behalf of 10 SHU prisoners who claim that long-term isolation is slowly destroying their bodies and minds, in violation of international standards against torture and inhumane treatment.

The lawsuit, Ruiz v. Brown, alleges that prisoners have no means to escape solitary confinement, other than to become government informants against prison gangs, which would put them and their families at risk.

While the prison system claims these are the "worst of the worst," the men claim they are being held in solitary confinement as punishment for their lack of cooperation with prison administrators, based on very thin evidence of gang affiliation. For several, their housing status alone prevents them from being eligible for parole.

Evidence of their supposed continued gang affiliation, the lawsuit says, includes:

• Saying "hello" to a prisoner from a different gang
• Possessing a drawing of an Aztec tattoo
• Possessing a pamphlet in Swahili, a language spoken by 60 million Africans that is categorized by the Department of Corrections as a "banned language"
• Having a Black Power tattoo
• Having a book about George Jackson (Paul Liberatore's The Road to Hell: the True Story of George Jackson, Stephen Bingham, and the San Quentin Massacre)

Plaintiff Paul Redd, for example, has spent 33 of the past 35 years in solitary confinement, the last dozen at Pelican Bay. He would be eligible for parole if not for his purported status as a "captain" in the Black Guerrilla Family despite no evidence of any gang activity in the past six years. His SHU status is allegedly based on old confidential memoranda stating he had communicated with other BGF members, plus possession of drawings, collages and booklets related to George Jackson and the Black Panthers.

A hunger strike last year, supported by up to 6,600 prisoners at 13 other prisons around the state, led to raised hopes, but so far no meaningful reform.

Psychological effects of long-term isolation

What happens when you lock humans inside a concrete sensory deprivation chamber for a period of decades, denying them all physical connection, human warmth, and even glimpses of nature?

In their lawsuit, prisoners who have spent a mind-boggling one to two decades in solitary confinement describe an inexorable descent into hopelessness and despair, with crippling loneliness and a constant struggle to stave off psychosis. They report pervasive insomnia, anxiety, hallucinations, mood swings, violent nightmares, panic attacks and a profound rage that they attempt to stifle by numbing all feeling. One prisoner described feeling like "walking dead," while another said he hears disembodied voices and feels like he is "silently screaming 24 hours a day."

Plaintiff Danny Troxell, for example, reports that he does not initiate conversations, is not motivated to do anything, and feels as if he is in a stupor much of the time. He often becomes "blank" or out of touch with his feelings.

These symptoms echo the findings of mental health experts who examined Pelican Bay prisoners as far back as 1995, six years after the prison opened, in connection with an earlier lawsuit (Madrid v Gomez) over the mental health effects of solitary confinement. At that time, Stuart Grassian, MD, an expert on segregation psychosis, found many men were already deteriorating into psychosis, paranoia, suicidality, and other psychological reactions to their unnatural isolation. Craig Haney, meanwhile, found that nearly all of the prisoners he sampled during that period reported symptoms of psychological distress such as intrusive thoughts, oversensitivity to external stimuli, difficulties with attention or memory, profound depression and social withdrawal.

Over time, prisoners can barely recall what it feels like to experience physical contact with another human being. Luis Esquivel, for example, has not shaken another person’s hand in 13 years and fears that he has forgotten the feel of human contact; "he spends a lot of time wondering what it would feel like to shake the hand of another person," according to the class-action lawsuit.

And what about mental health treatment?

"Every two weeks, a psychologist walks past the prisoners' cells, calling out 'good morning,' or 'you okay?' The psychologist walks past eight cells in approximately 30 seconds during these 'rounds.' "

Last year, a Special Rapporteur with the United Nations declared that prolonged solitary confinement constitutes torture, and that even 15 days in solitary confinement violates an individual’s human rights.

In the wake of its investigation, Amnesty is calling for ratcheting down isolation so it is only used as a "last resort" for severely unruly prisoners who endanger others, immediate removal of prisoners who have already spent years in the isolation units, and improving conditions for those who remain by allowing them more exercise and opportunity for human contact and phone calls to their families.

The Amnesty report can be found HERE; the amended petition in Ruiz v. Brown is HERE. An online petition in support of the SHU prisoners' demands is HERE.  The featured artwork is by Gabriel Reyes, one of the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit. More information on Reyes and his art is HERE.

Related blog posts:

• Supermax: Hell on earth or . . . not as bad as we thought? (Jan. 6, 2011)

• Historic hunger strike by Supermax prisoners continues (July 15, 2011)

• Willie Bosket: Tale of a wasted life (Sept. 23, 2008)

• Why does the United States lock up so many people? (Jan. 29, 2012)

• Claim in 15-year-old girl's stabbing will highlight prison failures (Nov. 9, 2007)

Prisoner "reentry": Paradigm shift or empty rhetoric?

