Judge Orders Removal of Cross From Veteran's Memorial

Last week, I posted a story about a Satanist group that intends to erect a monument near a monument of the Ten Commandments in Oklahoma City. For those interested in church and state issues, the case of the cross on top of Mt. Soledad in La Jolla, California, might be of interest. The cross was erected in 1954. In 2006, the federal government took the property and everything on it, including the cross, through the power of eminent domain. Thereafter, the cross was declared a national war memorial. No doubt many veterans appreciated it.


But, in 2006, after the cross was declared a national memorial, the cross was challenged in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America and various local residents. In 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the cross violated the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case in 2012, kicking it back down to the 9th Circuit, which ordered the cross removed.


I suppose this illustrates the point that those tempted to blame the issue on the Satanists in the case in Oklahoma should consider that other religions may object just as well to apparent government entanglement or endorsement of one religion. It personally doesn't bother me to see religious symbols of any kind in public places. I do recognize, however, that there are many who want a completely secular society. Certainly, the framers specifically prohibited entanglement and endorsement of religion by the state. It is just as certain that the Supreme Court of the United States will never be done interpreting what exactly those two words mean.

What a Tangled Web We Weave

When first we practice to deceive....  The AP reports that a private group in Oklahoma City paid to have a monument made.  Said monument is a large stone on which the Ten Commandments are etched.  While privately funded, the monument was placed adjacent to the steps of the Statehouse.  This was done in order to educate and remind the populace of the "judeo-Christian history" of the area.

Problem is, while one might make the assumption that the area has been primarily populated by those of the Judeo-Christian faith, the idea that the area's history is owed to such faith is quite a leap.  No doubt there are many in the area of other faiths and indeed probably many that have no faith in anything at all.  Doubtless this is why the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit.  But this classic fight over First Amendment rights does not end there.

Enter the Satanic Temple of New York.  The Satanists want a monument too.  Right next to the Ten Commandments.  The argument is, of course, that in order to avoid the peril of government entanglement with or endorsement of religion, those who allowed the Christian monument to be installed must also permit other faiths to do the same.  Before you laugh out loud or get pissed, ask yourself this question.  If one were to replace the Satanists in this scenario with, say, a Jewish group - would you buy the argument?  And before you blame the Satanists, consider that they are simply taking advantage of an opportunity.  Those who erected the Ten Commandments monument started this mess by blindly assuming that everyone in the area would either 1)approve of the monument or 2)accept that the majority rules.

At any rate, it will be an interesting case.  I wouldn't mind reading the arguments, although I wonder whether the Christian funders will voluntarily pull their monument, rather than allowing the Satanists to cramp their style.

The Time Has Come for Delayed Reporting Laws

A child gone missing is always a tragic event.  So what is one to think of the apparent increase in the number of cases in which parents do not immediately report a child missing?  It is difficult to really say whether these cases have become more frequent.  This is not an area for which statistics are kept.  Likely, there have always been a few cases each year, although I can't prove it.  Whether there has been an increase or not, clearly the media has increased its coverage of such cases, especially since the sensational case of Casey Anthony in Florida.  The case was media ready.  The young, attractive mother didn't report her baby missing for thirty-one days, calling emergency services only after her mother confronted her about the whereabouts of the child.  A car trunk with the smell of decomposition.  The mother that tells five thousand lies to police - and is found not guilty.  The networks could ask for nothing more than this pre-made media darling. 

Of course, after evaluating the ratings fest that was the Casey Anthony case, the media is hoping for a repeat.  Now seemingly every case where a parent waits to report to the police gets reported by the media.  Presently, there is the case of nine-month old Levon Wameling.  Levon has been missing since May 29, 2013 and was allegedly last seen by his father, Jevon..   Jevon Wameling claims that he got locked out of the house, left Levon on the front steps while he went around back and when he opened the front door, Levon was gone.  Problem is, Mr. Wameling waited until June 11th to report Levon missing, doing so only after his parents implored him to do so.  Community searches have been organized but there has been no sign of Levon thus far.  Mr. Wameling has not been named as a suspect and has retained an attorney, which is not only his right, but a very good idea indeed.

