This reminds me of a favorite opinion by Jerry Buchmeyer.
Devine v. Byrd, 667 F. Supp. 414; 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17932 (N.D. Tex. 1982) (footnotes omitted).
I wonder if he really had any meaningful appellate relief available. Too late to file a notice of appeal; and failure to file a timely notice of appeal is often fatal to a habeas petition, IIRC. I wonder how a court would consider his excuses (I didn’t get notice of the judgment of conviction because I was on the run; I couldn’t file my notice of appeal for the same reason . . . )
That’s hilarious. Judge Buchmeyer (and presumably his law clerks) writes and compiles the monthly “et cetera” article for the Texas Bar Journal with humorous stories and quips from recent trial transcripts, depos and opinions. Always the first thing I turn to. Great article, too, Bricker; I was hoping for the Einhorn analysis.
I’ve been a fan of his since the early 90s. I’ve actually been trying to track down a copy of a fake SCOTUS opinion he once wrote about. A friend actually wrote him and got a copy of it (it was about a suit for discrimination against a brothel–the “Court” found it was a public utility and couldn’t discriminate in pricing or refuse service based on race). Unfortunately, I’m not in touch with that friend any more. [/hijack]
If we’re trading “favorite opinion prose,” I must nominate now-retired Illinois 5th circuit justice Clyde Kuehn, who turned out some absolutely brilliant bon mots during his tenure on the bench. I’m on vacation and so can’t easily cite, but a couple from memory:
A appeal turned on two issues – the admission of “bloodhound” evidence, specifically a police dog named Cain whose handler testified not only about what the dog did but what the dog was thinking while he tracked the accused’s trail; and the failure of defense counsel to mount even a minimally acceptable defense by not raising one objection during the completely inadmissable testimony.
I’ve toyed with sending Judge Buchmeyer a bit from a criminal sentencing transcript I did an appeal on. My father was the trial attorney, and his former law partner was the judge (paraphrased):
It was so dry and went by so quick nobody really caught it.
Good stuff. I once attended a conference for Federal judges at my law school. One judge, who sits in St. Louis, Mo., said his court occasionally has admiralty law cases from the Missisippi River trade. He had one particularly complicated admiralty law cases that the parties just weren’t able to settle, despited repeated pretrial conferences. Months into the case, the judge bumped into one of the lawyers at a bar function.
“Have you been able to settle that Smith Tugboat Co. case yet?” the judge asked.
“No, judge. We’ve tried and tried, but no luck,” the lawyer replied.
“Well… tell the other lawyer that the judge is crazier than a shithouse rat and doesn’t know anything about admiralty law. That might help.”
The lawyer grinned. “I told them that months ago, judge. Didn’t make a bit of difference.”
I love these sorts of anecdotes. Any websites where these are available? (Especially if they’re from sources in the legal profession rather than ones of broader interest.)
The ABA Journal has a regular column of such anecdotes, which must be “funny, recent and true,” according to their submission guidelines. Unfortunately, the online version of the magazine doesn’t appear to have the feature. You could probably find it at your local public library, or law library.
Two of my own bon mots, such as they were (neither of which I submitted):
While presiding over a hearing regarding a request for a temporary protection order, the prosecutor submitted into evidence a long, profanity-laced telephone answering machine message from the jilted lover of one of the parties. It went on and on, and I finally asked the bailiff to turn it off. The courtroom was silent for a moment, and I said, “That can’t have been what Alexander Graham Bell had in mind.”
Another day, while I was handling a criminal case docket, a defendant kept replying “That’s cool” to whatever question he was asked. I finally said, “Coolness is second, of course, only to justice as a goal of this court.”
Thank you Bricker for another brilliant piece. There were several “What the…” bits in addition to those mentioned earlier in this thread. I had that reaction with the Italian health care system reimbursing Provenzano for his French medical work and the aptly named GHB date-raper shitbag, Luster.
Great work and I look forward to your future contributions.