  Vindictive "imagined public" a barricade to real reintegration   

For many who have broken the law, the real punishment begins not when they are processed into prison, but when they are finally ejected from their concertina-enclosed cages into a vengeful society that won't allow them to redeem themselves, branding them as forever bad.

Despite the stacked deck, some former prisoners do manage to find a sense of hope and turn their lives around. Such desistance is especially likely when society welcomes prisoners and restores their status as full citizens. Indeed, a study by Florida's Parole Commission found that prisoners whose civil rights were restored were far less likely to reoffend than those who remained unable to vote, hold public office, sit on juries, or obtain certain state licenses.

This process of criminal desistance is the topic of a new film out of Scotland. The Road from Crime -- a 48-minute film that can be viewed by clicking on the image below -- is narrated by Allan Weaver, a Scottish ex-offender turned probation officer and author of the book So You Think You Know Me? The script was co-written by my friend Shadd Maruna of the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Queen's University Belfast, who wrote the groundbreaking book, Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives.

Study: Reentry doesn’t equal reintegration

The film strikes an optimistic note, citing increasing government interest in alternatives to incarceration in these lean economic times. But a new study out of Colorado is less sanguine, at least as far as the USA is concerned. Even as policy makers give lip service to facilitating prisoners' successful "reentry" into the community, they cling to a risk reduction model that hamstrings true reintegration, the researchers found.

The researchers tracked the work of a Colorado state commission tasked with recommending changes in sentencing policies aimed at reducing sentencing costs while increasing efficacy. Analyzing the commission's discourse, study co-authors Sara Steen, Traci Lacock and Shelby McKinzey of the University of Colorado discovered that a powerful "imagined public" held these public servants hostage, forcing them to look over their shoulders and censor their humanistic impulses lest they be perceived as soft on crime.

The public of the commissioners' imaginations is a vengeful one, which promotes "victims’ rights" as antithetical to the rights of offenders. In this "zero-sum" wordlview (as David Garland labeled it in The Culture of Control), "concerns about offenders translate into attacks on victims and vice versa, so that actors have to forge an allegiance with one group or the other."

"This narrative implies that the real reentry problem is that this population is reentering society at all (if it were not for the expense, the reentry problem could be solved by keeping people who commit crimes in prison forever). The moral undertone to this narrative is one of anger and disgust toward (or, more mildly, frustration with) a group of dangerous people who need to be watched. [Former prisoners] are not people we want to help -- in part because they are, in some sense, beyond help…. [It] is clear that there is some interest in improving offenders' lives, but the main story driving the recidivism reduction narrative is that we (nonoffenders) should invest in reentry to make ourselves safer."

Indeed, risk-driven discourse has so become so naturalized that it takes a very active effort to step back and realize that it is only one of several possible ways of thinking about citizens who have committed crimes. Indeed, Shadd Maruna and Thomas LeBel (in an article available online) identified two dominant recidivism-reduction narratives:

• The CONTROL NARRATIVE views ex-prisoners as dangerous creatures who require close supervision at all times.

• The SUPPORT NARRATIVE regards ex-convicts as bundles of deficits with “needs” that must be attended to.

Although these narratives are superficially dissimilar, in essence they are fundamentally alike in that both dehumanize and problematize former offenders. Indeed, the so-called "risk/needs" paradigm so popular in forensic psychology circles arose squarely from the recidivism reduction discourse that overarches both the control and support narratives. As the researchers discovered in the Colorado case, much more time and energy is put into risk assessment than in providing the external resources necessary for change; “no matter how precisely one can measure an individual’s needs, without resources to attend to those needs the measurement is in some sense meaningless.”

Source: Steen et al (2012)

Imagined public: More vitriolic than actual public opinion?

The irony is that, in their hearts, many public officials and practitioners would like to do more for paroling prisoners, but are paralyzed by fear of a public that in reality may be less vengeful than they imagine. As Steen and her colleagues note:

"Commissioners routinely raised the specter of public discomfort with their recommendations, and they always assumed that the public was punitive and would oppose reforms that benefited offenders in any significant way. While the commissioners themselves had complex views of crime and punishment, they  almost universally assumed a deeply simplistic view on the part of the public, a view based on retribution  to the exclusion of all other considerations. Despite its mandate to continually draw on evidence to support its conclusions, the Commission completely ignored (or was unaware of) recent social scientific evidence of a shift in public opinion about crime and punishment."

They cited a 2002 poll conducted for the Open Society Institute in which the majority of those surveyed believed that the primary goals of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation and crime prevention.

