#traffic violation or boring civil case

[iamonlyhereforthefreefood]

I actually kinda want to get picked for a jury now but only if it’s for something cool

[marymosley]

Meet Mary Pollard, the new Director of the Office of Indigent Defense Services

Yesterday, Mary Pollard began work as just the third Executive Director of the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS), which began its work two decades ago in 2000. IDS is the statewide agency responsible for overseeing and enhancing legal representation for indigent defendants and others entitled to counsel under North Carolina law. Over the weekend, before she became deluged with her new responsibilities, Mary graciously agreed to do a quick interview with me. Read on to get to know a little more about her.

Tell us about your legal background.

I went to Wake Forest Law School, and after graduating in 1993 I went to work as an associate attorney at Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice in Winston-Salem and then Raleigh. I did civil litigation—business litigation and products liability. The cases ranged from simple breach of contract cases to patent infringement to complex products liability.

How did you get into indigent defense work?

In 1999, Tye Hunter, who was then the Appellate Defender in North Carolina called me. [Tye Hunter later became IDS’s first executive director, serving from 2000 to 2008.] He had heard that I was interested in working on a death penalty case. I’m still not sure where he heard that. I told him I was wholly unqualified, and he explained in his inimitable way how capital post-conviction litigation was JUST LIKE products liability litigation, with extensive discovery and expert witnesses. I had reservations given that my criminal law experience up to then had consisted of going to traffic court for the children of partners and clients. But, Tye convinced me, and the firm was supportive.

That’s how I got appointed to represent Alan Gell, who was on death row for first-degree murder. I represented him in post-conviction, which resulted in his conviction being overturned, and then worked on his retrial, which resulted in his acquittal of all charges. I liked doing civil litigation and my colleagues at Womble, but I just found this work more fulfilling.

What then?

I left Womble in 2002 and went to work as a staff attorney at the Center for Death Penalty Litigation, where I did capital post-conviction work until 2007. After that, I was self-employed until 2009 when I became the Executive Director of North Carolina Prisoners Legal Services. I was the PLS Director until I took this job.

Was it hard to leave PLS?

Definitely. We did a lot of good work. I’m proud of it. PLS does both criminal and civil work. We recruited and trained lawyers to do post-conviction work and got some amazing results for our clients, including exonerations of wrongfully convicted people. We litigated civil cases about conditions of confinement. We worked on cases to stop sexual abuse of women inmates and a class action under the Americans with Disabilities Act to make sure that inmates with disabilities could earn gain time on an equal footing with other inmates. We also did the important day-to-day work of correcting sentencing errors, including habitual felon sentences. While at PLS, I also had the honor of serving as the President of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice.

What made you consider becoming the IDS Director?

At PLS, we usually represent individuals one case at a time. The thought of being able to make systemic improvements appeals to me—to work on getting attorneys more resources, more funding, and essentially more time to work on their cases.

I look forward to the challenge, the immediate one being moving forward through the pandemic, which poses unique problems for the defense. When are we going to be able to try cases again? What are the alternatives? Will they be fair? The economic impact of the pandemic could also affect funding for indigent defense, which is already too low as it is.

The flip side is that we have an opportunity to make changes that could ease the workload and keep more people out of prisons and jails. So many cases in our criminal justice system are low-level misdemeanors, which can be handled in other ways. Rather than brand people with a conviction and impose collateral consequences, we can save money and reintegrate people better by exploring noncriminal options, such as civil infractions for violations of the law.

What else would you like people to know about you?

I’m pretty boring. I’ve been married 28 years as of last Saturday. My husband is in-house counsel at a large engineering firm. We live in Raleigh in the same house we’ve been in for 11 years. We have two nearly grown children, a son and daughter who are 24 and 21 years old. In my spare time I sit on the front porch and read or knit.

How should people reach you?

I had hoped to hop in the car and come see folks around the state. That isn’t going to happen for a while. So, we will try to set up some smaller virtual meetings. I want to learn about the issues and concerns that the defense community has. In the meantime, you can reach me at Mary.S.Pollard@nccourts.org or the IDS main number, 919.354.7200. I am excited to get started.

The post Meet Mary Pollard, the new Director of the Office of Indigent Defense Services appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law.

Meet Mary Pollard, the new Director of the Office of Indigent Defense Services published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[marymosley]

Meet Mary Pollard, the new Director of the Office of Indigent Defense Services

Yesterday, Mary Pollard began work as just the third Executive Director of the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS), which began its work two decades ago in 2000. IDS is the statewide agency responsible for overseeing and enhancing legal representation for indigent defendants and others entitled to counsel under North Carolina law. Over the weekend, before she became deluged with her new responsibilities, Mary graciously agreed to do a quick interview with me. Read on to get to know a little more about her.

Tell us about your legal background.

I went to Wake Forest Law School, and after graduating in 1993 I went to work as an associate attorney at Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice in Winston-Salem and then Raleigh. I did civil litigation—business litigation and products liability. The cases ranged from simple breach of contract cases to patent infringement to complex products liability.

How did you get into indigent defense work?

