This week marks an especially significant time in the American justice system. Because of one man who couldn’t afford an attorney after being charged with burglary, the entire legal landscape was changed

Clarence Gideon

forever.  Clarence Gideon was arrested on June 3, 1961 and was charged with burglarizing a pool room in Florida.  He wasn’t allowed allowed legal counsel for his very brief trial, even though he’d asked for one.  At that time, there were no rights for the accused and they weren’t allowed the benefit of a lawyer during any questioning or subsequent trials if they couldn’t pay for his services.

Gideon insisted he was innocent in his efforts to defend himself, but was still found guilty.  After arriving in prison, he handwrote his own appeal using a prison pencil and a pad of paper.  In his appeal, he spelled his reasons why he was entitled by the constitution to legal representation.  He certainly shook things up because an appeals court felt his appeal had merit.   His appeal also caught the attention of Abe Fortas, a well known and respected lawyer who eventually became a Supreme Court justice.  The two paired up and took the case all the way to the top.  The Supreme Court agreed that a fair trial couldn’t exist if the accused wasn’t allowed proper representation, despite his financial standing.  It said every defendant was entitled to assistance in presenting his case.  Gideon v. Wainwright became a historical case and as a result, the Miranda rights were written and are now a part of every arrest in this country.

Later, Gideon, with the help of an attorney, was retried and acquitted of the burglary.  Clearly, this case marked a turning point in the legalities our justice system.  Hollywood agreed.  If you’re interested, you should see the movie made in 1980 that starred Henry Fonda.  Gideon’s Trumpet was nominated for several awards that year and is well worth seeing.

The Supreme Court today sent a message to those committing crimes with firearms that accidently go off during the crime.  Trying to predict a Supreme Court ruling before it’s made is a lot like trying to determine the next Hollywood divorce; just when you think you’re certain, you’re bound to be in for a surprise.  That said, the Justices made the right choice by refusing to allow room for differentiation in these cases.  Had the ruling been any different, every defendant in every courtroom in the country would’ve argued an accidental discharge.  Chief Justice Roberts, in his classic to the point manner, said, “If criminals want to avoid the penalty for accidental gunfire, they  should lock or unload the firearm…leave the gun at home or best yet, avoid committing the felony in the first place”. 

Only two dissented.  Justices Breyer and Stevens insist the intent of an automatic sentence was to apply only to intentional discharges.  Therein lies the problem.  It’s the “give an inch, take a mile” mentality that

.

would’ve taken over had there been room for arguments of accidental firearm discharges.  When this is approached from a human nature aspect versus a legal stand, who’s to say which shootings were accidental?  Perhaps there really are weapons that go off due to clumsy or even inexperienced criminals, but let’s face it, if one’s robbing a liquor store and has no intention of shooting a gun as he’s committing the robbery, then why bring a loaded weapon into the store?   To many, the presence of a loaded gun is indicative of intent.

For those who make the argument that an accidental shooting might not actually injure, or worse, kill someone have obviously never been threatened in such a way.  By choosing to break the law, benefit of the doubt should be removed for those who’ve made these wrong choices.  They shouldn’t be allowed to redefine any intent. 

Today’s ruling clears the way for these crimes to be punished as though they were intentional shootings and regardless of whether anyone was physically injured.  There’s simply no room for this argument to be made.

April 15^th is just hours away.  Tax time, by far, is the most stressful time of the year for most Americans.  The holidays, although stressful for many, at least have the promise of family and good food.  Tax day?  Not so much.  Even when we’re anticipating a refund, we’re on pins and needles in hopes the IRS agrees with our own figures and forwards that check with our name on it.

So, in honor of Tax Day (I can hear the collective sighs now), a walk through history reveals some interesting facts.  Broaden your horizons and who knows, it might not feel so intimidating after reading some of the history behind the nightmare we refer to as ‘IRS’.

Did you know the income tax was actually repealed at one time in 1872?  President Lincoln, in his efforts to fund the Civil War, enacted the first income tax in 1862.   Ten years later, it was repealed, only to be resuscitated in 1894 and then ruled unconstitutional in 1895 by the Supreme Court.  It wasn’t until 1913, when Wyoming ratified the 16^th Amendment by becoming the final state that constituted the three quarter majority necessary for the amendment, was the Bureau of Internal Revenue reborn.  Of course, this allowed Congress to bring to life an income tax.  From there, the first Form 1040 was created and can be seen here.