In other words, public officials may be generalizing about the public's attitudes based on a skewed perception created by handful of vocal -- and often rabid -- constituents. Because of this, public policy remains firmly entrenched in an irrational, hysterical loop tape from which escape is nigh impossible. As the Colorado researchers conclude:

"Many academics equate reentry with rehabilitation, and assume that the popularity of the reentry concept has resulted in discourse and policy that are friendly toward offenders, decreasing the distance between 'us' and 'them'. Our analysis suggests that reentry has not significantly changed the discourse, and we show how practitioners and policy-makers have molded the reentry concept to fit comfortably within the existing punitive discourse by focusing on recidivism reduction rather than reintegration…. In the end, we rather pessimistically conclude that the high hopes of many that reentry could fundamentally change the nature of punishment discourse in the 21st century is to date misplaced."

Resources:

For more information about The Road from Crime and the wider desistance project visit the Discovering Desistance Blog. An evidence summary on desistance, How and why people stop offending, is also available online. The film was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and George Mason University.  In addition to Shadd Maruna, project members include Fergus McNeill of the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research at the University of Glasgow, Stephen Farrall of the University of Sheffield and Claire Lightowler of the Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services.

The featured article is: Unsettling the discourse of punishment? Competing narratives of reentry and the possibilities for change by Sara Steen, Traci Lacock and Shelby McKinzey Punishment and Society 2012 14: 29 DOI: 10.1177/1462474511424681. Click HERE to request a copy from the first author.

Related blog posts: 

• Systems failure or black swan? New frame needed to stop "Memorial Crime Control" frenzy

• Book highlights prisoner reentry obstacles: Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration

• Brooklyn, NY prisoner reentry program: Prosecutors push alternatives to crime 

180-year sentence overturned over lack of mental health testimony

  Lawyer erred by not calling psychologist, appellate court holds   

A trial counsel’s failure to call a psychologist to testify at the sentencing hearing of a Missouri man with borderline intelligence constitutes reversible error, an appellate court has ruled.

The court upheld a trial court decision that the attorney's performance was deficient, and that the failure to present psychological evidence may have prejudiced the defendant.

A jury deliberated for just a little over an hour at the sentencing hearing of 24-year-old Skylor Radmer before recommending a prison sentence of 180 years. Earlier, the jury had convicted him of two counts of statutory sodomy for molesting his 5-year-old niece.

In upholding the lower-court ruling reversing the sentence, the Court of Appeals for the Western District of Missouri said that psychological testimony about Radmer's borderline intelligence might have resulted in a different outcome.

Radmer's attorney, Bert Godding, knew about Radmer's intellectual handicap because he had represented him in a prior case in which his comprehension of a police Miranda warning was at issue. In that case, he retained psychologist Bill Geis, who testified at an evidentiary hearing that Radmer was functioning at the borderline intellectual level, with an IQ score of 75.

At a hearing on the ineffective assistance claim, Dr. Geis testified that Radmer's low intelligence might have been relevant to explaining his sex offending as a product of poor judgment rather than pedophilia.

The trial attorney also testified at the hearing, admitting that he had no strategic reason for not calling a mental health expert to testify at the sentencing phase of the trial: "I don't believe that I necessarily had a reason not to or to do that," he testified. "I don't know why I didn't call someone like that."

The appellate court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the jury would have found Dr. Geis biased because he had worked for the public defender in the past. Geis is a research professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

The defense lawyer's "failure to call Dr. Geis or a similar expert during the sentencing phase fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," the appellate court unanimously held.

Hat tip: Ken Pope

'Case of the missing militant' resolved

Attorney Paul Harris
reads from  To Kill A Mockingbird.*
Photo credit: San Jose Mercury

A quick update on the case of Ronald Bridgeforth, the man I blogged about who turned himself in on shooting charges after 42 years underground: A judge in San Mateo County imposed a very reasonable sentence of one year in county jail. The judge also ordered Bridgeforth to work with at-risk youth in Alameda County (Oakland), California upon his release. That should be no problem for the 67-year-old former militant, who has dedicated his  life to public service.

My original post, Predicting behavior: The case of the missing militant, is HERE.The San Mateo Times and The Daily Mail (UK) have more on the sentencing. A San Jose Mercury slide show is HERE.

*I don't know what passage from To Kill A Mockingbird the defense attorney was reading from at the sentencing hearing, but I am curious.

Report: 2,500 serving life for crimes committed as children

United States far out of step with global community

Photo credit: Richard Ross, Juvenile in Justice

"Life without possibility of parole for a 13-year-old?!" a European colleague exclaimed, clearly disbelieving my story.

With the Land of the Free far out of step with the rest of the world, wonderment over our criminal justice policies is not uncommon internationally, but nowhere moreso than regarding our treatment of juveniles. We are the only country in the world who condemns juveniles to spend their entire life behind bars for crimes committed as children.

(We're also way out of step in our overall incarceration rates and in our penchant for solitary confinement, too, but that's another story -- see today's New York Times for more on that.)

Now, the first-ever national survey documents numbers far higher than even I imagined: Not just a handful, but more than 2,500 Americans are serving life without parole for crimes committed before the age of 18.

