# Conviction in Absentia **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [December 29, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003 "2006-12-29T17:30:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/1 "2006-12-29T17:30:10Z")
[http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mabsentia.htm](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mabsentia.htm) Another great job **Bricker**. > [@](#): > > He missed his chance to appeal this procedure by dying in a shootout with FBI agents attempting to recapture him. This reminds me of a favorite opinion by Jerry Buchmeyer. > [@](#): > > This pro se § 1983 suit seeks “good time credit.” > > But the plaintiff is now dead. > > That means this suit is, too. > > The first is with prejudice. > > The second, without. _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 . . . ) ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/2 "2006-12-29T18:12:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/3 "2006-12-29T18:32:46Z")
[QUOTE=pravnik] 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. [/QUOTE] 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] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/4 "2006-12-29T18:44:53Z")
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. Justice Kuehn’s opening sentence: > [@](#): > > This appeal raises Cain and questions whether counsel was able. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/5 "2006-12-29T18:55:39Z")
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): > [@](#): > > JUDGE: Counsel, any further argument before sentence is imposed? > COUNSEL: No, Judge, we’ll rest on the arguments made and defer to the court’s experience. You’ve been on the bench for 15 years. > JUDGE: Actually only 12. > COUNSEL: Seems like 15. It was so dry and went by so quick nobody really caught it. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/6 "2007-01-02T14:39:15Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/7 "2007-01-02T15:08:47Z")
Nice job, **Bricker**. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/8 "2007-01-02T16:56:23Z")
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.) ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/9 "2007-01-02T18:03:39Z")
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.” 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Mycroft\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/898d66/32.png) [@Mycroft\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mycroft_H)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/10 "2007-01-02T18:17:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/11 "2007-01-02T19:40:13Z")
**matt\_mcl** , you may also want to get your hands on a copy of _Corpus Juris Humorous_, a collection of funny legal anecdotes and opinions: > **[Corpus Juris Humorous - In Brief - Compilation Of Outrageous, Unusual, Infamous,...](https://www.amazon.com/Corpus-Juris-Humorous-Compilation-Outrageous/dp/B000K0DNLI)** > > Corpus Juris Humorous - In Brief - Compilation Of Outrageous, Unusual, Infamous, And Witty Judicial Opinions From 1255 A.D.... \[John B. McClay, Wendy L. Matthews\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. Corpus Juris Humorous - In Brief -... ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/12 "2007-01-02T19:58:14Z")
Here is a website with some of the classic funny cases: [News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com](http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/) See also, U.S. v. Guglielmi, 819 F. 2d 451 (4th Cir. 1987) (giving a superfluous, shot-by-shot analysis of two bestiality porn films) and U.S. v. Abner: [http://www.legalunderground.com/2004/02/i\_was\_ready\_to\_.html](http://www.legalunderground.com/2004/02/i_was_ready_to_.html) (count the talking heads titles) [http://marshallinside.usc.edu/mweinstein/teaching/fbe552/552open/notes/syufy.pdf](http://marshallinside.usc.edu/mweinstein/teaching/fbe552/552open/notes/syufy.pdf) (count the film titles) and see, [http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1992\_2.htm](http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1992_2.htm) (humor and the law issue of BYU law review, especially the humor guides section). [http://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/judhumor.html](http://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/judhumor.html) [http://www.laborlawtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-101627.html](http://www.laborlawtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-101627.html) ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2007, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/13 "2007-01-03T15:02:44Z")
Another informative report. But this passage struck in my craw: > [@](#): > > _Bricker_ > Six months later he was recaptured in Mexico by a private bounty hunter (specifically, Dog the Bounty Hunter of A&E TV fame, who in the process may have violated Mexican law, which doesn’t recognize broad rights for bounty hunters). 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 > [@](#): > > Still, it’s not such a crazy idea – it happens here under certain circumstances. 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 > [@](#): > > Six months later he was recaptured in Mexico by a private bounty hunter (specifically, Dog the Bounty Hunter of A&E TV fame, who in the process may have committed serious criminal offences under Mexican law, which doesn’t recognize broad rights for bounty hunters). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2007, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/14 "2007-01-03T15:59:40Z")
