Home  B. John Burns Blog
|
|
B. John Burns is Back - In Blog |
|
 It has been eight years and two months since I've written for the state
public defenders. A lot of things have changed. I was able to say goodbye
to Bill Wegman, who was my good friend in the beginning of my career and in
the end (but then there were those tumultuous 90s). We all bid goodbye to
my old boss, John Wellman, over a period of a year or so -- although it
sometimes seemed he would never stop battling back.
I never did have a chance to say goodbye to my earlier boss, Linda Del Gallo, at the Appellate Defenders Office. I tried to call her on her last day, to congratulate her on her retirement. When I called at 10:30 that morning, she hadn't come in yet. I tried again over the noon hour, but she had left for the day.
I remember when I was in the state system and we talked about how public defenders seemed to be locked out of the judiciary. See how that's changed. I'm certain to leave someone out, but we have Karl Briner, Stephen Clarke, Nathan Callahan and Joe Sevcik in the First District, Kim Riley in the Second District, Jeff Neary, Mary Sokolovske and Todd Hensley in the Third District, James Heckerman and Greg Steensland in the Fourth District, Scott Rosenberg, Doug Staskal and Joe Smith in the Fifth District, Pat Grady, Amanda Potterfield, Fae Hoover-Grinde, Jill Ableidinger and Dave Grinde in the Sixth District, Christine Dalton and J.E. Tobey in the Seventh District, and John Linn, Gary Noneman in the Eighth Circuit. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
By B John Burns
August 27, 2010
Unfortunately, it’s not a rare occasion for any of us when a client takes the stand and “defends” himself or herself with logic such as “That cop’s a liar. I couldn’t have been holding a gun in my left hand. I was holding it in my right hand.”
I don’t think I’ve met Clovis Bowles, an attorney from the Waterloo area. By his own admission, Clovis has made some bonehead mistakes. I’m sure there are people out there who can say they never make bonehead mistakes. I’m not one of them, so I won’t judge Clovis Bowles.
Except for one thing. And this is for everybody. When the Des Moines Register hops on an ethics investigation and starts revealing some details that a lot of people would find embarrassing, DON’T COMPOUND IT BY RESPONDING IN THE MEDIA.
When things end up going the wrong way in their cases, a lot of our clients tell us, “I hate to have to do this, but I’m going to the media.” Almost a hundred percent of the ones who say this are ones who SHOULDN’T go to the media. Clovis falls within that set.
I’m not going into most of the details. I was surprised a little that this was even in the Register, since it involved a decision of the grievance commission, and not the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court’s decision is the final one, that’s the one that usually gets reported. But the commission has recommended that Mr. Bowles’ license be suspended for three years for having an inappropriate relationship with a client, who happened also to have some mental health problems. |
|
Read more...
|
|
By B John Burns
August 23, 2010
Did you see Bob Vander Plaats’ essay in this Sunday’s Register about voting out our Supreme Court justices?
Atop the list of the many labels you could assign to Bob Vander Plaats, he is definitely an extremist. Now, I don’t know if I’m an extremist or not, and Bob Vander Plaats may not realize that he is one. Maybe, by surrounding himself with like-minded associates, he honestly believes that his brand of thinking is mainstream, but it’s not. Perhaps the majority of voters find themselves at some point in time agreeing with some of his rhetoric. But he’s definitely an extremist. He’s way out there, and the people who are as extreme as he is are a small minority.
Now he’s talking about why We the People should get to vote on who gets to be married in Iowa. Our Supreme Court has ruled that, under our State Constitution, that’s one of the rights that we don’t vote on. It’s one area where our Constitution protects the minority from the majority. Bob doesn’t understand that. Bob wants us to vote out all the justices who participated in the unanimous decision in Varnum v. Brien, and force the Governor to keep appointing new justices until we get a Court willing to bow to public pressure.
Such arguments are not unattractive. I’ve had thoughts like that myself. For example, if it was something I could vote on, I would vote that people like Bob Vander Plaats’ not have the ability to spew their ugly opinions in my Sunday Register. I would vote that Bob Vander Plaats not be permitted to appear on television or to speak in public buildings until he changes the content of his rhetoric. I don’t want to hear it. I would vote to have Bob Vander Plaats deported to Australia or someplace like that.
