The San Francisco Chronicle has a fascinating, informative, human-interest type article profiling a Chinese lawyer who represents death row clients in China with unusual success.

According to Amnesty International, there were "4,015 death sentences and 2, 468 executions in China last year, accounting for about 80 percent of executions worldwide." Amnesty believes that the actual number of executions in China is probably much higher.

Lawyer Li Yunlong has represented 16 of these death row inmates, winning reprieves for 12 of them. Sometimes his only pay is a basket of eggs.

Li doesn't get a lot of time to prepare his cases. "The appeals process sometimes lasts just weeks or even days. Sentences are carried out swiftly, often by a bullet to the back of the head soon after the verdict is read, in a public place, such as a stadium. "

His inspiration to defend death row inmates resulted from his having witnessed an immediate execution as a child.

Defense lawyers in China are a relatively new additon to their system.

"It has only been five years since China adopted the "lawyer's law," which created the role of a genuine defense lawyer for the first time in Chinese courts. Before that, the verdict and punishment were decided at a secret Communist Party meeting, and a lawyer's principal duty was to encourage the defendant to confess and acknowledge the correctness of the party's will."

"Even now, defense lawyers are sometimes arrested for attempting to thwart the authorities if they plead their cases too vigorously."

There is so much more to this article, you really should read it for yourselves--particularly on the history of the death penalty in China and the effect of other nations trying to reduce its use as a punishment, particularly for non-violent crimes. Pressure from other nations is having an effect on China, just as it will, we predict, have that effect here in the not too distant future.

Lawyer Li puts it this way: "My family taught me that one should walk without killing the ants," he said. "Killing is not the right way to solve problems."

The General Accounting Office has just released a new report on the extent of money laundering through credit cards. The report is directed to the Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. The link is to actual report.

The report concludes,

"The extent to which money laundering through credit cards may be occurring is unknown. Bank regulators, credit card industry representatives, and law enforcement officials we interviewed generally agreed that credit card accounts were not likely to be used in the initial stage of money laundering when illicit cash is first placed into the financial system, because the industry generally restricts cash payments. Bank regulators and credit card industry representatives we interviewed acknowledged that credit card accounts might be used in the layering or integration stages of money laundering."

"....Most law enforcement officials we met with were unable to cite any specific cases of credit card–facilitated money laundering in U.S.–based financial institutions. Further, a FinCEN analysis of its database of SARs filed by U.S.-based financial institutions revealed very little evidence of potential money laundering through credit cards."

"....Industry representatives generally reported that they did not have AML policies and programs focused on credit cards because they considered money laundering using credit cards to be unlikely."

"....We make no recommendations in this report."

Anyone want to speculate on how much this report cost us? We'd be interested to know.

New Jersey has settled three racial profiling suits for $250,000. This does not seem like a lot compared to what the state has been paying out the last few years.

In 1998, the then-Attorney General of the state admitted that troopers engaged in racial profiling after four minorities were shot at by two troopers on the New Jersey Turnpike. To date the shooting victims have received $12.95 million from New Jersey.

In addition, New Jersey has paid $5 million to black and Hispanic officers who say they were victims of discrimination.

For up-to-date information and documents on racial profiling, check out New Jersey criminal defense lawyer William Buckman's site.

Murder Victims Families for Reconcilition today released a new report, Dignity Denied.

The report reveals the bias against surviving family members of murder victims who oppose the death penalty.

"From prosecutors, judges, police officers, policymakers, and the victim services community, victims’ family members who oppose the death penalty seek two things: awareness of our perspective and recognition that victims who oppose the death penalty are as deserving of respect and dignity as those who support it. "

"Today, as MVFR publishes this account of silencing and discrimination against anti-death-penalty victims, we are not aware of a single protocol in the office of any prosecutor in the United States that alerts victim assistants to the possibility that some family members of victims may oppose the death penalty and that they are entitled to the same assistance as those who support it."

"Some advocates see victims who oppose the death penalty as more closely identified with the defendant than with their own status as victims, thus rendering them ineligible for or undeserving of advocates' help....Such a view disregards the possibility that survivors may oppose the death penalty for
their own reasons, not because of sympathy for the murderer."

"Dignity Denied" challenges lawmakers, the federal government's Office of Victims of Crime, and leaders within the victims' services community to address past and current discrimination and commit to equitable treatment of survivors of homicide victims. "

"Specifically, the report recommends that victims' rights laws should be amended to ban discrimination based upon a victim's position on the death penalty; victims' services should be administered independently, not as part of the prosecutor's office; and leaders in the victims' services community should develop protocols for serving victims' families who oppose the death penalty."

For those of you who are not familiar with MVFR, here is a portion of their mission statement:

"Founded in 1976, Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation is a national organization of family members of both homicide and state killings who oppose the death penalty in all cases. Our mission is to abolish the death penalty. We advocate for programs and policies that reduce the rate of homicide and promote crime prevention and alternatives to violence. We support programs that address the needs of victims, helping them to rebuild their lives."