The media is also covering the case of eighteen-month old Elaina Steinfurth of Toledo, Ohio.  Elaina went missing on June 2, 2013.  Her mother, Angela Steinfurth, has been arrested for child endangerment.  Ms. Steinfurth allegedly told police that she last saw Elaina at her ex-boyfriend's home on the morning of June 2nd, when she noticed Elaina had a black eye and bloody nose.  She did not get the child medical attention and instead left the child with her ex-boyfriend, Steven King II.  Thus the child endangerment charges.  Apparently, the exact time the child went missing is not known, as the mother did not report that the child missing until after the father, T.J. Steinfurth, attempted to pick up the child for visitation.  Mr. Steinfurth was told he could take the couple's four year old, but not Elaina.  After much stalling, the mother finally admitted that Elaina was missing.  Nothing is known by the media regarding the child's whereabouts after that morning, although there have been several searches at the Maumee River, on the bank of which a diaper was reportedly found. 

I will not speculate at this time about the fate of these children.  It is clear, however, that the most important time in an investigation is within the first forty-eight hours.  Even under the best case scenario, where the parents are not involved in these crimes, any delay in investigation greatly decreases the chances that investigators will find the missing.  There is no rational reason that a parent would delay reporting a child missing.  None.  This is why the parents are under such heightened scrutiny by both police and the media.

The scrutiny given these cases by the media should result in more than just increased ratings for the networks.  Any result short of a change in the law would be entirely unsatisfactory.  First and foremost, the children must be recovered if at all possible.  But regardless of individual outcomes, we should push hard for new laws that make failure to report a missing child within a reasonable time a felony. First, the law would deter delay.  Additionally, in those cases where a parent is involved somehow in the disappearance, a law making delay a felony will allow authorities to charge parents even where the parent has done a thorough job of destroying any trace of what became of her child.  I am not usually a punishment only proponent.  But at the juncture where a child is gone forever and but for the parent's behavior the child might have been found, I see no alternative.

The Amorality of Texas: The Ezekiel Gilbert Case

On Christmas Eve 2009, a Bexar County, Texas resident was bored.  Ezekiel Gilbert, to assuage his boredom, decided to peruse the classified adult ads on Craigslist and hire himself an escort.  The escort, 23-year-old Lenora Ivie Frago, met Gilbert, who paid her $150 for one half hour of her time.  Apparently, Gilbert believed that "time" meant "sexual intercourse."  Frago, on the other hand, thought "time" meant "time."

At the end of the half hour, Frago got up to leave.  Gilbert informed her driver that he wanted his money back because Frago had not had sex with him as expected.  The driver informed Gilbert that sex was not included in the price and began to drive away.  Gilbert got pissed.  He shot four rounds at the vehicle, striking Frago in the back of the neck and paralyzing her.  After seven long, agonizing months, Frago succumbed to her injuries and died.  Gilbert was charged with murder.

This week, Gilbert was ACQUITTED.  That's right - the jury sent him home.  Texas has an incredibly broad statute allowing the use of deadly force.  The statute allows deadly force to prevent such acts as "the imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime."  Holy &*%^.

Gilbert's attorney argued that Frago, by taking the money and not providing sex, committed both  "theft during the nighttime" and "criminal mischief during the nighttime."  Clearly the first problem in this case is the broadness of the statute.  Most states do not allow deadly force for the defense of property.  Texas and Florida are two notable exceptions.  But read literally, this statute would allow, not only the present situation, but shootings in situations involving shoplifting, minor vandalism, throwing rocks at cars, etc.  It is difficult to imagine how we got to this place. In the historic sense of the law, deadly force is only justifiable in response to actual imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.  Here, it has been extended to transgressions which could, in the everyday sense, be considered childish.  Additionally, as the prosecution argued, it defies the spirit of the law to include criminal activity under the protection of the statute.  Gilbert essentially killed Frago for not engaging in illegal activity with him. 

Most commentators on the ridiculousness of this case have focused on the illegality of the activity which Gilbert proposed Frago owed him.  But I don't blame the law alone.  Certainly, if the law were different, the outcome may have been different.  But the jury is to blame for buying into an argument that was sexist at its core.  Jurors are told to follow the law, but they are also told to bring their common sense into the jury room with them.  Apparently, this jury's common sense included enough prejudice toward women that they believed the argument that not providing illegal sex was, in fact, "theft" or "criminal mischief."  Unbelievable but true.  Would the case have had the same outcome if Gilbert had been a woman and had shot a male escort whom she "believed" was obligated to have sex with him?  Likely not.  Would the case have had the same result if the theft had been five dollars taken off the dresser of a neighbor?  Maybe.  The point is:  this case illustrates two amoral viewpoints apparently held by at least some Texans today.  First, that it is okay to take a life for the sake of property and second, that women who don't have sex under contract are "thieves."

