April 2008
MONTANA
Ninth Judicial District receives grant for 'self-help law
program'
By Melody Martinsen-Choteau Acantha Editor
04-02-08 --
For many people, trying to resolve a legal issue in court -
a name change, a landlord-tenant conflict, a divorce - can
be a bewildering, expensive experience.
Because of the costs
involved, some Montanans try to navigate the justice and
district court systems without an attorney - representing
themselves or proceeding "pro se" to use the Latin court
term. These pro se litigants often go to their local Clerk
of Court's or judge's office, seeking help to find the right
forms and procedure to follow to rectify their legal
problems. . . . Now the Ninth Judicial District Court in
Teton, Pondera, Glacier and Toole counties has received a
$14,700 grant from the Montana Supreme Court to set up a
"self-help law program" making it easier for these litigants
to resolve their issues. . . . In January 2007, Montana
joined a burgeoning number of states setting up programs to
improve access to the judicial system for "self-represented"
litigants. The 2007 Legislature approved $505,000 in
start-up funding for the Montana Supreme Court to create the
state's "Self-Help Law Program.
March 2008
CONNECTICUT
Law Goes Too Far
Courant
Editorial
03-28-08 --
Divorce can, no doubt, have a devastating emotional effect
on the children of a broken marriage. Common sense dictates
that loving parents would instinctively want to minimize the
stress that their breakup might have on their offspring —
through counseling and therapy, both for themselves and
their children. . . . The state of Connecticut, however,
should not make it a requirement. . . . Bristol
trucker Tom
Dutkiewicz made a credible case for that recently when he
argued before the Connecticut Supreme Court that a blanket
state law mandating automatic parent-education courses for
all divorcing couples is unconstitutional. . . . Mr.
Dutkiewicz maintained that the law unfairly targets parents
without cause and, absent any proof of incompetence,
infringes on their right to raise their children as they
please. . . . He has a point. As well-intentioned as this
statute may be, it presumes — without supporting medical or
psychiatric evidence — that all parents in a divorce
proceeding are unfit and have neglected or abused their
children. That's quite a leap of faith. . . . The law, by
inference, assumes the opposite is also true: that, barring
documentation to the contrary, all couples who stay together
are by definition good and attentive parents. . . . Although
the law allows judges the discretion of waiving the
requirement, the high court should render a firm opinion on
its constitutionality. . . . Mr. Dutkiewicz and his former
wife, Aimee, were granted such a waiver when they challenged
the parent-education provision during their divorce in 2006.
Getting the waiver, however, didn't satisfy Mr. Dutkiewicz,
who represented himself before the Supreme Court.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Hears Case Involving Mentally Ill Defendants
Representing Themselves
Tony
Mauro, Legal Times
03-27-08 --
When mentally ill defendants are found competent to stand trial,
does that also mean they are competent enough to represent
themselves in court? . . . The Supreme Court struggled with that
question Wednesday
during an oral argument that weighed the Sixth Amendment right to
self-representation against a state's interest in not having trials
"descend into farce." Along the way, some lawyer jokes were
also cracked. . . . The issue in the case Indiana v. Edwards is
whether a state may impose a higher standard of competence for
self-representation than the fairly minimal test for deciding if a
defendant is competent to stand trial. The Indiana Supreme Court
ruled that Ahmad Edwards, diagnosed as a schizophrenic, was denied
his right to represent himself at a 2005 trial for a department
store robbery and shooting. . . . The trial judge had determined
that while Edwards met the standard for competence to stand trial --
he understood the proceedings and could assist his lawyer -- he did
not have the additional competence to represent himself. . . .
Indiana, backed by the Justice Department, argue that in the
interest of protecting both the reality and appearance of fairness
and dignity of the courts, states should be allowed to set higher
standards for self-representation. . . . "If the public sees the
spectacle of a mentally ill defendant ... attempt to communicate to
the jury on his own in a very delusional way, it really casts the
justice system into disrepute," Deputy U.S. Solicitor General
Michael Dreeben told the justices.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
High court to consider self-representation
By Maureen Groppe, Gannett News Service
03-26-08 --
A shoe shoplifting incident that escalated into a lunchtime
shooting in downtown Indianapolis nearly a decade ago is now
the basis for the Supreme Court to decide how much latitude
states have to determine if a defendant is capable of
representing himself at trial. . . . The Supreme Court is
set to hear oral arguments Wednesday in an Indiana case in
which a Marion County judge decided a defendant
with a history of mental illness was competent to stand
trial, but not to represent himself as he requested. . . .