After that, the rates were modified drastically during both World War II and the Depression and each time the income tax was lowered after these dire financial times, it was never as low as it was before the increase.

In the 1950s, the name went from the Bureau of Internal Revenue to the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS.  The president of the United States chooses the IRS commissioner.  The massive restructuring that was said to have taken place in 1998 was due to incredible public pressure to lessen its overpowering and intimidating image.  Its new image attempts to be more inviting or open to taxpayers seeking information or assistance.

So as we gear up to put yet another April 15^th behind us, what does the IRS suggest we do if we anticipate problems with owing instead of being owed?  If you have an accountant, or bookkeeper, be open with them.  Allow their expertise to help you.  If you’re doing your own taxes, you’re encouraged to contact the IRS with any problems or questions you have.  The best way to contact anyone at the IRS?  Their website at www.irs.gov is the first best place to start.  If things are really bad, you’ll want to speak with a lawyer who’s experienced in back taxes and other IRS problems.  Your lawyer can discuss any options for resolution and can work with the IRS on your behalf to put these problems behind you once and for all.

Richard Quest, Wesley Snipes, Tim Russert and the iPhone

Continuing with the 2008 review that begins here, some of the headlines from April through June are outlined below. Oh, but the stories told in hindsight!

April 2008

· The YFZ Ranch in Texas, ruled by Warren Jeffs, was raided on April 5^th. 183 women and children are taken into custody sparking a huge controversy and major burden on DHS throughout several counties within the state. Two weeks later, a judge rules the 418 children will remain in state custody. Although the children were returned, there remain problems that are being handled out of view of the media.

· Wesley Snipes is sentenced to three years in prison for tax evasion on April 25^th.

· British Lawyer turned journalist, Richard Quest, was arrested in New York’s Central Park for possession of crystal meth. The Habitat for Humanity volunteer and former news director entered rehab shortly after his arrest.

May 2008

· Oil hits $120 a barrel for the first time on May 19^th.

· On May 13, federal prosecutors indict Barry Bonds for lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice after he lied about having used steroids.

· The Supreme Court upholds a current law that makes it a crime to send emails offering child pornography, even when the pornography doesn’t exist.

· Crude oil breaks yet another record when it hits $130 a barrel on May 21^st.

June 2008

· June 3 - General Motors closes four factories in Wisconsin, Ohio, Ontario and Mexico. Ten thousand jobs are eliminated.

· Hillary Clinton formally withdraws from the presidential campaign and endorses Barack Obama on June 7^th.

· The Apple iPhone is introduced, complete with GPS and 3G capabilities on June 9^th.

· The US Supreme Court rules the death penalty isn’t applicable for crimes that don’t result in the death of another.

· An ethics panel is put into place that will examine accusations of Christopher Dodd, a Democratic senator in Connecticut and Kent Conrad, a Democratic North Dakota senator, received “preferential” loans via Countrywide Financial. These two senators had sponsored a $300 billion bailout that would affect Countrywide and other lenders threatened by the sub prime mortgage crisis.

· Tim Russert dies on June 13^th after collapsing at NBC Studios in Washington DC where he moderated “Meet the Press” each Sunday.

As June wraps up, we couldn’t have anticipated what would await us in the next three months, including the Caylee Anthony disappearance, the outcome of the Presidential elections, the drastic, and long overdue drop in oil prices, the John Edwards scandal, the OJ Simpson verdict, the current “Big 3″ problems with American automakers and many other “breaking news” stories. And the year’s not even over!

The Supreme Court appears as though it may allow those who compile and interpret crime lab reports be made available for questioning in court cases by the defense. Traditionally, those being tried for such crimes as drug possession and DUI haven’t really wanted to see those who confirmed the lab results with scientific evidence on the stand any more than necessary. And probably for good reason. Even so, every defendant has the right to cross examine witnesses. And this is the crux of what the Supreme Court Justices are considering.