According to Noel Brinkerhoff of AllGov.com, Ezekiel Gilbert had a press conference after his acquittal.  He stated "I sincerely regret the loss of the life of Ms. Frago.  I've been in a mental prison the past four years of my life."  Well, Mr. Gilbert, that is what you should feel after you murder someone in cold blood.  And your mental prison should have turned into a physical one.  Thank your lucky stars you live in Texas.

Just Keepin it Real
HKB

SCOTUS King Decision Opens Dangerous Door

Those who follow the Supreme Court no doubt noticed that SCOTUS released its decision this week in the case of Maryland v. King 569 U.S. _____(2013). By a margin of 5-4, the Court held that officers, upon making an arrest for a serious offense, may take and analyze DNA taken through a cheek swab as part of their booking procedure.  Such a procedure, they say, is akin to a fingerprint or "mugshot" photograph and is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Many on the side of "law and order" will no doubt laud this decision as a common sense victory for law enforcement.  Problem is, there is nothing common sense about it.

Alonzo King was arrested in Maryland for pulling a gun on some people in 2009.  Pursuant to a Maryland law that allows police to collect a DNA from the cheeks of those arrested for "serious offenses," King's DNA was collected.  While King awaited the adjudication of the gun case, his DNA was run through CODIS, the Combined DNA Index System, which contains the combined records of DNA laboratories from the local through the state level.  King's DNA matched a DNA sample taken in an unsolved 2003 rape case.  He was charged with the rape and convicted. 

The Court rests its decision on the rationale that the DNA is taken for identification purposes only - not for investigative purposes.   Suspects lie about their identity all the time, so says the Court.  While fingerprinting is a more than sufficient means to identify someone, then DNA identification is even better.  Nothing is more accurate at identifying a person than DNA, after all. And since the search is being done for identification, no particularized suspicion based on probable cause is required.  And neither is a warrant.  And so we have our newest exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Certainly, history is full of cases in which SCOTUS has carved out reasonable exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.  Terry stops and airport searches, for example, are allowed for safety reasons.  drunk driving checkpoints are allowed as well, and serve to both identify those who are in violation of the law and to deter such violations.  These types of exceptions to the Fourth Amendment are termed "special needs" searches.  The Court, until now, has been very careful in carving out these narrow exceptions.  However, until King, the Court had not indicated a willingness to approve searches "whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing."  Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 38 (2000).

The majority's assertion in King that DNA swabbing is akin to other non-investigatory booking procedures and special needs searches defies reality.  Just how much, is reflected in the strange and almost unheard of alliance formed between Justices Scalia, considered by many to be the most conservative member of the Court, and Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, the Court's clear liberals.  This particular alliance is so unusual that when I first learned of it I thought the earth's poles must have shifted.  To his credit, Scalia does an excellent job in his dissenting opinion in disassembling the majority's assertion regarding the purpose of the DNA collection, exposing the only truly logical reason to collect DNA - investigation.

So what if the DNA is used for investigation, one might say.  "I'm never going to be arrested for a "serious offense!"  "I haven't done anything to have to worry about the police getting their hands on my DNA," many might say. 

But there are some practical problems with the decision in the first instance.  The Court claims that, if a person is ultimately acquitted of the offense for which they were charged, the DNA will be erased from the system.  Anyone with experience in criminal expungements can tell you that what the State says it erases and what it actually erases are two very different things.  Second, what are the limitations on the decision.  Is it limited to only "serious offenses" (whatever the heck that means)? Police take fingerprints for misdemeanor arrests as well.  If DNA swabbing is no different than a fingerprint, why not take DNA for misdemeanor offenders as well? 

Aside from the practical issues presented by the decision, the decision's major flaw and danger is that it is intellectually dishonest.  There is nothing I despise more than intellectual dishonesty.  Don't try to sell me a bad thing and try to make it look like a godsend.  The problem with intellectual dishonesty is that it signals a willingness to reach a desired result by tinkering with logic.  The Court, instead of simply saying that it wishes to give law enforcement an additional tool, Constitution-be-damned, the Court pretends that the exception is constitutionally permissible. 

