Alaskablawg

Ecto

That last post would not initially load in typepad for some reason. I use a program called Ecto to manage my blogging needs (editing posts, inserting images, etc.) and so I have been emailing their technical support. It appears that the photos were too large and I was just not scaling them down enough to allow them to load. If a post doesn't load in time, Typepad will not accept it.

Anyway, it was very nice that the tech support at Ecto answered my emails promptly, even in the middle of the night. Also, they did not treat me like an idiot but rather gave me some good hints. And it doesn't hurt that Ecto is a great program. For those who have not looked into it yet, I would strongly recommend checking it out. It costs $, around $18 or so, but it is worth every penny. I tried to use typepad's posting system and it was not nearly as friendly. Macaddict found that ecto was the best choice for the money.

They also have it for Windows, but it really rocks on the Mac (Well, that should go without saying. Everything rocks on the Mac).

Fall

Speaking of Katrina, in reading about the rescue and rebuilding efforts, I cannot help but notice that it is extremely warm and humid down in the Southeast. Not up here. Fall has arrived. Temperatures are in the mid 40s to low 50s, and sunset is early - abut 8:45.

Of course, this means good rainbow fishing. I'm scheduled to go fishing in Naknek in a couple of weeks, going after large rainbows and grayling. I figure to smoke some good cigars, drink too much scotch and generally not think about work. Should be really helpful.

I got a new camera, in part for trips like this, in part just for photos, and in part because I want to take more pictures of the kids as they grow up. I have not posted about my kids because I figure people read this blawg for other reasons than to hear about my kids, but I think the following picture will show why I wanted to get a camera:

For more Alaska-related stuff, I would attach the following photos from my last trip to Ketchikan. Here is Creek Street, showing the shops built right over the water:

And last, for now anyway, here's a photo of a small beaver pond by the Little Su River a few miles south of where it comes off a glacier:

I took that on a hike a few days ago, about 10 minute drive (plus hike) away from my house. I am going to try (no promises) to take some more pictures as I traverse this state. If you like these pictures, let me know and I will try to post some more in the future.

Hurricane Katrina

There have been lots of postings about Hurricane Katrina and the absolute devastation that is has wrought throughout the Southeast. I do not want to really add anything about the political blame game or anything else. I do, however, want to point out that the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has set up a relief fund particularly for attorneys in this situation.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose all of my files, my evidence, my work. Louisiana has such a horrible record regarding criminal defense issues anyway that I cannot imagine this helping the situation any. Anyway, this particular charity is geared toward attorneys in general, criminal defense attorneys in particular.

CJ Rehnquist

CJ Rehnquist passed away last weekend. Alan Dershowitz, as you might expect, did not really have a high opinion of him (link via Indiana Public Defender). Rehnquist, I think, will go down in history as one of the more influential CJs in our history. I do not know how much of that was Rehnquist himself and his fortunate positioning in an interesting confluence of this country's history. I figure that's for historians to decide. I'm a lawyer.

Rehnquist's majoritarianism did not sit well with me. While many people have written about how Rehnquist's conservatism limited government power, that analysis really does not apply to 4th Amendment issues. As I read Rehnquist's opinions, he started from the presumption that stops, searches, seizures, and arrests were constitutional. If the arrest or police behavior was particularly egregious, he might step in and do something. However, having said that, I must give a tip of my hat to Rehnquist for his vote in the Raich decision. I figured that of the 'conservatives', Rehnquist would be the one to abandon his principles and find that the possession of the marijuana affected interstate commerce. He did not and voted accordingly. So, even though I do not like his opinions, and even though I disagree with his philosophy, I would acknowledge that he stuck to his guns even on an issue that seemed to go against his personal ethic.

Rehnquist's death has created a whole new arena of speculation: who will get his spot? GW nominated John Roberts for Rehnquist's spot, so he still needs an associate justice. This just goes to show that it is not too late for the President to rectify his mistakes. He can nominate Randy Barnett. GW claims to want an originalist. Why not appoint an originalist that gets it right?

Brace Yourself

Here's John Wesley Hall, a great criminal defense from Little Rock, talking about his red suspenders. I share his passion for braces, but I do not wear red ones. I make it a point to never wear a belt with a suit. Rather, I wear braces, generally the Trafalgar Limited Editions.