When Ahmad Edwards appealed his conviction of attempted
murder and other charges, the Indiana Supreme Court agreed
Edwards had the right to represent himself and reversed his
conviction. . . . The Indiana attorney general's office
appealed, arguing that allowing mentally impaired defendants
to represent themselves undermines fair trials and erodes
public confidence in the system. . . . "The consequences
often are disastrous for both the defendants and the
integrity — not to mention dignity — of the criminal justice
system," the Indiana attorney general's office wrote in its
brief to the court.
Lawyer Jokes at the Supreme Court
The BLT, DC
03-26-08 --
The Supreme Court seemed in a playful mood this morning as
it considered, in the case of Indiana v. Edwards,
whether states can set a higher standard for allowing
defendants to represent themselves than the standard for
determining whether they are competent to stand trial. . . .
When Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher suggested a
test that would allow judges to bar self-representation for
those who "cannot communicate coherently with the court or
jury," Justice Antonin Scalia could not resist the bait.
Casting his eyes toward the Court's coffered ceiling, Scalia
mulled the phrase. "Cannot communicate coherently?... I
sometimes think that the lawyers cannot communicate
coherently." Ba da boom. Spectators laughed. How often do
the justices get to tell lawyer jokes? . . . There was more
in this vein throughout the hour. Mark Stancil of Robbins,
Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber argued on
behalf of his client Ahmad Edwards that the standard for
competency to stand trial should be the same for pro se
representation. At one point Stancil noted from the trial
transcript that Edwards, a disagnosed schizophrenic,
understood what voir dire was, and that he had 10
peremptory challenges.
FEDERAL COURTS
Inmate's Frequent Filings Take On Targets
Ranging From Spitzer to Van Halen
Federal court system records
list about 1,500 filings from pro se filer
Janet L. Conley, Fulton County Daily Report
03-24-08 --
Thirty-nine percent of the 491 cases filed so far this month
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
have been filed by one man: Jonathan Lee Riches. . . . Among
the defendants to his 192 suits are former New York Gov.
Eliot Spitzer and his wife, Silda; the firms Pepper Hamilton
and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; Hooters of America;
Norwegian Cruise Lines Inc.; and investment banker Bruce
Wasserstein. Riches' celebrity targets include actors Anne
Heche, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones; musicians
Cyndi Lauper and Eddie Van Halen; and Braves pitcher Tom
Glavine. . . . Riches has alleged that Eliot Spitzer "used
the fines [from corporate convictions] to pay for
prostitutes," that the MacArthur Foundation froze Riches'
inmate account and funneled the money to Spitzer; and that
Pepper Hamilton took a $1 million retainer from him and
other inmates, but used the money to gamble on the New York
Giants. . . . Riches in 2003 pleaded guilty in federal court
in Houston to wire fraud and
conspiracy counts. His plea, the court's judgment and many
other documents in the related suits -- which involved seven
other co-defendants -- are sealed. However, an exhibit
Riches filed along with one of his suits includes a
typewritten page entitled "Related Case Information," which
is very different in structure and tone from his usual
handwritten pro se filings and may be a page from a court
document or other official report.
CONNECTICUT
Before High Court, On His Very Own
Father Brings Case On
Parents’ Right
By Colin Poitras | Courant Staff Writer
03-19-08 --
For 30 minutes Tuesday, Tom Dutkiewicz, a 47-year-old
Bristol truck driver, stood
before the Connecticut Supreme Court passionately arguing
that the state routinely violates parents' constitutional
rights. . . . Not many laypeople get the opportunity to be
heard before the state's highest court, and Dutkiewicz
waited six years for this single, defining moment. . . . As
Dutkiewicz bolstered his argument with a scattering of legal
citations that he had pulled from the Internet, the panel of
five black-robed jurists, including Chief Justice Chase
Rogers, listened with a patient ear. They asked no
questions. . . . When asked later why he didn't hire a
lawyer, Dutkiewicz said, "No guts no glory. When you hire a
lawyer, they say what they want to say. I wanted to be there
to speak for myself." . . . Dutkiewicz was in court to
challenge the constitutionality of a state law requiring
divorcing parents to participate in parenting education
classes. He insists the state has no right to compel parents
to take such classes unless the parents are deemed unfit.
Simply getting divorced, Dutkiewicz said, doesn't cut it. .
. . "The state wrongly assumes I need help," Dutkiewicz told
the court in what was at times a rambling opening statement.
"To me, that's arrogance."