If it was something we could vote on, I think we could muster more than enough votes to accomplish those goals.
But it’s not something we get to vote on, because our Constitution gives extremists like Bob Vander Plaats the right to have their misguided opinions, and even to express them publicly. The guy even ran for Governor.
So, if I have to open my Register on a Sunday, and look at HIS face, and read HIS drivel, why should he complain about what two men or two women are doing across town, far out of his line of sight? |
|
|
B John Burns
July 30, 2010
In a way, it’s a good thing that Justice Baker did not simply come out and find that counsel was ineffective in today’s decision in State v. Fountain. As you know, I’ve been very critical in the past of the Court proclaiming defense attorneys ineffective for failure to object to what essentially was the law at the time they brought their cases to trial, especially in cases where one could envision a reasonable strategic reason for not objecting.
One such decision was State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2003). Graves’ lawyer was branded ineffective in a published Supreme Court decision for not objecting when the prosecutor (1) called Graves a liar in closing arguments, and (2) asked Graves on cross-examination whether a police officer was lying when the officer testified inconsistently with him. Trial counsel never had an opportunity to respond, despite the fact that (1) at the time of Graves’ trial, neither of the objected practices (especially the cross-examination question) had been disapproved by the Supreme Court, and (2) I could imagine several very potent strategic reasons not to object to them. If the prosecutor asks my client, “Is the cop lying when he testifies against you,” and my client answers, “Absolutely,” there is always the outside chance that the jury is going to believe my client. Why SHOULD I object? Maybe the jury LIKES my client, and when the prosecutor calls him a liar it hurts the prosecutor more than it hurts the client. |
|
Read more...
|
|
By B John Burns
July 28, 2010
In Federal court, there’s nothing more exciting than realizing that there is a split among the jurisdictions in resolving a particular issue of law that we are fighting about in one of our cases. Our Supreme Court takes an interest in cases raising issues that have been resolved differently by different circuits. If we lose a ruling on an issue upon which we might have won in another circuit, we say that case is our “ticket to Washington.”
So imagine who Aaron Hamrock and Rich Bartolomei must have felt when a judge in Dallas County and a judge in Hamilton County came down differently on the question of whether a law enforcement request for a chemical sample in an OWI case, in which the officer presents our client with a computer screen and has him or her sign the consent or refusal on the screen using a stylus, satisfies the Iowa Code § 321J.6 request that the request be “written.” Seeing that the cases were coming up at the same time, I’m sure both Aaron and Rich saw them as their “tickets to Des Moines” (although both attorneys reside in the Des Moines area).
Our Supreme Court resolved the split last Friday, and not in a manner beneficial to Aaron or Rich or their clients. In State v. Fischer (Rich’s case), Justice Cady held that, because Iowa Code § 4.1(39) (the chapter on statutory construction) provides that the terms “written” and “in writing” include “an electronic record,” a request made on a computer screen is a written request. Oh well.
The other thing that struck me about the Fisher opinion is that Justice Cady cites Rachel Hjelmaas. Rachel was my sister in arms from the Appellate Defender days. Now she’s with the Legislative Service Bureau. In 2007 she wrote a nice piece about the history of OWI law in Iowa, and Justice Cady mentions it in his opinion. From personal experience, I know that Rachel will now sell many more copies of her piece now that it’s been cited in a published Iowa Supreme Court opinion. |
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 5 of 224 |
|
|
Criminal Procedure 4A
By B.John Burns This reference offers a comprehensive analysis of Iowa criminal procedure. It analyzes criminal procedure, including pre-trial, trial, sentencing, and post-conviction procedure. Provides a comprehensive manual covering all procedural aspects of an Iowa criminal case, from the time you are first engaged to represent a suspected or charged individual, through the final steps of a criminal appeal or state or federal post conviction relief proceeding. Separate divisions review evidentiary issues in criminal trials, constitutional provisions affecting criminal cases, and the representation of inmates in prison litigation.  
Buy Book
Who's Online
We have 10 guests and 1 member online
|