This willingness to be dishonest should concern every law abiding citizen.  Because THE COURT MAY NOT STOP THERE.  If they are willing to defy logic in this case, what happens when law enforcement finds another unconstitutional but awfully handy tool?  I have to admit, the opinion is even more surprising, considering this is the same court that said the police could not trail suspects via electronic GPS for an extended period of time.  They also said that police may not enter a home without a warrant simply because a K-9 officer at the threshold of a home alerts to the presence of narcotics. 

So while our homes are still somewhat protected from warrantless searches, our bodies, apparently, are not.  SCOTUS has opened a very large door to a scary, dark place.  Court precedents tend to lead to Court trajectories.  And the Court's willingness to eliminate the warrant requirement in this instance may very well be the beginning of the end of the Fourth Amendment.  Let us not forget that the Fourth Amendment is there to protect everyone - not just the guilty.

Just Keepin in Real.
HKB

Three Missing Women: Thousands of Missing Men

This winter in Minnesota seemed longer than usual. The two prior winters brought above average temperatures, and we seemed to forget what winter was really like, for one.  But this winter seemed longer as well because three Minnesota families were waiting and wondering "where are our daughters?"  In its truest sense, winter is a cold, dark season.  Time seems to slow.  Perhaps nothing makes time slow more than missing a loved one.  And when that loved one is very possibly dead and waiting to be found under feet of hard Minnesota snow, the wait can only be excruciating.

I was a domestic violence survivor advocate years ago and I know that women are hurt and killed by those that claim to love them all the time.  Every few years, a news story comes around that reminds people of the tragic and deadly consequences of domestic violence.  This year is one such year.  But most cycles bring one high-profile case. This winter alone brought three. The disappearances and deaths of Kira Steger, Danielle Jelinek and Mandy Matula are not just tragedies for their families.  They are a tragedy for Minnesota. 

For those of you not familiar with these cases, Kira Steger disappeared on February 21, 2013 after a dinner with her husband.  Even as her family searched for her, Jeffrey Trevino, Kira's husband was arrested and charged with second degree murder.  After an exhaustive search, Kira's remains were discovered floating in the Mississippi River by a barge worker on May 8th.  Jeffrey Trevino's trial has been set for July 22nd.

UPDATE:  On October 3, 2013, after seventeen hours of deliberation, Jeffrey Trevino was found guilty of second degree murder without intent.  He was found not guilty of second degree murder with intent.  He did not take the stand in his own defense during the trial, but his attorney, John Conard, argued that someone else may have killed Kira; possibly someone she went to purchase drugs from, since a small amount of marijuana was found in her car.  The Honorable Leonardo Castro sentenced Trevino to 27 1/2 years in prison in November.  Kira was buried the same day that Mandy Matula's (below) body was found.

Danielle Jelinek, a twenty-seven year old Oakdale woman, disappeared on December 8th.  It is believed that Aaron Schnagl, an ex-boyfriend visited infrequently by Jelinek, was involved in her disappearance.  Her body was found in a marsh approximately three hundred feet from Schnagl's home on May 13, 2013.  Schnagl has been in jail on unrelated drug charges since before her body was discovered and is not cooperating with police.

UPDATE:  Aaron Schnagl has been charged with third degree unintentional murder in the death of Danielle Jelinek.  Prosecutors say that Schnagl caused Jelinek's death by providing her with cocaine, a type of prosecution that is becoming increasingly common in Minnesota.  Jelinek was already in custody on a previous charge and his attorney, Rachael Golderberger, says that her client maintains he had nothing to do with her death.

Mandy Matula, 24, was last seen with her ex-boyfriend David Roe on May 2, 2013.  She did not arrive to work the day after being seen with Roe.  Roe agreed to speak with police regarding his contact with Matula, but shot himself in the parking lot of the Eden Prairie Police Department.  He died the next day.  While Mandy's blood was found on Roe's jacket, she has not yet been found.  Thousands, including Kira Steger's family, continue to search for her.

UPDATE:  Mandy Matula's remains were finally found on October 27, 2013 in a wooded area Northwest of the Twin Cities in Stearns County, MN.  The remains were stumbled upon by a hiker.  The family had searched the area several times before, but because the remains were buried, they were missed.  The Matula was finally able to say goodbye to Mandy after spending so many months searching for her.  