The oldest prisoner in the survey, now 67, has served half a century in prison so far. Just stop for a moment and ponder the implications of that.

The Sentencing Project's report, The Lives of Juvenile Lifers, comes just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the cases of two 14-year olds, Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, which will address questions about the constitutionality of sentencing teens to life without the possibility of parole.

The national survey draws a portrait of severe disadvantage experienced by those serving life sentences without parole: Juvenile lifers were exposed to high levels of violence in their homes and their communities. Among the 45 girls serving life, three-fourths experienced sexual abuse before their crimes.

"Most juveniles serving life without parole sentences experienced trauma and neglect long before they engaged in their crimes," stated Ashley Nellis, research analyst of The Sentencing Project and author of the report. "The findings from this survey do not excuse the crimes committed but they help explain them. With time, rehabilitation and maturity, some of these youth could one day safely re-enter society and contribute positively to their families and their communities."

It will come as no surprise to most of you that race has much to do with who gets this draconian sentence. African Americans, who make up only 12 percent of the U.S. population, represented 60 percent of these children -- five times their proportion of the population, They are especially likely to be serving life without parole if they killed a white person.

From a fiscal standpoint alone, the report notes, the costs to states of incarcerating someone from their teens into their twilight years, when health costs rise steeply, is at least $2 million per prisoner.

The report advocates spending more money on prevention programs, instead of warehousing:

Instead of spending scarce resources on warehousing lives that could be transformed, we could be spending money more wisely, helping victims, and improving public safety. The nonpartisan American Law Institute recommends a “second look” after 10 years of imprisonment for life-sentenced youth. Notwithstanding the probability that most prisoners would not be granted release after only 10 years, if even one eligible inmate was determined to be ready for release upon this “second look,” this could save a typical state $1.8 million in needless incarceration. The money saved could instead be directed at prevention and intervention programs that have a strong evidence-base in lowering crime: preschool programs, parenting skills development, multi-systemic therapy, vocational training, substance abuse treatment, and a host of other effective interventions that would reduce crime and repair families and communities from damage associated with violence.

The full report, which I highly recommend, can be read or downloaded HERE.

Of related interest:

Another Bite at the Graham Cracker: The Supreme Court's Surprise Revisiting of Juvenile Life Without Parole in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, by by Scott Hechinger, Georgetown Law Journal

Life, with dementia (New York Times article about the growing problem of dementia behind bars)
 

Hat tip: BRUCE

What does it take to prove innocence?

Thomas Haynesworth hugs his mother.
Photo: P. Kevin Morley, Richmond Times-Dispatch

One Sunday morning in February 1984, Thomas Haynesworth’s mother sent him to the Trio supermarket to pick up some bread and sweet potatoes. He never got there. Instead, he was stopped and questioned in connection with a recent rape. That began a 27-year odyssey through false accusation, arrest, prison and pain.

So begins yet another Kafkaesque story set in the United States, whose criminal justice system seems to have gone totally berserk. When I was traveling abroad this summer, overseas colleagues expressed amazement about practices they've heard about in our country -- juveniles sent to prison for life, young men placed on lifelong sex offender registries for consensual relationships with teen girlfriends, criminal prosecution of young children. Last week's execution of Troy Davis despite mounting doubts about his guilt is the latest case that has international observers scratching their heads.

But the Haynesworth case is unusual in that prosecutors and even a state attorney general are going to bat for the wrongfully convicted man, yet that still isn't enough to get him an exoneration. 

To recap the facts:

Haynesworth after his release. Photo credit: Morley

When he was 18, Haynesworth was arrested for five rapes in his neighborhood. He had no criminal record, but that didn't matter. He was prosecuted for four rapes, convicted of three, and sentenced to 84 years in prison.

Two years ago, a broad review of old cases in Virginia turned up a DNA match to a serial rapist who was already in prison for a string of rapes that occurred in that same neighborhood after Haynesworth's arrest.

Haynesworth was released this March, on his 46th birthday, and everyone thought his exoneration would follow swiftly.

But, no. 

Instead of apologizing to Haynesworth for robbing him of most of his adult life, what is the court doing? It's asking for more proof of innocence.

Only, there's a slight catch: The state has disposed of the DNA evidence from the other rapes, evidence that could conclusively clear his name.

"It seems paradoxical to demand 'conclusive' evidence from Haynesworth when the commonwealth has deprived him of the opportunity to produce such evidence," said the attorney general of Virginia, a staunch conservative who has even given Haynesworth a job in his office.

Meanwhile, as his bid for exoneration languishes on, Haynesworth must remain on the sex offender registry, with all of the stigma and restrictions that carries. He cannot move without permission, and he must even get approval to visit his nieces.

The trial penalty

This is yet the latest in a string of similar cases focusing public attention on the reliability problems plaguing eyewitness identification and, more broadly, on racial inequities in the administration of justice here in the Land of the Free.