Another informative report. But this passage struck in my craw:
The guy’s been charged with kidnapping. That’s a rather serious crime. Rather more serious than “may have violated Mexican law”, which - when no details of the alleged infraction are supplied but the name of the niche television network is - makes it sound like a case involving an inadequately witnessed document.
I know the tone of Columns and Staff Reports is chatty. But if you wanted to avoid a perception that there was an “and” deliberately lacking in this sentence
and that you thought that notions of law outside the US were or ought to be treated as more than quaint, you might have gone with
If you believe it should have been worded more strongly, you’re certainly entitled to that belief, and I appreciate the feedback.
The article was drafted before Mexico raised the issue of Duane “Dog” Chapman’s conduct, and the line in question simply identified “Dog” simply because he was a bounty hunter with some name recognition. On September 14th, 2006, Chapman was arrested by US Marshals as a result of the Mexican government’s requiest for extradition on charges of “illegal detention,” a crime less serious than kidnapping and which only carries a possible four-year prison sentence. Chapman and two assistants were freed on US$1,500 bail each in Mexico, another factor undercutting the seriousness of the crime. Subsequent to this revelation, I added the line about the possible violation of Mexican law.
In view of the foregoing, and in view of the fact that the article was focused on trial in absentia, not about bounty hunters, Mexican law, or extradition, I characterized it as I did. It is beyond cavil that Chapman, as I said, “…may have violated Mexican law.” I did not, and do not now see any particualr reason to expand upon that phrasing.
I agree. **Bricker ** was giving an example of trial in absentia and simply noted that Dog was the guy who got the bad guy. This wasn’t a staff report about comparative law of bounty hunting. And what he said was true–Chapman may have violated the law.
BTW, the US Supreme Court officially does not give a crap (in the context of defendant’s rights) about defendants being abducted from Mexico and brought to the US for trial. See, United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992) (defendant who was kidnapped in Mexico and forcibly brought into US could be tried despite Mexico’s protest of treaty violation).
I appreciate the Staff Report was about trials in absentia and this is a minor part of an article that I otherwise enjoyed - and that the Staff Reports are done to a pretty high standard by generous members.
Maybe this is just a matter of US news perspective, but this doesn’t seem quite right. The way the capture of Luster was reported here IIRC was about 50% his capture and 50% about the vigilante aspect to the story. Given that that private individuals seizing people for money is a normal part of the legal process in the US perhaps this aspect - other than its affected glamour - didn’t garner much attention.
But, despite the sometimes long lead time on Staff Reports, it was clearly not a recent development. It was there from the start. Chapman’s legal troubles did not start recently: they started during Luster’s detention. According to wikipedia:
This was certainly an aspect of reports here at the time: [
[
Maybe you meant something else by
Or perhaps your eagerness to reply promptly led you astray.
The “development” I referred to was the arrest in Hawaii of Chapman by US Marshalls pursuant to an extradition warrant. The drafting of the article was completed prior to this event.
should be read as in such a way that only Mexico’s raising of the issue in a US court counts as “raising of the issue”?
That is: neither Chapman’s arrest by the Mexican authorities in 2003 nor his declaration as a fugitive by the Mexican authorities count as “raising the issue”?
Now I’m a little confused reading
Now you seem to be saying that if something doesn’t happen in the US it doesn’t happen at all.
My position is that the Staff Report in question adequately addressed the minor, collateral, tangential issue of Mexico’s response to Mr. Chapman’s conduct with a description that was completely accurate.
I hate to continue the hijack, but I have been wondering about the principle of double criminality in the Chapman case. His conduct would not have resulted in a one year prison sentence here in the US. And that’s a clear requirement under the treaty with Mexico:
Judge Buchmeyer (and presumably his law clerks) writes and compiles the monthly “et cetera” article for the Texas Bar Journal with humorous stories and quips from recent trial transcripts, depos and opinions. Always the first thing I turn to. Great article, too, Bricker; I was hoping for the Einhorn analysis.
[/hijack]