The cluster of these cases is striking.  So too is the fact that they are but a few of many.

For all its preaching against domestic violence, our state has not put its money where its mouth is.  Such is the case with most problems.  But a person arrested for assault on a stranger faces a likely jail sentence.  Hurt a person you claim to love, on the other hand, and it's "anger management" for you.  Let's get something straight.  Domestic violence is not about anger. It is about control through violence.  People get angry all the time.  Only at home do they get to sock someone in the face and get away with it.

I've heard all the excuses from law enforcement for not following through on domestic violence cases.  First and foremost is that "the victim won't cooperate."  Last time I checked, all types of crimes are prosecuted without the victim.  When a person is murdered, while the body may yield evidence for the jury, the victim sure as hell isn't there to verbalize what happened.  Their absence doesn't stop the police from collecting all the evidence at the scene or the district attorney from presenting it.  The scene is always the best witness.  Why are domestic assault cases any different? 

Minnesota has some pretty strong statutes against domestic violence. At the same time, what a statute says and whether it is enforced are two very different issues.  When the criminal justice system doesn't prosecute cases of domestic violence, it sends the message to men that their behavior isn't really that bad.  It also sends the message to women that there really is no point in speaking up - because no one is going to protect them anyway.  I realize that the criminal justice system is already bogged down with cases.  Prosecutors and public defender offices are under-staffed and under-funded.  But, given the stakes involved with cases of domestic violence, intervening early and often must become a priority.  If it does not, we will have more Kiras, Danielles and Mandys.  Because without early intervention, these cases too often turn into homicides. 

Below are some recommendations for prosecutors and judges.

Jail time is not always the most effective means to achieve crime control, apart from keeping any particular offender off the street for a set period of time.  For example, sentence a burglar to six months in jail and the result is that that particular burglar won't burgle for six months.  The next burglar, however, well...lock your doors.  Certainly domestic violence offenders are no different.  Jail alone will not fix the problem.  However, some jail time sends the message that the crime of domestic violence is just as important to society at large as other crime.  It also keeps the victim safe as long as the offender is incarcerated.  This may afford the victim just the amount of time she needs to take action for her long term safety.  Additionally, sentencing offenders to supervised probation with strong conditions can ensure accountability.  Offenders should never be sentenced to complete "anger management."  As I said earlier, anger is not the problem.  Offenders must address family of origin issues, deeply help views and stereotypes of gender roles and the impact of violence on the other partner and children.  This type of intervention is best achieved through court ordered participation in groups specifically designed to help batterers.  Not only should the offender be required to complete such a program, but regular progress reports and check-ins, akin to what currently occurs in the drug court system, should be required. 

A particular challenge when dealing with domestic violence offenders is the often co-occurring issue of chemical dependency.  Chemical dependency is an AXIS I issue and is best dealt with before any batterer's program can intervene.  Therefore, any offender who is under the influence of alcohol and drugs at the time of the charged incident should be ordered to a Rule 25 (chemical dependency) evaluation and to treatment if appropriate.  After treatment, the offender may be better prepared to participate in a court ordered batterer's program.  While these programs may be ordered simultaneously, it is likely that, until the issue of chemical dependency is addressed, batterer intervention will be unsuccessful.

I don't want to be overly negative.  There has been progress in some parts of the Minnesota.  When I was an advocate in the nineties, I developed a method for tracking the fifty most frequently arrested offenders in the City of Minneapolis.  The hope was that the list would assist the prosecutor's office in targeting such offenders for prosecution.  I honestly am not certain whether the system is still in use.  However, in 2008 the City of Minneapolis launched a pilot program called the "Minneapolis Model."  The implementation of the Minneapolis Model led to a fifty percent increase in the misdemeanor conviction rate for domestic violence in the city between 2005 and 2010.

The Model involves collaboration between the City Attorney’s Office, the Police Department, the Domestic Abuse Project (my former employer), Casa de Esperanza and Asian Women United of Minnesota.  The City Attorney’s Office and the Police Department began collecting more evidence and evidence of a better quality when responding to domestic violence calls.

The affect of efforts made in Minneapolis have been dramatic and other municipalities would do well to emulate them.  According to the city's website, the pilot program was first implemented in the city's 5th precinct. After implementation, the conviction rate in the 5th precinct increased from 54.4 percent to 77.1 percent, bringing the total rate of convictions to 76 percent. This equates to one hundred forty one total convictions in the 5th precinct for 2008.  Because the program was so successful in the 5th precinct, the program was expanded to the four remaining precincts in the city over the next two years, resulting in an increased conviction rate in each.

