Monday, March 31, 2008

This One Vote Counts......

To readers of this blog who are not in "the system" I would like to emphasize the critical importance of tomorrows Supreme Court election (as an aside, we may soon need to have a serious discussion about campaign reform and/or the appointment of judges to eliminate the misleading, jaded, and money-influenced system that exists).

This is for a 10 year term on a court that not only administers the entire court system in Wisconsin but also renders opinions on the most pressing issues of our day from corporate regulation to overreaching police searches and interrogations. Our present court is evenly split in the traditional conservative/liberal paradigm (to the extent that we can even apply that to a "detached" body of government) and, in my view, have been remarkably competent and thoughtful in recent years.

We have a court that is admired nationally and it is headed by a Chief Justice (Shirley Abrahamson) whose balanced view of the law and the administration of justice is something we should all be thankful for. Yes, I am an unabashed defense advocate so some may discount this appraisal of the court. However, I also run a small business and understand that tying the hands of business interests benefits no one - especially my clients who need jobs.

Louis Butler is the only serious candidate to consider here. Gableman is simply throwing his name out there and slinging mud as hard as he can hoping to pick off not just a great justice but one of the finest men I have ever had the pleasure to know. In fact, Butler was recently rated by two SE Wisconsin Bar associations as "qualified" by 90% of the membership while Gableman was found so by just 1/3. This speaks volumes about how the profession feels and they got it right.


John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com


Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Sex hysteria and Perversion of the Truth

I had the painful experience of listening to the Supreme Court debate between Justice Louis Butler and Circuit Judge Michael Gableman last night at the State Bar Center in Madison. Virtually the entire debate centered around the negative ads that have defined this campaign and smeared both candidates.

As an ardent Butler supporter, I was incredulous at Gableman's refusal to recant the obviously slanderous content of the ad that HIS campaign wrote and he approved. He claims it was "fair game" to talk about the candidates past work. Fair enough. However, the ad is severely misleading and leaves the strong impression that Butler's work on a sexual assault appeal (while he was a public defender) somehow "sprung" a child molester that "went on" to commit more assaults.

In fact, Butler raised the issues of the irregularities in the trial and an unanimous court of appeals agreed and reversed the conviction and sent the case only for a new trial. The man was not released. The Supreme Court agreed (again, unanimously) with Butler but nonetheless reinstated the conviction because there was overwhelming evidence so the error was "harmless." The man served his entire sentence and only committed another assault years later.
Gableman, however, juxtaposes pictures of Butler and the man together and then asks - who would you trust to protect Wisconsin's children? How much more perverted can you get? Not the man....Gableman! He wants to be a trusted member of the state's highest court but can't even exercise the judgement to debate issues fairly or to accurately portray a set of facts. This overzealous pursuit of a position of power stands in stark contrast to Butler's calm composure, keen intellect and rational judgment.

I hope that enough of the truth about this fine justice and honorable man is communicated to the public prior to the April 1st election. We have a great court right now....Gableman will not be a welcome addition.

See more about this focus on attack ads here.



John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com


Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Your Right to Remain Silent - Use It

Question: Is it ever appropriate to make statements to the police?

The the short answer is no. Here's why.

In our criminal justice system there are two parties: the state and the defendant. This is what is known as an adversarial system. What does this mean? The police are not your friends. The average officer starts building a case against you the second he sees you drive down the road, or look at him funny. Why help the man out? Giving a statement rarely accomplishes anything. More often than not, you are nervous, and not in any position to help yourself. Most people's hearts start beating when they realize that they were going over the speed limit when they passed a deputy on the freeway. So amplify that times 100 when an officer is staring you in the face alleging that you are drunk, or the main suspect in a burglary down the street.

The police will even try to be your friend and give you whatever you want to eat or drink in order for you to cooperate with them. It's because if you cooperate it makes their job 100% easier. They know that. You should know that too. Keep remembering this is State v. You and not State and You. They also know that if you ask for an attorney that they have to stop questioning you, so until you say the magic words, "I want to speak to an attorney" don't think they are done with you.

In the end, you may decide that you want to cooperate, but that decision should only be made after a consultation with an attorney. Don't let the officer convince you that he'll put a good word in for you with the district attorney or the judge. The only time I ever see a police officer in court saying something is when he is on the stand testifying against the defendant.



TJ Perlick-Molinari, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com

Monday, March 24, 2008

Gun Control - A Right To Own Guns: Personal or Militia?

Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment contains a right to own a gun as a personal right or if that relates strictly to militias. I am personally indifferent as I do not own a gun, don’t hunt and am fortunate not to live in a dangerous area that would prompt me to have a gun at home or carry one for protection. The District of Columbia law has banned all handguns (except for police) since 1976. The District argues that its law is fine since the 2nd Amendment relates much more to the right of the people to maintain militias rather than to any individual, personal right to keep and bear arms. In my view, the text of the amendment is ambiguous - it certainly cites both.

So who’s right? While strong arguments can be made on both sides - especially with a bevy of sophisticated legal talent weighing in - I have to land on the side of gun owners and the existence of a personal right. I think that the founders were far more leary of an armed government that could slip into despotism if the people could not have the option of overthrowing that government. That said, do we still want to look at this 20th and 21st Century problem of street awash in guns that kill people at record rates through the rose colored glasses of a 18th century document? Isn’t that what the Elastic Clause allows us to do - to make all laws “necessary and proper” to effectuate the provisions of the Constitution. And doesn’t the undisputable tragedy of handgun deaths merit a strong societal response?

I think that the real question is - as is the case for many legal quandries - isn’t there room for both a personal right and some reasonable regulation of that right? Simply put - yes. We do that with most rights contained in the Bill of Rights. We adore free speech but don’t let people slander, incite riots, or yell “fire” in a crowded theater. We arduously protect a citizen’s right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves but allow cops to lie to those citizens about the strength of evidence to get them to confess and otherwise coerce that them to give up that right. The list goes on but the point is: can’t we do the same with guns? I would never want to restrict legitimate gun rights of someone to protect themselves, their family or even to hunt (though I personally don’t see the big thrill). But I also think that the carnage that hand guns have created in modern society can only lead to death when in the wrong hands. As big of a libertarian as I am, some regulation, I think is appropriate here.


John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com


Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Drunk Driving Cops in Wisconsin

So Are Police Officers Just Better Drunk Drivers?

When most of us get pulled over by a police officer we get nervous. Apparently, when an off duty officer gets pulled over, he has nothing to worry about. Just this week in Milwaukee County on St. Patrick’s Day, an on duty officer pulled over an off duty officer on suspicion of drunk driving. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=729881 What is really appalling here is that the off duty drunkard thought he was just going to get away with it and be on his merry way home. After insisting that if he pulled an off duty officer over he would let them go, and has over 100 times, he begged the on duty officer to do the same for him.

The Frank Jude case has been society’s most recent opportunity to publicly see the culture of protecting one’s own in the police department. There is no doubt in my mind that this brotherhood extends to all officers and not just officers within the same department. I also know that the police department is no different than any other profession when it comes to looking out for one’s own.

Sadly, I am sure there is truth to the statements of the drunk deputy when he explained that he has let off duty officers go after he realized who they were. This cannot be an acceptable practice. I applaud the Hales Corners Police Officer who had the guts to arrest this man and take him into custody the same way any one of us would have been taken into custody if we were that intoxicated and behind the wheel swerving on the road.

We expect more from officers because of the important role they play in society. Cops who break the law themselves are hypocrites who do not deserve the respect of wearing the uniform and carrying the badge. They apply to be police officers to enforce law and order. And while I, as much as anyone can understand that we are all human and we all make mistakes, people who rely on other people’s mistakes to make their living should be smarter. They see it every day and know the consequences.

As a defense attorney, especially one who deals with OWI offenses, I know that if I get pulled over, I am getting the special treatment. And it is not the kind of special treatment that apparently off duty officers regularly get. While I do not believe this man should lose his job over this, he certainly should not be on highway duty arresting people for something of which he may be guilty of himself.


TJ Perlick-Molinari, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com


Tuesday, March 18, 2008

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer - Street Sex -vs- Wall Street

I have listened with great interest at the “outrage” over New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s recent admission of “wrongdoing” (which was well crafted to not directly admit any criminal liability). Mostly, the talking heads have decried his hypocrisy at being an unforgiving, zero tolerance, prosecutor in the past and then doing exactly the things that he eschewed. With that I agree completely. I have to say as a defense attorney that I did not like his tactics (he was the one that really invented the “perp walk”) and ruined a lot of lives of people who may have only been tangential players. That said, as a citizen, I always appreciated that someone aggressive was monitoring the greedy bastards on Wall Street that play endless illegal games that cost a lot of us a lot of money.

Spitzer’s fundamental problem was the bevy of powerful enemies that he made over the years. I am not inclined to conspiracy theories, as a rule, but I smell a rat here. Here’s the company line: a bunch of nondescript IRS bureaucrats slaving away at meager government wages in the bowels of some gray bland office building saw about $4,000.00 change hands and did a check on it (because they are just public servants doing their jobs). Then, voila, it turns out to be the immensely popular and powerful Governor of New York paying for sex. It had, they say, nothing to do with politics, revenge, powerful interests on Wall Street or any of that stuff. Just doin’ my job.......yeah, right.