But things are likely to get worse before they get better. That's because across the United States, legal changes have concentrated more and more power in the hands of prosecutors, who can now coerce defendants into pleading guilty by threatening much harsher penalties for those who insist on a trial.

As Richard Oppel reports in an in-depth analysis in the New York Times, prosecutors now wield more discretionary power than judges, and are using that power to punish defendants for exercising their right to a trial:

Threats of harsher charges against defendants who reject plea deals often are the most influential factor in the outcome of a case, but this interplay is never reflected in official data.

Even defendants with winnable cases are opting to plead guilty because the stakes are so high if they lose. The ratio of guilty pleas to trials has nearly doubled in the past two decades, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics reported by Oppel. And the number of acquittals in federal cases has dropped even more dramatically, from one out of every 22 cases 30 years ago to only one out of 212 last year.

So if a young Haynesworth came along today and had the audacity to insist that he was innocent and wanted a trial, he would likely be punished with multiple life prison terms, rather than a mere 84 years.

We may never know how many Haynesworths are being sentenced every year based on faulty eyewitness identification and/or racially biased prosecution. 

New York Times reporter John Schwartz's only-in-America report on the Haynesworth case is HERE.

Richard Oppel's excellent report, Sentencing Shift Gives New Leverage to Prosecutors, is HERE.

Hat tip: J and B

Fiji travelogue: A different approach to murder

Guest post by Jules Burstein*

Three weeks ago while on a vacation in Fiji, I was on the third-largest island, Taveuni, walking in a light rain up a not-so-steep hill, when I encountered the following sign in front of what looked like a series of dormitories:

Fiji Correction Services

Taveuni Prison

Giving a Second Chance

 

I walked inside and explained to a secretary at the front desk that I was a forensic psychologist and was interested in learning something about the criminal justice and prison system in Fiji. She invited me to speak to the Director (Warden) who was just outside the main building and was quite receptive to having an exchange with me.

I was more than a little astonished to learn from him that on an island with 18,000 people there were only a dozen men serving time for murder. But more compelling than that was the Director informing me that all men convicted of murder are sentenced to 10 years.

At that point they are evaluated to see whether they have sufficient remorse for their offense, and have made constructive changes in their character so as to warrant release. If that is the case they are discharged from custody. If not, there are periodic reviews every two years to determine whether inmates are then suitable for release. Thus, all inmates are strongly motivated to effect positive changes while in custody in order to earn the right to be reintegrated into society.

I found it impressive (and sad) to consider that this progressive approach exists in a country that just obtained its independence from Great Britain 40 years ago, while we in America have prisons filled with thousands of men convicted of murder either sentenced to death or to life sentences with little chance of parole.

*Jules Burstein is a clinical and forensic psychologist in Berkeley, California.

Pornography sentence unconstitutionally cruel, judge rules

A must-read case for forensic psychologists  

"C.R." grew up in a chaotic, highly conflictual home. He was immature, socially klutzy, anxious and depressed. Friends introduced him to online pornography, readily accessible for free via peer-to-peer file sharing. He took to smoking marijuana and escaping into sexual fantasy. Between the ages of 15 and 19, he downloaded pornography, much of it involving boys ages 10-12, and shared files with other users.

When he was 19 years old, the FBI ensnared him in a sting and the world came crashing down. Under federal law, “C.R.” faced a statutory minimum of five years in prison.

Until Judge Jack B. Weinstein intervened, ruling that the 5-year minimum is unconstitutional in C.R.’s case, due to the youth’s age and immaturity.

The ruling is part of a crusade by Weinstein, one of the United States' most accomplished and respected jurists, against what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.” Previously, the 89-year-old federal judge in the Eastern District of New York led a similar campaign against rigid drug sentencing. 

Weinstein’s 401-page tome in United States v. C.R. should be on the required reading list of every forensic psychologist, tackling as it does many of the front-burner issues and controversies currently facing the field:

• Adolescent brain development and immaturity
• Risk for hands-on offending among pornography offenders
• The misuse of risk assessment instruments (including the circular reasoning involved in assigning an offender to the “high risk” group on the Static-99)
• The bogus disorder of “hebephilia” that you've heard about here
• Morality and prejudice masquerading as science

Before sentencing C.R., Weinstein ordered an evidentiary hearing that would enable him to determine how best to protect the community while not unnecessarily destroying the young man’s life. Well-known experts including Robert Prentky and Meg Kaplan testified about C.R.’s low risk of recidivism, the likelihood he would face abuse in prison, and the impact of adolescent immaturity on youths’ judgment.They are quoted at length, as is a prosecution psychologist who found C.R. to be at high risk based in part upon factually erroneous information (that C.R. had visited gay "glory holes").