Below is a list outlining conviction rate increases achieved due to the program.

5^th Precinct - 54.4 percent 77.1 percent
3^rd Precinct - 65.8 percent 73.9 percent
4^th Precinct - 58.1 percent 71.5 percent
2^nd Precinct  - 71.5 percent 84.7 percent
1^st Precinct - 70.8 percent 78.1 percent

The new investigation protocol included increased training for officers on the dynamics of domestic abuse.  It also focused on investigation techniques. Upon responding to a call, officers were asked to document defendant statements, get signed medical waivers from victims. Officers were also trained to ascertain whether there are firearms in the home, document evidence through photographs, collect  physical evidence, and obtain witness statements. Interestingly, the city reported a drop in the number of police calls from each precinct after the protocol was introduced.  Whether this drop in calls is related to an actual decrease in the number of domestic violence incidents is yet to be seen, but Minneapolis continues to collect and analyze data in order to improve not only police response, but prosecution rates as well.

So why isn't this model being followed everywhere?  Good question.  Whether the answer has to do with budgets and staffing, or attitudes and perceptions may differ depending on the jurisdiction.  Likely there is no good reason not to try it.  Perhaps those jurisdictions that have not considered it would be more inclined to do so if the public perception of domestic violence were to shift away from that of it being a "family problem" or "anger problem" toward what it truly is - a crime of violence motivated by power and control.  But shifting these attitudes is a far more difficult problem than even that of changing how the justice system responds.  To effectively shift perceptions requires understanding about where faulty perceptions are born.

Some questions that I cannot answer, but to which the answers are critical include: what gender stereotypes are taught to men about gender roles and the role of women in the family, how do men develop their perception of male power and privilege or lack thereof; and how do we as a society encourage men to support healthy behavior in relationships instead of reinforcing already disturbing attitudes toward women?  These are difficult questions because it truly is only men who know what it is to be men.  Women have always been the leaders in the anti-domestic violence movement.  No substantial lasting change can be made for the position of women in society without the co-leadership and effort of men.

Please do not misinterpret my focus on this topic as man-hating.  I am an egalitarian.  I have always been a defender of men.  My father was an example of a dedicated husband and father. In fact, he had a lot to do with teaching his girls to be strong, just as women have a lot to do with teaching boys to be strong.  But just as I could never teach my stepsons what it is to be men, my father could never teach me what it is to be a woman.  And when battering as a battle for power and control, a man certainly isn't going to look to the one to whom he tries to control for advice. 

So, before the law ever comes into play, there must be men who teach boys not to harm those they love.  This means first that men must be present.  Being present requires men to abandon the attitude that being a father means sperm donation.  It also means that women must abandon the idea that all men are pigs and we should be able to be all things to all people at all times.  Within the realm of family, men need to stop running away and women need to stop pretending men are irrelevant.   

Regardless of how women navigate their own gender roles, the men of this nation need a massive attitude adjustment.  I happen to be a woman who hangs out with mostly men (tomboy that I am). I have overheard at least several thousand conversations between men in my lifetime.  I have seen them at ease in social situations, in therapy groups and in court. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a man complain about his girlfriend or wife as though she were the worst thing that ever happened to him.  One might think that, were it not for her, he would have been guaranteed success.  Yet for some reason, he's still with her.  And he seems to be unable to see how many times she has saved his ass from himself.  Men who arm themselves with the attitude that women are generally out to get them are one bad day and an excuse away from becoming potential batterers.  The excuses for violence are many:

"She wouldn't leave me alone.  She just bitched and bitched and bitched."
"She wouldn't listen."
"She was acting like my mother."
"I was abused as a child and I just don't know how to control it."

Blah, blah, blah.

Excuse me one minute.  Imagine a scenario where you are sitting with a group of your buddies.  A debate starts up about (insert whatever here).  One of your male buddies feels particularly passionate about (whatever).  Said buddy stands up, starts waving his arms around as you tell him he is just plain wrong about (whatever).  You feel yourself getting angrier and angrier.  What do you do?  I'll tell you what you don't do.  You don't grab him by the neck and knock his head up against the wall cause he won't shut up.  Because that buddy ain't gonna let you do that and respect you in the morning.  He is also likely to whip your ass in return AND call the cops on you.  When the cops arrive, I bet they slap the handcuffs on you when you say "He wouldn't leave me alone.  He just bitched and bitched and bitched."