Now, though, with so many accusations of those in the labs being actual humans - and prone to mistakes and even ulterior motives - with solid proof that some have altered test results, many defense lawyers are beginning to see the benefits in ensuring their clients are receiving the fair trials they’re entitled to. Martha Coakley, who is the Attorney General in Massachusetts, says that making analysts available would essentially bring the district courts to a halt. I can see how that might happen. In 2006, 1.9 million substances were analyzed due to drug arrests in the U.S. That’s a whole lot of testimony. Twenty one states have seemingly made it work though. Justice Anthony Kennedy has requested comment from AG Coakley regarding California’s ability to make its analysts available, with little or no breakdown in the court systems. With that said, you have to remember that just because the analysts are made available doesn’t mean every lawyer insists on questioning them, which may partly explain why there haven’t been any problems.

Still, arresting officers and other witnesses find themselves on witness lists every day. Making those available who have been involved on any level in a case only lends to the transparency of our court systems. The possibility of altered tests is reduced, if not eliminated. Another problem seems to be that these reports are often misfiled or misplaced. Think Hurricane Katrina when medical reports, court documents and computers were found floating in the Gulf.

One of two things will happen because of an analyst’s testimony, even if it’s only to confirm he or she actually conducted the tests: the case will either be stronger for the defense or a slam dunk for the district attorney. Everyday, we hear how the American court system is the best in the world. Our technological advances and new scientific discoveries often are what determine guilt or innocence and if there’s another way to ensure a fair trial, we should incorporate it.

It was announced today that Brad Pitt will be contributing $100,000 in his efforts to prevent voters from overturning the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows gay marriages in California. Strange bedfellows, for sure. Apparently, he’s pretty adamant in his belief that there’s no room for discrimination in his America. I agree, but it’s interesting to me that he chose this sub-heading under the “Discrimination” outline. The quote I found regarding his contribution:

“Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn’t harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8,” Pitt said Wednesday. (Courtesy of New York Daily News)

Gay marriages in America are a tough issue to tackle on any level. Whether one’s arguing the Biblical aspects or if the legalities are being debated, you can be sure there are some strong opinions on what’s acceptable and what’s not acceptable. There’s no win-win for a naïve person who wishes to make a point, only to be clobbered by those who vehemently disagree. So, I decided a long time ago I’d stick to the plain vanilla politics. Oh, don’t misunderstand me - I’m not afraid of a little debate here and there, it’s just that it’s rare, if ever, one changes his mind about such an issue and it’s so exhausting trying to talk over some folks. This is one of those rare “no middle of the road” stands we take from time to time.

And yes, there have been times I’ve wondered if my refusal to argue which side of the fence I’m on is a sign of weakness. Maybe. I haven’t figured that one out yet. I’m adamant in my beliefs, but just as adamant in not having to defend or apologize for those beliefs.

Supporters of gay marriages, which, by the way are legal in Massachusetts and California, insist that gay partners should be afforded the same financial and social protections that those who are in more traditional marriages are guaranteed, including being added to employer-provided health insurance policies. That, to me, makes perfect sense. We, as a country, are concerned about the

Courtesy of NY Daily News

increasing numbers of the uninsured. And yes, I realize allowing gays the rights to a legal marriage will not solve this; however, you have to admit, it does smack of double standards. And then there are those who believe adoptions between same sex partners will result in a generation of morally bankrupt children. Honestly, I’m more concerned about the kids who are growing up in homes with their biological parents and who are breathing in the toxins from the meth being cooked in the next room. That’s my idea of a real problem. This, as well as a million more “arguments within the battle” will continue probably until the end of time.

Aside from the economic and legal aspects, the most vocal opposers are often the ones who want to ensure everyone’s safe transport into Heaven. I get it. But I also get that I’m not on this earth to ensure anyone’s happiness or choices are on solid foundations. Again, this goes back to my having a full plate with my own justifications regarding my own life. I have no idea what it’s like to be gay in America, or a convicted felon or a drug addict. In fact, I have a pretty easy life, but I’m also not one to be bothered with other people’s thoughts about me.

If Brad Pitt, or anyone else for that matter, feels as though financial contributions will help get a point across, so be it. Personally, I would’ve sunk a hundred grand into something else, but not because I have a problem with what he chose. His money, his contribution, right? I think I’d have probably been a bit selfish if I had money that wasn’t earmarked for such whimsical and luxurious indulgences like the power bill or the Visa statement.

There’s no easy answer and my guess is the elections in November are going to be interesting not only because of the colorful Presidential candidates, but because of issues such as gay marriages on the California ballots. We all know Brad Pitt rules the movie screen, we’re about to find out if he rules or even has an affect on the ballot boxes.