Ultimately, the judge still imposed a prison sentence, but cut it in half to 30 months. A longer term "lacks any legitimate penological justification" and violates the 8th Amendment’s bar on cruel and unusual punishment, he wrote:

This case illustrates some of the troubling problems in sentencing adolescents who download child pornography on a file-sharing computer service. Posed is the question: To protect the public and the abused children who are shown in a sexually explicit manner in computer images, do we need to destroy defendants like C.R.? ... C.R. should be prepared to assume a useful law-abiding life rather than one of a broken and dangerous, ex-prisoner deviant. Were it not for Congress‘s strongly expressed preference for incarceration in these cases, the court would have imposed a long term of supervised release with medical treatment outside of prison.

Weinstein echoed the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in two recent back-to-back cases involving juveniles. One (Roper v Simmons) invalidated the death penalty for juveniles; the other (Graham v Florida) held that juveniles could not be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes other than homicide.

This is not Weinstein's first foray into the thicket of child pornography sentencing. Last year, he vacated the conviction of Pietro Polizzi on the grounds that the jury had a right to know what punishment a guilty verdict would produce. Several jurors told the judge they might not have convicted the married father of five had they known he would have gone to prison for at least five years.

"I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” Judge Weinstein told the New York Times at the time. But he also said he did not believe that those who merely view images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a significant threat to children. “We’re destroying lives unnecessarily. At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”

Although Weinstein is more outspoken than some, an increasing number of judges are balking at giving pornography viewers longer prison terms than actual child molesters and rapists often get. “Across the country, an increasing number of federal judges [are] criticizing changes to sentencing laws that have effectively quadrupled their average prison term over the last decade,” noted the Times report.

In his erudite, data-rich dissection of pornography and risk, Weinstein cites everyone from Malcolm Gladwell to Alex Kotlowitz (long one of my favorite authors) and Laurence Steinberg, and to our very own forensic psychology colleagues John Monahan, Jennifer Skeem, and Charles Patrick Ewing (whose newest book is another must-read).

Weinstein, by the way, has had a fascinating and colorful career. He put himself through Brooklyn College by working on the docks in New York Harbor before forging multiple and overlapping careers as a teacher, lawyer, and public servant. Back in his early days of lawyering, he helped the NAACP with the landmark desegregation case of Brown v. Board of Education. As a jurist, he’s handled many of the biggest mass tort cases in the United States, involving Agent Orange, asbestos, tobacco, breast implants, DES, Zyprexa, and handguns. More on Judge Weinstein’s interesting life and career is HERE.

I have made the case of United States v. C.R. available for download HERE. Again, I recommend that you read it for yourself. It's a great primer, packed full of useful information and references -- many of them available online.

"Cruel and unusual": Sex offender seeks refuge in Canada

The autobiographical romance "Summer Of '42" depicts a coming-of-age relationship between 15-year-old Hermie and an older married woman. By the time "Dorothy" vanishes from his Nantucket vacation community, Hermie has matured from boy to man.


How much has changed in the 40 years since that movie was made. Today, rather than disappearing for parts unknown, Dorothy would be shackled and riding the bus to the nearest women's penitentiary.


But is it fair to sentence a woman to 30 years in prison for a consensual relationship with a willing teenage boy?

That is the question confronting Canadian authorities in the case of a Florida woman who is seeking refugee status in Saskatchewan. Denise Harvey fled the United States with her husband after she was sentenced to a 30-year prison term for a consensual relationship with her son's 16-year-old friend.

Denise Harvey (photo credit TC Palm)

In Canada, the age of consent is 16 so her conduct would not have been criminal. Saskatchewan authorities have not extradited Harvey because Canada does not extradite people unless the conduct is a crime in both countries. In appealing to the Canadian government for refugee status, Harvey claims her sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, forbidden by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

More than 10 percent of the residents of her home community of Vero Beach, Florida agree that her sentence was too extreme. They signed a petition demanding that Florida's governor pardon her.

"She didn’t get any justice down here," said petition sponsor George Sigler, a flight trainer. "She's a nice, soft-spoken woman who I believe made a mistake but that doesn't mean she should go to jail for 30 years. No one in their right mind believes a 16-year-old wasn't a willing participant."

Harvey rejected an 11-year plea bargain offer and went to trial. The teen testified that the two flirted and had a long kiss in a car before engaging in brief sexual interludes at his home and elsewhere. Harvey did not testify, but her attorney told jurors the boy stalked her after she rejected his advances. The jury heard a 20-minute recording surreptitiously recorded by police with the boy's cooperation, in which the two discussed what to do if their sexual encounters were disclosed.

After Harvey's conviction on five counts, prosecutors urged the lengthy sentence because she continued to deny wrongdoing. She fled after losing her appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

With the case now making international headlines, the question becomes whether this is the most sensible face for a world leader to portray to the rest of the world.