Not likely, if for no other reason than that your other buddies would tell you to knock if off before it even escalated so far.  So, when your buddy is sitting there telling you how much he can't stand his wife because she is a bitch - will you be the one to challenge him?  Often, our best friends are those who tell us what we need to hear instead of what we want to hear.  Much of the solution to male animosity toward women can be found in day-to-day conversations between men.  Sometimes telling someone they are screwing up is far more helpful than reinforcing that you "feel their pain."  At the very least, the national conversation about violence toward women must include the voices of more men - not just in the public arena, but in the private arena as well.  I am not going to pretend to have all the answers.  I don't even possess a comprehensive list of all the questions when it comes to this complicated issue.

I do know this.  I didn't know Kira Steger, Danielle Jelinek or Mandy Matula.  I didn't know Jeffrey Trevino, Kira's ex-husband.  Here is what I do know.  I know that I am relieved for Kira and Danielle's families that they may now properly memoralize and grieve their daughters.  I know that I pray everyday that Mandy Matula is soon found so that her family may have the same.  And I know that as the cold winter months stretched on and the searches for Kira, especially, went on but two miles from my house, I sat in my living room disturbed.  Disturbed - that somewhere under the ice, a good woman waited to be found by her family.  Hurt - that the last thing she saw was the man she had tried to love robbing her of her life.  Sad - that I am no different than she.  The only difference between victims of domestic violence and other women is the men in their lives.  And the only difference between a violent and non-violent world is the amount of effort we put into it.


Just Keepin it Real.
HKB

BTW: Below is an (incomplete) list of organizations doing good work in the area of domestic violence:

Domestic Abuse Project
Harriet Tubman 
Minnesota Men's Action Network
The Refuge Network
MN Center Against Violence and Abuse
The Men's Resource Center for Change
Minnesota Deaf Domestic Violence Program

PA v. Gosnell: Why the Media Balked

Some of you may be familiar with the case of PA v. Gosnell, the Pennsylvania abortion provider accused of multiple counts of first degree murder for the deaths of living infants and Karnamaya Mongar, 41. The doctor was found guilty of three counts of first degree murder this week for the deaths of three children.  He was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for Mongar's death. In addition to the murder charges, Gosnell was also found guilty of twenty-one counts of abortion of the unborn where the fetuses were beyond twenty-four weeks gestation.  With the verdict delivered, the case was to proceed to the penalty phase, where jurors consider evidence in mitigation and in aggravation.  Gosnell could have received the death penalty.  But according to CNN, Gosnell agreed today to forgo appeal and the prosecution has agreed to not pursue the death penalty.  But unlike the Jodi Arias trial, you haven't heard wall-to-wall coverage of this gruesome case.  You won't hear all the intimate details of how Gosnell spends money from his commissary account.  And, although you will see some media coverage of the case, you may very well only hear about the result of the penalty phase as it blips across your Twitter feed.

Why?

The case received some media attention when it first broke.  As the trial neared, however, it did not receive as much attention as one might have anticipated.  Media outlets themselves have been engaged in an argument about how much coverage the case has received.  Some have even used it as a battering ram against other media outlets.  My purpose is not to engage in the "who covered it better" debate.  I am more interested in the fact that coverage has been overall light. One might have expected ample coverage because of the sordid and graphic details outlined in the grand jury indictment.  In fact, this writer thinks the indictment is one of the most extraordinary legal documents she has ever read.  The clinic was described as a "hell hole," where women and babies were left to suffer in deplorable conditions.  The case also smelled of racial injustice, as white women were often escorted to a more sanitary upper story room while poor women of color were left to deal with deplorable conditions in the clinic's primary space.  If the allegations laid out in the indictment were found to be true, one could hardly imagine a more suitable monster story for our times.  Surely - surely the media would ride with this one.

But business is the media these days.  Because the media is really just a means for advertisers to entice "consumers," the difficult, real, human issues presented by Gosnell's actions create a real problem for media.  In the board rooms they were probably saying "we really should cover this case so we don't get gigged for ignoring it" while "too much coverage is going to turn viewers off" came out the other side of their mouths.