[QUOTE=hawthorne] 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 [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2007, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/15 "2007-01-03T18:41:58Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I did not, and do not now see any particular reason to expand upon that phrasing. [/QUOTE] (spelling repaired). 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). ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/16 "2007-01-04T14:33:34Z")
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. > [@](#): > > _Bricker_ > The article was drafted before Mexico raised the issue of Duane “Dog” Chapman’s conduct, 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Chapman): > [@](#): > > On June 18, 2003, Chapman made news with his hunt and capture of Max Factor cosmetics heir Andrew Luster, who at the time was in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Luster had fled the United States in the middle of his trial for poisoning and rape, and was convicted in absentia on 86 counts including multiple rape charges connected to assaults in 1996, 1997 and 2000.[3] > > Chapman was assisted by his “hunt team”, consisting of his associate Tim Chapman and son Leland. The team was ordered by Mexican authorities to transfer Luster over to the Mexican police. When the hunt team refused they were arrested for kidnapping and unlawful detainment. On July 3, 2003, they were officially declared fugitives by a spokesman for the Mexican Government, after failing to report to the Mexican courts as ordered. This was certainly an aspect of reports here at the time: [ > [@](#): > > […]“But since the bounty hunter who caught him also appears to be in detention, this could complicate US efforts to extradite Luster back to this country,” the [FBI] source added. > > The official source said bounty hunters were not recognised under Mexican law and could be charged with kidnapping. > > That could seriously delay Luster’s extradition. [19/6/2003]]([http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200306/s883142.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200306/s883142.htm)) [ > [@](#): > > **Luster-buster bounty hunter held in Mexico** > […]But Mexican police, tipped off by passers-by, arrested Luster, Chapman and four associates. > > “The police have determined two crimes against the five individuals - illegal deprivation of liberty and criminal association,” said police spokesman Marco Roberto Juarez. > [21/6/2003]]([http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200306/s884937.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200306/s884937.htm)) Maybe you meant something else by > [@](#): > > _Bricker_ > The article was drafted before Mexico raised the issue of Duane “Dog” Chapman’s conduct Or perhaps your eagerness to reply promptly led you astray. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/17 "2007-01-04T19:29:08Z")
[QUOTE=hawthorne] But, despite the sometimes long lead time on Staff Reports, it was clearly not a recent development. It was there from the start. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2007, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/18 "2007-01-05T14:06:17Z")
So it’s your position, is it, that > [@](#): > > _Bricker_ > The article was drafted before Mexico raised the issue of Duane “Dog” Chapman’s conduct 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 > [@](#): > > _Bricker_ > Still, it’s not such a crazy idea – it happens here under certain circumstances. _Now_ you seem to be saying that if something doesn’t happen in the US it doesn’t happen at all. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2007, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/19 "2007-01-05T16:41:36Z")
[QUOTE=hawthorne] So it’s your position, is it, that 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. 😉 [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2007, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/20 "2007-01-05T20:05:15Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] 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. [/QUOTE] 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: > [@](#): > > 1. Extradition shall take place, subject to this Treaty, for wilful acts which fall within any of the clauses of the Appendix **and are punishable in accordance with the laws of both Contracting Parties by deprivation of liberty the maximum of which shall not be less than one year**. [http://www.escapingjustice.com/extraditiontreatyeng.htm](http://www.escapingjustice.com/extraditiontreatyeng.htm) And see, [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJIL/2005/2.html#Heading75](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJIL/2005/2.html#Heading75) (discussing the double criminality requirement, generally). And of course, the U.S. is not required to extradite its own nationals. See Treaty Art. 9. I’m sick today, so maybe I’m missing something here. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003.md?page=2)