About This Blog

Judging Crimes is a blog about criminal law, violent crime and the judiciary, dedicated to making the liberal case for greater democratic control of the criminal justice system.  It's a "view from the trenches" because it's written by a practitioner, not an academic or journalist.  It examines the changing role of the judiciary in American society by looking at what judges actually do, rather than what they say.  I know what they do because I deal with the consequences every day. 

Opinions issued by judges, from Supreme Court justices on down, are justifications for the exercise of governmental power.  But it is the exercise of power itself that should command our attention, not the justifications.  Judging Crimes is concerned with the reality of judicial power rather than the verbal formulas used to defend it. 

American law professors have long liked to say they teach their students "to think like a lawyer."  Learning to think that way is a matter of internalizing certain assumptions.  The practice of judging is likewise based on a foundation of shared assumptions, among them that the United States Constitution -- a document of 8,335 words, the length of a book chapter -- provides an answer to every question.  Rather like a Ouija board.

These assumptions are so ingrained -- and their internalization is so necessary to the successful practice of law -- that most people who subscribe to them aren't even aware of having done so.  Judging Crimes will try to engage not just with the expressions of judicial power, but with the assumptions on which those expressions  rest.  

Judging Crimes won't be filled with daily entries commenting on the day's events or provide a best-of-the-web welter of links.  Many other blogs already do that, far better than I could hope to do.  (Check out these.)  Instead, Judging Crimes will contain pieces of a length that might seem long for a blog but would be short in a serious magazine.  I hope to post new pieces several times a week.

Powered by Squarespace
What's not to like?

Hit the "like" button on Facebook to be notified of mini-blog entries and new posts and columns.

In Our Name
Test Drive the Book!
« 369. "Trust us" | Main | 367. Life's a Blitch »
Friday
Oct312008

368. "I have not been convicted"

Senator Ted Stevens declared yesterday in a debate that "I have not been convicted.”  And never mind that he was convicted of seven felonies.

I can think of two explanations for his logic: he's clinically insane; or, he's so confident his convictions will be reversed on appeal that he considers them as good as reversed already.  Or, I suppose, both.

Assuming the second explanation, his confidence is well-placed, I think.  Our appellate courts are extremely reluctant to uphold the conviction of anybody who's demographically like the average judge: white, male, middle-aged or older, and part of the governing class.

If I remember right, Oliver North said during his Virginia senatorial campaign that he hadn't been convicted, since a federal appeals court had reversed his conviction (on grounds that have, ever since, handicapped mob and gang prosecutions around the country).  So there's a precedent for Stevens' position.

Stevens will be appealing his conviction to the same D.C. Circuit court that recently intervened in the presidential campaign by sparing the GOP potential embarrassment regarding congressional subpoenas to Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton.  The panel consisted of the pot-smoking Reagan Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg and G.H.W. Bush appointee and Ford Administration assistant solicitor general Arthur Randolph.

Their purported reason for refusing to decide the case is that the Republicans might take control of Congress, mooting the entire issue.  (Although, being judges, they phrased it in a more roundabout way.)  To justify their position, they first had to (nearly) run out the clock on the current Congress.

I think Stevens is correct in assuming that the D.C. Circuit will do everything it can to reverse his jury's verdicts.  In the meantime, we're treated to the entertaining spectacle of Alaskanas rallying around their highest-ranking federal official with t-shirts saying, "Fuck the feds."  So far as the Anchorage Daily News article reveals, they apparently exempted one particular formerly-influential fed from their sexual threat.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.