MARYLAND
Murder Defendant Found Man to Win Case: Himself
High School Dropout Prevails
at Pr. George's Trial
By Ruben Castaneda, Washington Post Staff Writer
03-17-08 --
It's an axiom known by every lawyer and judge in every
courthouse in the land: A man who represents himself in
court has a fool for a client. . . . Try telling that to
Harold J. Stewart. . . . Last month, Stewart, a 42-year-old
high school dropout, defended himself in a murder case in
Prince George's County, where he was accused of beating a
sleeping man to death with a baseball bat. . . . The trial
lasted three days. Stewart called no witnesses. The jury
deliberated less than an hour. . . . The verdict: Not guilty
of first-degree murder. Not guilty of second-degree murder.
. . . "Everybody told me I was crazy to represent myself,"
Stewart said in an interview. "I had no choice. They were
obstructing my rights." . . . The obstructionists, in
Stewart's view, included county prosecutors, the trial
judge, the assistant public defender who represented him at
his first trial (which ended in a mistrial), the private
defense lawyer who represented him between the two trials,
jail officials he says unfairly denied him access to the law
library and the state Attorney Grievance Commission. . . .
"Oh, wow," Montgomery County State's Attorney John McCarthy
said when told of the case. McCarthy said he was not aware
of a pro se defendant in Montgomery winning an acquittal in
a serious felony in his 27 years as a prosecutor there. . .
. "We certainly have had pro se defendants win trials on
charges like drunk driving or disorderly conduct," McCarthy
said. "It's the kind of thing your colleagues generally
tease you about." . . . Circuit Court Judge Vincent J. Femia,
a judge or prosecutor in Prince George's for 47 years, said
he, too, had never heard of such an outcome in a murder
case. Regarding the quick acquittal, Femia said, "It would
make you wonder about the quality of the case, if a guy who
knew nothing about the law could kick your [expletive]." . .
. Through his spokesman, State's Attorney Glenn F. Ivey
declined to comment on the case. Assistant State's Attorneys
Mary K. Brennan and Dorothy Engel, who prosecuted the case,
also declined to comment.
MINNESOTA
Site offers legal self-help support
Jennifer Brookens — Sentinel Staff
03-17-08 --
The basics of getting a divorce, making a will or
representing yourself in small claims court just got easier
with the launch of a self-help Web site provided by the
Minnesota Judicial Branch. . . . Workstations are set up at
several courthouses statewide, including one at the court
administration office in Fairmont. Those with Internet
connections also can access the site on their own personal
computer. . . . The online self-help center is for people
who need to handle a legal problem in Minnesota District
Court, and should not be considered a substitute for legal
advice. . . . “The site explains some court rules, and makes
it more user-friendly by people who are not represented by
attorneys,” explained Martin County Court Administrator
Connie Belgard. . . . The site offers some of the forms
needed, such as divorce with children forms or fee waiver
forms. There are also videos and tutorials that show how a
court case might play out for things such as divorce or
small claims court. The site is also available in Spanish,
Hmong and Somali. . . . The courthouse workstations include
a printer and a phone that automatically connects to a court
support person in Hennepin County. Calls are answered 10
a.m.-3 p.m. Tuesday through Friday. E-mail support is also
available. . . . Although court employees are not able to
give legal advice, they can assist callers with general
questions about court forms, procedures and legal resources.
WEST
VIRGINIA
'Hold the cheese' plaintiffs working without attorney
By Cara Bailey -Monongalia Bureau
03-14-08 --
The case of a Clarksburg man
suing McDonald's for $10 million after he had an allergic
reaction to cheese on his burger is moving forward without
an attorney. . . . Jeromy Jackson, his mother Trela Jackson
and his friend Andrew Ellifritz now are representing
themselves after attorney Timothy Houston was removed from
the case, at his request. . . . The case is now scheduled
for pre-trial, to be March 28 at the Monongalia County
Courthouse in the court of Judge Robert B. Stone. . . . The
suit grabbed national headlines in July after Jeromy
Jackson, 19 at the time, filed the suit against the
fast-food giant, seeking $10 million in punitive damages
after he received a burger with cheese, to which he is
severely allergic.
January 2008
ARIZONA
Guide available on how to be own attorney
A.J. Flick, Tucson Citizen
01-31-08 --
The Arizona Supreme Court has created an advice booklet for
people representing themselves in civil cases. . . . "Guide
for Self Represented ('Pro Se' or 'Pro Per') Appellants and
Appellees" covers cases, including tax and family law, in
Superior Court, the Arizona Court of Appeals and the state
Supreme Court. . . . It doesn't cover appeals from city or
justice courts. . . . The guide explains how the courts are
linked, the steps to filing an appeal, how to write briefs,
what costs and attorneys' fees are involved, how to file a
petition for review and important terms. . . . As the guide
notes, non-lawyers who represent themselves in court are
expected to follow the same rules as attorneys. . . . The
guide includes some forms as well. . . . Guides are
available at
www.supreme.state.az.us/appellateguide.htm. For
more information, call the clerk of the Arizona Supreme
Court at 602-452-3396.