The Toronto Star and the Treasure Coast Palm have additional news coverage. 

Feed that hungry judge!

Photo credit: vistavision (Creative Commons)

Attorneys: If you want your client released from jail, make sure the judge just had a bite to eat.

That is the take-home message from a new study of experienced judges in Israel. Judges were much more likely to grant parole right after they had a lunch or snack break:

The team studied more than 1,000 parole decisions made by eight experienced judges in Israel over 50 days in a ten-month period. After a snack or lunch break, 65 percent of cases were granted parole. The rate of favorable rulings then fell gradually, sometimes [to] as low as zero, within each decision session and would return to 65 percent after a break.

Jonathan Levav, a professor at Columbia Business School who co-authored the study, said the more rulings a judge makes, the greater the tendency to “rule in favor of the status quo,” but a snack break can interrupt that tendency.

The current study left unsettled the issue of whether it was the food itself or the rest period that came with it that improved the judges' dispositions toward the hopeful convicts. Previous research has shown that both glucose and mental breaks can restore mental functioning.

The study adds to a growing body of evidence on psychological bias in judicial decision-making.

• The study, "Extraneous factors in judicial decisions" by Shai Danziger, Jonathan Levav and Liora Avnaim-Pesso, was just published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A press release with additional information on the study and its authors is HERE.

Steffan's Alerts #3: Women, children, fire-setting and the public

Click on a title to read the article abstract; click on a highlighted author's name to request the full article.

JAAPL: Plethora of mental health and law offerings

As always, the new issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law is a goldmine for those interested in law and mental health matters. All articles may be accessed for free online. Topics include use of the DSM in litigation and legislative settings, rational understanding and competency to stand trial, treatment of sexual offenders, hebephilia and the DSM-5, competency of pregnant women with psychosis, diversion of women into substance abuse treatment, and analyses of several recent legal rulings, to name a few.

Sins of the father

In a new issue of the British Journal of Criminology, Sytske Besemer and colleagues examine whether children whose parents have been incarcerated are later involved in the criminal justice system at disproportionate rates compared to children whose parents have been convicted but never imprisoned in the Netherlands and England. After controlling for a number of possible intervening variables in their longitudinal study, the authors provide data showing that children in the latter--but not the former--country are adversely affected by their parents' incarceration.

Advancing understanding and predictive utility of childhood firesetting

Although mental health professionals have long held that deliberate fire setting by children is prognostic of future conduct problems, Ian Lambie and Isabel Randell review how science in this area has progressed -- or not progressed -- in a new issue of Clinical Psychology Review. They call for future research to address the relationship between youth firesetting and future antisocial behavior as well as to update best practices in assessing and intervening with children who set fires.

Factors involved in reporting rapes

Data from a national survey of 3,001 women in 2006 indicated that the rate of reporting rape has not significantly changed since the 1990s. In a new issue of Journal of Interpersonal Violence, lead author Kate Wolitzky-Taylor explores barriers and predictors of reporting sexual assaults to law enforcement.

Criminal justice response to female offenders

In a forthcoming issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Shabnam Javdani, Naomi Sadeh, and Edelyn Verona advance theory on the legal and social policy factors involved in the increasing arrest rates of girls and women.

Public's views on sentencing practices

Does the public really support tougher sentencing of offenders? Preliminary data suggests this is not the case in Australia when members of the public are provided details about the personal lives of offenders. In a new issue of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Austin Lovegrove sampled several hundred participants through their review and discussion of judges' sentences on six offenders in four actual cases.

Steffan's alerts are brought to you by Jarrod Steffan, Ph.D., a forensic and clinical psychologist based in Wichita, Kansas. For more information about Dr. Steffan, please visit his website.

"Killing and culpability" sentences handed down

You readers who completed the "Killing and Culpability" exercise a while back may be interested in the sentences that were handed down:

"Avenging a Wrong"

Remember Aaron Vargas? He was the man who went to the home of the older man whom he said had molested him as a child, shot the man once in the chest, and then waited half an hour to be sure he died. The Northern California community of Fort Bragg had rallied around Vargas, and he was expecting a lenient sentence after his guilty plea to manslaughter.

The judge said no dice; the fact that the victim was a child molester was largely irrelevant. "To grant probation in this case would put a stamp of approval on the defendant's actions, which I cannot do," he told a courtroom packed with Vargas supporters. "The use of violence to correct a wrong only encourages more violence."

The sentence: 9 years in the state pen.

"Street Brawl"

The other case featured in the exercise was that of Andrew Hoeft-Edenfield, age 20, who stabbed a University of California at Berkeley fraternity man to death during a drunken street brawl. A jury had rejected his plea of self defense, and convicted him of second-degree murder. Although he cried and pleaded for leniency, the judge noted that he fled from the scene after the stabbing, discarded his knife and hid out at a friend's house.

The sentence: 16 years of hard time.