Let’s be clear....there were literally thousands of recorded calls and an extensive investigation by both state and federal cops....all because a few bucks looked a little “irregular?” Unlikely. This is more akin to a set up whereby unseen forces were sifting and searching for any dirt that could possibly find on this man to bring him down. Don’t get me wrong...he brought this on himself in terms of his conduct. However, the cover story that they just stumbled on some small financial blip and then spawned a multistate investigation reserved normally for international drug smuggling operations is a lot of nonsense.


John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com


Monday, March 17, 2008

Murder & Sexual Assault Plea Bargains Aren't A Bargain

Every day I encounter people who believe that they were bullied into pleading guilty to some plea “bargain” that, upon brief reflection, they realized that it wasn’t that great of a deal. Or, more often, they just felt that they were truly innocent and should have gone to trial. In any event, they routinely blame their attorney for just being in bed with the DA and not really fighting for them and they want to “withdraw” their plea. Sounds simple, right? As usual, the answer is: “it depends.” The variables are huge, the DA’s almost universially oppose these motions no matter when brought but the judge can be a real wild card. I have had extremely compelling cases that have been denied and seemingly difficult cases that breezed right through.

The first hurdle is whether it is before or after sentencing. A criminal conviction begins after the judge “accepts” your plea of guilty and then “adjudges” you guilty and orders a “judgement of conviction” be entered in the record. The case is then set for sentence if it is a felony. Many smaller cases may proceed right to sentencing after the plea proceedings. The legal standard is hugely different: before sentencing, courts are supposed to “liberally” grant such motions for any “fair and just reason.” However, after sentencing, they only grant a withdrawal request to prevent a “manifest injustice.”

Don’t feel bad if you don’t know what those terms mean in the legal context, neither do most judges. We attorneys, of course are convinced that we always have met the standard but the judges are all over the board. Consider two case I have handled in recent years: Jose and Walter.
Jose was set for trial for 3 counts of first degree intentional homicide and 3 counts of reckless homicide. His trial attorney basically did nothing to investigate the case which involved a gang-related shooting. Early on, the state indicated that the only plea they would offer was to cop to 2 counts of first degree and they would recommend life without parole (no death penalty in Wisconsin - yet!). Jose rejected this “deal” categorically and maintained that position to anyone that would listen - including his Jesuit priest that would minister to him regularly. On the eve of trial, his attorney pushed a final “deal” on him: plead to just one count of first degree and 2 count of reckless homicide and the state still recommend life without parole. Can you feel the love? Some how, his attorney convinced with that he may escape a life sentence and basically bullied him into taking the deal. He immediately regretted it and contacted me to help him withdraw the plea under the liberal standard of “fair and just reason.” Claims of innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel and the testimony of his priest just didn’t cut it for this incredibly obstinate judge who used every available tool of intellectual dishonesty to deny his request. The truth was that the court just didn’t want to try the case.

Contrast that with Wally: he was fooling around sexually with his male cousin when they were 14 and 13 respectively. The families all knew about it and put a stop to it. 3 years later, the cousin brought this up at school and the counselor reported it to police. Because of Wisconsin’s juvenile court decisions, the case was treated as an adult crime because Wally was 17 and an adult for criminal law purposes. Also, since the accusation (a false accusation) was that Wally had threatened him with a knife, the judge ordered him to report as a sex offender for 15 years after he finished probation. On appeal, the client had to meet the manifest injustice standard but, to our great surprise, had a policy of granting nearly every request for withdrawing a plea practically for the asking if there is a claim of actual innocence. Since Wally did not fit that role, however, he did not do that. What is amazing is that he would of in a heartbeat.

The difference in these cases? The murder was in a busy Milwaukee court with a hyper-conservative judge and the sex case was in very rural Grant county with an incredibly flexible judge.

Any lessons here? Yes - if you are going to enter a plea (which is often a great idea) - be sure that it is what you want and that your attorney has adequately explained all of your options to you. Then you will not need to worry about coming back later to fix the mess. If you don’t like the deal - go to trial but only if your attorney is ready! If not get a continuance and a new lawyer.






John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com




Monday, March 10, 2008

www.Birdsall-Law.com Goes Live

Ta-da!! Introducing our new website, Birdsall-Law.com, that went live today.
www.Birdsall-Law.com features information about many of the criminal law areas in which we practice, and there is plenty more information to come. We've also provided information about a few of our past cases.


John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com