NEW
JERSEY
'Ghostwriting' Lawyers Can Remain Cloaked, but Not for Tactical
Advantage
Charles
Toutant, New Jersey Law Journal
01-29-08 --
A federal magistrate judge's
ruling last year that "ghostwriting" pleadings for a pro se
litigant violates a lawyer's ethical duty of candor to the court
has caused an uproar loud enough to get a New Jersey Supreme Court
ethics committee's attention. . . . In a formal opinion meant to
calm nerves, the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics says it's
ethical, in limited circumstances, for a lawyer to draft pleadings
and give other "unbundled" legal assistance to pro se parties
without telling the court. . . . Disclosure is not required if the
limited assistance is simply an effort to aid someone who is
financially unable to secure an attorney or if it is part of a
nonprofit program designed to provide legal assistance to people of
limited means, the panel said in Opinion 713. . . . But full
disclosure is required "where such assistance is a tactic by a
lawyer or party to gain advantage in litigation by invoking
traditional judicial leniency toward pro se litigants while still
reaping the benefits of legal assistance."
NEW
JERSEY
Vineland man defends himself in murder trial
By John Martins Staff Writer
01-21-08 --
At first glance, Thomas Nevius' murder trial - which got
underway last week at the Cumberland County Courthouse - is
unexceptional. . . . . Nevius, the 29-year-old defendant,
seems like a regular guy. He's a Vineland resident who
worked as a cashier at an Atlantic City casino prior to his
arrest. Also, the crime with which he's charged is
sufficiently horrific: The victim, 52-year-old Vineland
resident Ruth Walker, was slain in 2002 in what prosecutors
call a botched robbery. . . . Judging from pretrial
conferences, Nevius' defense is focused on challenging the
DNA evidence that prosecutors have said implicates him in
Walker's grisly death. Nevius
claims innocence in her slaying. . . . It all seems pretty
routine, except for one small detail - Nevius, who faces
life in prison if convicted, has chosen to forgo using a
lawyer and is arguing on his own behalf. . . . The technical
term for it is arguing pro se, which in Latin means "one
one's own behalf." The Sixth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution specifically protects it. A 1975 U.S. Supreme
Court case,
Faretta v. California, upheld it further. In
New Jersey, the protocol for its use is outlined in
State v. Crisafi.
CALIFORNIA
Judge Reluctantly Agrees Private Eye Can Be His Own Lawyer
in Hollywood Wiretaps Trial
Formerly seen as lawyers'
secret weapon to get dirt on famous litigants, Pellicano has
been in prison for nearly five years
Linda Deutsch, The Associated Press
01-11-08 ---
A federal judge on Wednesday
reluctantly allowed Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano
to take over as his own lawyer in his trial on charges of
illegally wiretapping celebrities. . . . "It is such a bad
idea that if the United States Supreme Court did not require
me to allow defendants to represent themselves, I would not
do it," U.S. District Court Judge Dale S. Fischer warned
Pellicano. . . . It was the second time
Pellicano has opted to become his own lawyer. He
did
the same thing a year ago but then rescinded his
decision and used the services of attorneys Steven Gruel and
Michael Artan, who handled pretrial motions. . . . Pellicano,
handcuffed and wearing a green prison jacket, told the judge
that he knew that his attorneys worked hard but that he no
longer needed their help. . . . Pellicano's lawyers said
outside court that his motivation was to save them from
having to represent him for free in a long trial after the
judge refused to appoint them at court expense.
WYOMING
Trial Lawyers Offer People's Law School
New York Lawyer
01-11-08 --- (AP)
-- Here's a way to learn about the law without getting
arrested. . . . The Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association is
hosting a series of six-week courses called the People's Law School. . . . Practicing
attorneys teach the courses. They include a traffic
investigator, a prosecutor, a criminal defense attorney, a
family attorney and a trusts and estates attorney. . . . The
classes will be held at Casper College on Wednesdays, starting
next week. . . . Casper attorney Michael Shickich said
nearly everyone will come in contact with the legal system
at some point in their lives. He said the purpose of the
program is to teach people about that system so they're not
blindsided.
|