Now, I know that I have written before about wearing jeans and flannel shirts to work and to court, and this is true. Even today I wear such to work. However, anymore, when I appear in court, it is generally for a substantive hearing on a major case and so I generally wear court attire. And even when I practiced in the bush, I wore a suit to any jury trial. Also, and this is a personal decision, I cannot stand looking cheap. It is just my perception, but I think that looking cheap weakens one's message, making one look like a huckster. Now, the rejoinder is that fancy clothes can make someone look like a snake oil salesperson, and that is a valid point, particularly when the jury is dressed in Carhartts and bunny boots (Hey, don't laugh. These boots are everywhere in Alaska because they are the only boots that will keep one's feet warm if one's feet get wet. This is the difference between looking a bit goofy and losing toes (or feet)). So, I overcompensate. I'm sure that a psychiatrist would find it fascinating, but I can't pay the psychiatrist because I'm too busy paying my tailor.

Anyway, it's just my personality and I wouldn't expect others to follow suit. It was nice, though, to see another attorney who appreciates fine braces.

DOJ, Again

As long as we are on the subject of the DOJ, check out this column. A hard-core Republican US Attorney, who has aggressively prosecuted a number of Democratic politicians for perjury, refuses to prosecute a star witness for perjury after she admits lying at a trial in which a Pennsylvania doctor was convicted. Par for the course, from what I can see.

So, between putting away people that distribute porn to willing adults and convicting doctors on perjured testimony, what are we paying the DOJ for anyway?

DOJ Priorities

The Department of Justice has recently announced a change in its priorities: it will be targeting porn. Not child porn, but porn between consenting adults, particularly over internet distribution.

I hardly know where to begin. First, the First Amendment says that Congress shall make 'no law'. It does not say 'No law except...." It says, "No law." Second, porn's been around, in various permutations, for literally millennia. The drug war should show clearly that government cannot eradicate a market. It can only raise prices and increase its power. But then, when the government is arguing that Prohibition (no, not drug prohibition, but alcohol prohibition, as in 18th Amendment prohibition) was a success, it stands to reason that they would not understand either economics or history.

Last, do we really want DOJ spending its time prosecuting porn? I mean, shouldn't they be going after terrorists or something? There are a number of reasons to oppose what our government is doing in Guantanamo Bay, but very few people would argue that our government's efforts to find out about potential terrorist plots before they happen are impermissible.

For more information about the government's past battles about porn, check out this book (you can read my review here).

Court Opinions

The Court of Appeals has released a few opinions in the past couple of weeks. Here's a recap:

In Moore v. State, the Court of Appeals dealt with the effect of a prior illegal search upon future searches. Some cops, including University police (the case is unclear why University cops in particular went to Moore's house) and a State Trooper, went to Moore's house during a child welfare check. These occur when the Office of Children's Services investigate reports of harm to a child. The cops provide protection. The University cop looks into a shed on the back of Moore's property and found a meth lab. He goes to tell the trooper, who is standing in front of the house. The trooper wants permission to search the house, based in part on what he describes as iodine stains on Moore's hands. Moore says he's a smoker.

The Trooper tells Moore that this is not true. He says that they have already looked in the shed and found a meth lab, so Moore admits he's cooking meth and consents to a search. He is indicted and challenges the search. Trial court finds that the search of the shed was illegal (no duh!), but then finds that the iodine on Moore's hands and the officer's smell was sufficient to give cause to request a search.

The Court of Appeals disagrees. A prior illegal search presumptively taints a related consent to search and there was nothing to break the causal connection between the illegal search and the consent. To allow a search in these instances, the government must show that the subsequent search or consent is insulated from the illegal act. Otherwise, the taint is presumed. The conviction was reversed.

in Greist v. State, the Court of Appeals continues to deal with the fallout from Blakely. Courts in Alaska can aggravate a felony sentence if the defendant has a juvenile conviction for an offense that would have been a felony if the defendant had been an adult. Greist's sentence was aggravated on this basis and he appealed, citing Blakely.

Not so fast, says the Court of Appeals. Even under Blakely, the jury does not have to find prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt to aggravate a sentence. This clearly falls under this exception, so no error.