And here is the statement of Marie Deans, founder of Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation"

"After a murder, victims' families face two things: a death and a crime. At these times, families need help to cope with their grief and loss, and support to heal their hearts and rebuild their lives. From experience, we know that revenge is not the answer. The answer lies in reducing violence, not causing more death. The answer lies in supporting those who grieve for their lost loved ones, not creating more grieving families. It is time we break the cycle of violence. To those who say society must take a life for a life, we say: 'not in our name.' "

Polygraphs are entering the mainstream. Law enforcement is now being joined by insurance companies, employers and businesses in the use of the dubious device.

Add to the traditional polygraph, newer devices such as those that purport to "analyze a person's voice, blush, pupil size and even brain waves for signs of deception," and you get the picture.

But no studies have ever proven that lie detectors work. They are about as reliable as a coin toss. The vast majority of courts don't allow them as evidence for good reason--they have never been shown to be scientifically reliable.

And then there's the moral issue: "The recent proliferation of lie detectors has reignited a decades-old debate over the ethics and politics of when and how they should be used and whether such important questions as guilt or innocence should be left to machines."

And finally, what a lot of people overlook, is that the true value of using a polygraph to law enforcement is not in the machine's ability to determine if the suspect is lying, but in the pre-test interview phase of the process in which the investigator tries to elicit a confession from the suspect. Such as, by telling the suspect that the machine will be able to detect any lies, so they are better off fessing up now. Such as by manipulating the suspect's memory of events and manufacturing other memories such that the suspect begins to doubt his or her own memory and begins to believe the interrogator's version is correct--leading to a failed polygraph.

We could go on and on, but you get the point. It's bad enough law enforcement relies so heavily on these ouija boards. For it to spread to the public at large where people's livelihoods and careers are in the balance, is dangerous.

Here is a free, digital, downloadable, printable book The Lie Behind the Lie Detetor from Anti-Polygraph.Org. which has lots of links and additional information.

The CrimeLynx Forensic Page has carried a link to Anti-Polygraph.Org for years. It is informational and continually updated. We just checked and it currently has information on Dr. Steven Hatfill's polygraph and the recent refusal of Congressional members to submit to the test.

Thanks to Matt Yglesias for posting the drug criteria used by the FBI in deciding who can and cannot work for them.

FBI Employment Drug Policies

You're toast if you answer "yes" to any of the following questions:

Have you used marijuana at all within the last three years?

Have you used marijuana more than a total of 15 times in your life?

Have you used any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991) at all in the past 10 years?

Have you used any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991) more than a total of five times in your life?

Have you ever sold any illegal drug for profit?

Have you ever used an illegal drug (no matter how many times or how long ago)while in a law enforcement or prosecutorial position, or in a position which carries with it a high level of responsibility or public trust?

We like Matt's question, not addressed by the policy:

"Suppose I never used drugs and I never sold them for profit but I have sold them at a loss. Do we want inept drug dealers working for the FBI? "

Breaking the Chains: People of Color and the War on Drugs

Afternoon of Thursday, September 26 through Saturday, September 28,2002.

Hyatt Regency Los Angeles at Macy's Plaza
711 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA

The Drug Policy Alliance (formerly the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation) is proud to announce a groundbreaking event that will address the grievous impacts of the war on drugs on people of color.
Conference participants will learn about the discriminatory history of punitive drug policies, alternatives to current policy, and how to advocate for positive change.

The conference will begin with an opening reception on the afternoon of Thursday, September 26, 2002. A full day of conference events will follow on Friday, September 27, and the conference will wrap up on the
afternoon of Saturday, September 28.

Please visit Breaking the Chains for on-line registration up-to-date information

A Jury of Your Peers? Only If You're Clueless is a frightening portrait of jurors today.

Experts say that a decade of studies show that jurors do not understand the concept of "reasonable doubt" and frequently misunderstand such basic concepts as "mitigation."

One solution according to the author: Written instructions in plain English. They help a juror understand. What is plain English? English at the level of a sixth grader.

Also recommended: Judges should be more juror-friendly and responsive to juror's questions.

And this should come as no surprise: Studies show that jurors are most confused in capital murder cases.

Mexico's President Vicente Fox has cancelled his trip to the U.S. following Texas' refusal to accede to their request to stop the execution of a Mexican citizen who was not afforded the opportunity to consult with the Mexican counsulate after his arrest.

A Fox spokesman said the trip, which had been scheduled for Aug. 26-28, was seen as "inappropriate under these lamentable circumstances."

""Mexico is confident that the cancellation of this important presidential visit contributes to a strengthening of the respect by all states of the rule of international law," Mr. Elizondo said. "[Mr. Fox] is convinced that his position of repudiation of the death penalty is the correct posture. ... The Mexican government will continue defending the rights of all of our citizens abroad, independent of the charges against them."

We're convinced Mexico is right as well. We also think that international opposition to America's death penalty is growing and becoming more vocal. We want it to become a roar.

We are not great fans of informants and snitches. Criminal defense lawyers have represented far too many people who have been subjected to, and in many cases received, double-digit sentences based on lying snitch testimony and little or nothing else.