Reactions, readers? Were either of the sentences surprising? Were they just?

The "Killing and Culpability Exercise" is HERE

New York Times covers psychopathy debacle

I had no idea when I broke the news of this censorship controversy that it would generate so much mainstream attention. First Science ran with it, and today it's made the New York Times; I am told other major U.S. and international news outlets have made inquiries. I hope this affair will serve as a dramatic lesson to others who might think about making legal threats when someone criticizes their work. The move certainly backfired against psychopathy guru Robert Hare.

Certain theories have weightier real-world implications than others. When a capital case defendant is labeled a "psychopath" in court, it can literally mean the difference between life and death. Similarly, the pejorative label has serious consequences for someone facing lifelong civil detention as a sexual predator. Thus, critical analysis of the reliability and validity of the underlying theory is essential. Researchers whose work lends itself to partisan forensic application should expect scrutiny.

Here's what Benedict Carey, health beat reporter at the New York Times, had to say:

Academic disputes usually flare out in the safety of obscure journals, raising no more than a few tempers, if not voices. But a paper published this week by the American Psychological Association has managed to raise questions of censorship, academic fraud, fair play and criminal sentencing -- and all them well before the report ever became public.

The paper is a critique of a rating scale that is widely used in criminal courts to determine whether a person is a psychopath and likely to commit acts of violence. It was accepted for publication in a psychological journal in 2007, but the inventor of the rating scale saw a draft and threatened a lawsuit if it was published, setting in motion a stultifying series of reviews, revisions and legal correspondence.

"This has been a really, really troubling process from the beginning," said Scott O. Lilienfeld, a psychologist at Emory University and a collaborator with one of the paper's authors. "It has people wondering, 'Do I have to worry every time I publish a paper that criticizes someone that I’ll get slapped with a lawsuit?' " The delay in publication, he said, "sets a very dangerous precedent" and censors scientific discourse….

Dr. Hare's clinical scale, called the Psychopathy Checklist, Revised, is one of the few, if not the only, psychological measures in forensic science with any scientific backing…. Dr. Skeem and Dr. Cooke warned in their paper that the checklist was increasingly being mistaken for a complete definition of psychopathy -- a broader personality construct that includes deceitfulness, impulsivity and recklessness, though not always aggression or illegal acts. The authors contended that Dr. Hare's checklist warps that concept by making criminal behavior a more central component than it really is…. {NOTE: The New York Times later issued a correction of the above portion that is in red; clearly, it's wrong to call the PCL "one of the few, if not the only," forensic psychology measures with any scientific backing!}

"When we first wrote the paper," [Jennifer Skeem] said, "we saw it simply as a call to the field to recognize we were going down a path where we were equating an abstract concept with a checklist, and it was preventing us from looking at the concept more closely."

Carey's full article is HERE. I will be sure to keep readers posted on any further developments.

POSTSCRIPT

This evening, readers alerted me that Robert Hare has posted a lengthy response giving his side of the controversy. His essay, "On Fairness in Academic Debate: A Commentary on Poythress and Petrila (2010) and Related Matters," claims that Poythress and Petrila's critical opinion piece in the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health (see my May 30 blog post) was biased and one-sided. He presents a timeline of the events surrounding the lengthy delay in publishing the underlying psychopathy article by Skeem and Cooke in Psychological Assessment, and gives specific examples of their allegedly egregious misrepresentations of his work. He comments:

… Poythress and Petrila and Hart failed to give an impartial and complete account of the situation. Their actions resulted in publication and circulation of a seriously biased account of events, and a commentary in the June 11 issue of Science, which noted that there are several sides to every issue…. I have no arguments with their thoughtful and commendable views about the nature of scientific debate and peer review, and about the potential fallout from threats of litigation…. I would welcome a formal investigation of the entire matter by an appropriately impartial body. I also would be willing to engage in open debate with the parties involved…. Contrary to the characterizations of others, I made extensive efforts to use the academic system in this case, but [the Skeem and Cooke] article went beyond the boundary of fair academic debate and criticism. The nature of the issue and the authors' refusal to correct their egregious statements gave me no reasonable alternative….

Would I do it again, given similar circumstances? Perhaps not, for like a whistle-blower the focus soon turns to the person who made the complaint and not on the issues and events that led to the complaint. Further, many in the scientific community believe that there are no grounds for litigation concerning academic works, no matter what the circumstances. I’ve learned from this experience that not all academics and scientists play by the accepted rules of science, and that legal redress for those claiming injustice is frowned upon by many as rocking the academic/scientific boat, however leaky it may be; a professional Catch-22 that serves to deny academics the legal rights enjoyed by the rest of the population.

His full statement is HERE. Again, I encourage readers interested in this subject to read Skeem and Cooke's Psychological Assessment article, rebuttal, and surrebuttal and form your own opinions.