First, abortion is a hot button political issue and likely always will be.  Pro-choice people have been holding back the line on abortion restrictions since before Roe v. Wade.  Those who identify as "pro-life" at least believe that SCOTUS overstepped their bounds by legalizing abortion.  At most, they would say, any abortion is murder.  I often wonder how many people in this country have actually read one single Supreme Court decision, much less the Roe decision.  But that doesn't change the fact that the clash between the two sides can get uglier than a pig fight during a parade.  Who then, is surprised that this alone is enough to make the media squeamish.

Politics isn't the only reason for their queasiness. There is also the fact that many of Gosnell's victims were low-income women of color.  I would personally think this would make the case more reportable, as it is the type of scandal that can be sensationalized into higher ratings.  But upon further reflection, there are an aweful lot of people in this country who, frankly, just don't care about the poor.  People in poverty only make the news in an "if it bleeds it leads" context.  Rarely does the main stream media cover these cases from beginning to end.  What they tell you is that the crime happened.  They aren't interested in what lead up to the crime or its result. Why should this case be any different, just because it involves multiple victims.  Besides, it might even cause the masses to get all riled up...

The final reason that the Gosnell case hasn't received the coverage it deserves is because, frankly, it's not sexy.  It is, in fact, anti-sexy.  Jodi Arias has a relatively decent looking white girl from every-town America as a defendant.  Her victim, Travis Alexander, was an up-and-coming young man who was butchered in the prime of his life.  Their relationship was rocky.   Bad relationships and crazy exes are something that the average person can relate to.  Added to the fact that Arias seems to enjoy airing all the details of her sexual escapades, and you have the makings of a media darling because death sells, but sex sells better.  Gosnell doesn't appeal to the public's prurient interests.  He is an old man who was doing a job that no one wanted to think about BEFORE he crossed the legal line.  After crossing that line, he became a proverbial boogie-man-in-the-closet.  And real boogie men don't help companies sell yogurt.

Just Keepin it Real.
HKB

Air(ias) Heads

Welcome to Kennedy Cases - the new blog about criminal law authored by, well, me.  Over time you will find a wealth of opinions, links and articles about criminal cases of note, changes in law that are interesting and my opinion of media coverage of criminal cases.  While I practice in Minnesota, I will include plenty of national and high profile cases for your perusal. 

Speaking of high profile cases, I suppose it is almost incumbent upon any good blogger to comment on the rage of the day - the murder trial of Jodi Arias in Maricopa County, Arizona.  Call it what you will - feeding frenzy, sensationalist's dream, or ratings darling.  Whatever you call it, what seems to have been lost is unusual.  The first thing to get lost in the media coverage of a high profile homicide is the victim.  Not so here. After all, there are thousands of people on twitter and elsewhere on the internet that identify themselves as members of "Team Travis."  I can't remember a case since O.J. Simpson where the victim actually receives somewhere near the same amount of media coverage as the defendant, thanks in no small part to the efforts of said victim's family and friends.  God knows the media barely gives them a wink otherwise.

What has been lost in all this coverage is that THIS CASE IS JUST LIKE the thousands of other homicide cases tried in this country every year.  With one exception.  The media noticed that the defendant was messed up in the head.  And because the media noticed her - we noticed her.  Her behavior has, indeed, been bizarre.  But there is one element of the phenomenon after that "noticing" that disturbs me.

Enter defense attorney. Why does the media always use the term "justice" as a term synonymous with "conviction?"  Last time I checked, justice meant following the constitution and making sure the TRUTH comes out.  While I have followed the trial closely and believe that her conviction is warranted, the media's pounding of the term "justice" helps fuel the often misguided public distrust of our justice system.  People in this country are very patriotic, and quick to proclaim it - until a defendant they don't like is put on trial. 

Then people want to kill the defense attorneys for doing their jobs and harass expert witnesses for giving an opinion.  "Justice" is defined by the constitution in this country.  And it's a great constitution.  If a case is lost it is the Prosecutor's fault - NOT the Defense's.  And don't go telling me you want the burden of proof to be on the Defendant.  Unless, that is, you're sure you will never be arrested for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.  If you are on the "side" of the prosecution, then quit your bitching and trust them to do their job. Of course, if they don't do their job (i.e., Jeff Ashton in State of FL vs. Casey Anthony), you can always elect them as your top District Attorney.

Just keeping it real,
HKB