Since 1987, when the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines went into effect, one of the few ways a defendant can get a sentence reduction from the draconian federal drug penalties is to provide information that assists the government in its investigation or prosecution of someone else.

We consider the testimony of these people to be "purchased testimony," testimony that is purchased by the Government with promises of leniency or freedom. Think about it -- freedom is a far more precious commodity than money.

Now to the point. Jailed Informant Wants Protection tells the story of an informant who provided key testimony in the trial of Cali drug operatives who were charged with killing a crusading journalist. The informant is accusing the Government of not living up to its promise to protect him because several of his family members later were killed in a bloody retaliation in Colombia.

"John Harold Mena said five family members, including his 77-year-old father, have been killed since he agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors in the 1992 slaying of Manuel de Dios Unanue."

The Government apparently is not disputing this. "U.S. authorities have confirmed Mena's family is under siege, and say they are investigating his latest claims. They believe [the cartel member who ordered the hit on the journalist and was captured in Colombia in 1999] may have ordered retaliation from jail."

Now Mena was no minor player in the killing of the journalist. He admitted in his plea that he was one of the hit men. And he chose to be an informant, knowing the risks of possible retaliation. But he didn't get a walk for his testimony. He got 18 years and he's serving the sentence. With a sentence that long, you don't go to a Club Fed. You are behind the walls, and that is hard time.

Mena has asked for a court-appointed lawyer to represent him in his claim against the Government. Today's New York Times says the Judge granted this request, and will likely schedule a hearing soon. As much as we don't like snitches, we support his right to a full and fair hearing. Why? If the Government is going to turn people into informants and promise them protection, it ought not abandon the person after obtaining the favorable testimony it bargained for.

Mena alleges that in exchange for his testimony, prosecutors promised him that the Drug Enforcement Administration would bring his family to the United States. "He claimed he gave the government names of family members who were at risk, but the DEA refused to protect them because agents 'no longer needed my assistance.' "

There has been no comment on his allegations by the DEA.

While this case involved a drug-related murder, the vast majority of cases involve just drugs. Without the draconian mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses, for which there is no, defendants wouldn't have to choose between going to trial and risking a life sentence and pleading guilty, cooperating and receiving a lesser sentence.

Perhaps if the risks of cooperation become more publicized, and as defendants come to realize their "snitch jacket" follows them into prison making their time there much more dangerous and unpleasant, they will choose to "just say no" when the feds come calling.

We lawyers like to think that one day, "Nobody Talks, Everybody Walks" will be a reality. It often was in the old, pre-guideline days.

Former First Lady Roslyn Carter has publicly called for a moratorium on executions.

Speaking at the American Bar Association annual meeting in D.C., Mrs. Carter said "she was disturbed by the number of mentally ill, young, minority and poorly represented defendants sent to death row."

''Executing mentally ill people does not make sense as a deterrence, and it undermines the integrity and fairness of our system of justice...''

She also said she was "appalled at a recent study's finding that almost seven of every 10 cases ending in death sentences contained 'serious reversible error.' "

Mrs. Carter endorsed both the Innocence Protection Act and the Moratorium on Federal Executions bill now pending before Congress.

She informed the audience that "blacks convicted of killing whites are sentenced to death 22 times more often than blacks who kill blacks, and more than seven times the rate of whites who kill blacks."

While she praised the recent Supreme Court decision banning execution of the mentally retarded, she said we need to go further by extending the ban to the mentally ill and juveniles.

''It should be an embarrassment to every American that we execute children,'' she said. ''The United States is the only country in the industrialized world that still executes anyone, and executing children puts us in the company of Somalia --- only Somalia.''

Mrs. Carter said that "nearly 80 offenders who were under 18 at the time of their convictions sit on death row --- the highest number since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. "

Thank you, Mrs. Carter.

The Government must think pretty highly of the American Bar Association. It has chosen the ABA annual meeting at least twice this week to warn of coming Administration changes in corporate accountability.

Today, SEC Chief Harvey Pitt told the assembled lawyers to be careful.

Pitt issued a warning to corporate lawyers that "they will be held to account for business wrongdoing more than ever before under new laws adopted amid a flood of Wall Street scandals."

On Friday, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson told ABA Criminal Justice Section Council members that the Justice Department's new policies would include indicting the corporations as entities, as well as the individual wrongdoers.

Today SEC Chief Harvey Pitt adds corporate lawyers to the list of of potential indictees.

If the saying is true that good or bad things happen in threes, here's our bet for the next Government warning to lawyers: If your corporate client does wrong, we're coming after your fees as illegal proceeds of the wrongdoing, just like we did with the drug dealers.

And before non-lawyers start cheering at the thought, consider this friendly warning: If the corporations' funds for legal fees are frozen or forfeited by the Government, the indicted corporations, their corporate lawyers and their employees will all be declared indigent and the Government, meaning the taxpayer, will end up footing the bill for everyone's legal fees.

We'll be glad when this ABA meeting is over.