In 1999, Tye Hunter, who was then the Appellate Defender in North Carolina called me. [Tye Hunter later became IDS’s first executive director, serving from 2000 to 2008.] He had heard that I was interested in working on a death penalty case. I’m still not sure where he heard that. I told him I was wholly unqualified, and he explained in his inimitable way how capital post-conviction litigation was JUST LIKE products liability litigation, with extensive discovery and expert witnesses. I had reservations given that my criminal law experience up to then had consisted of going to traffic court for the children of partners and clients. But, Tye convinced me, and the firm was supportive.

That’s how I got appointed to represent Alan Gell, who was on death row for first-degree murder. I represented him in post-conviction, which resulted in his conviction being overturned, and then worked on his retrial, which resulted in his acquittal of all charges. I liked doing civil litigation and my colleagues at Womble, but I just found this work more fulfilling.

What then?

I left Womble in 2002 and went to work as a staff attorney at the Center for Death Penalty Litigation, where I did capital post-conviction work until 2007. After that, I was self-employed until 2009 when I became the Executive Director of North Carolina Prisoners Legal Services. I was the PLS Director until I took this job.

Was it hard to leave PLS?

Definitely. We did a lot of good work. I’m proud of it. PLS does both criminal and civil work. We recruited and trained lawyers to do post-conviction work and got some amazing results for our clients, including exonerations of wrongfully convicted people. We litigated civil cases about conditions of confinement. We worked on cases to stop sexual abuse of women inmates and a class action under the Americans with Disabilities Act to make sure that inmates with disabilities could earn gain time on an equal footing with other inmates. We also did the important day-to-day work of correcting sentencing errors, including habitual felon sentences. While at PLS, I also had the honor of serving as the President of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice.

What made you consider becoming the IDS Director?

At PLS, we usually represent individuals one case at a time. The thought of being able to make systemic improvements appeals to me—to work on getting attorneys more resources, more funding, and essentially more time to work on their cases.

I look forward to the challenge, the immediate one being moving forward through the pandemic, which poses unique problems for the defense. When are we going to be able to try cases again? What are the alternatives? Will they be fair? The economic impact of the pandemic could also affect funding for indigent defense, which is already too low as it is.

The flip side is that we have an opportunity to make changes that could ease the workload and keep more people out of prisons and jails. So many cases in our criminal justice system are low-level misdemeanors, which can be handled in other ways. Rather than brand people with a conviction and impose collateral consequences, we can save money and reintegrate people better by exploring noncriminal options, such as civil infractions for violations of the law.

What else would you like people to know about you?

I’m pretty boring. I’ve been married 28 years as of last Saturday. My husband is in-house counsel at a large engineering firm. We live in Raleigh in the same house we’ve been in for 11 years. We have two nearly grown children, a son and daughter who are 24 and 21 years old. In my spare time I sit on the front porch and read or knit.

How should people reach you?

I had hoped to hop in the car and come see folks around the state. That isn’t going to happen for a while. So, we will try to set up some smaller virtual meetings. I want to learn about the issues and concerns that the defense community has. In the meantime, you can reach me at Mary.S.Pollard@nccourts.org or the IDS main number, 919.354.7200. I am excited to get started.

The post Meet Mary Pollard, the new Director of the Office of Indigent Defense Services appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law.

Meet Mary Pollard, the new Director of the Office of Indigent Defense Services published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[marymosley]

When “Awfully Close” Is Just Awful: Nadler Raises Invalid Bribery Theory In Call For Barr Investigation

Fifty years ago, Ford Motor Company started production on the Pinto, a car that was billed as the be-all, end-all for the automotive industry. The only problem was that the car seemed to burst into flames if it hit a mid- to large-sized squirrel. The Pinto’s combustibility did not stop its advocates from pushing its use until it finally was pulled from the roads.

     The Pinto came to mind this week with the reappearance of a poorly conceived product from the legal world: the Trump bribery theory. Various legal experts have insisted President Trump could be prosecuted or impeached under bribery laws, including for his dealings with Ukraine. I have written repeatedly that this theory was discredited by controlling case law, and I testified against its use as an article in the House impeachment hearing last year.  As Ralph Nader once said about the Chevrolet Corvair, this theory is “unsafe at any speed” on Capitol Hill. The decision to pull out this discredited theory of bribery is just the latest example of choosing combustibility over credibility in legal analysis.  The difference is that when unstable automotive products are exposed, they are taken off the road.  Unstable legal products just keep rolling along.

      Despite the support of the three other witnesses at the hearing, the House Judiciary Committee wisely declined to impeach on this facially invalid theory. Some of us thought that the bribery theory was discarded to the junkyard of bad ideas. Yet, late this week, it was back with a vengeance: After hearing the testimony of former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) declared his committee will investigate whether Attorney General William Barr is guilty of bribery, for offering to move Berman from his post in New York to the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.

      The reappearance of the theory followed the implosion of an alternative criminal theory.

      Just a week ago, Barr was being accused of criminal obstruction in seeking to can Berman as the U.S. Attorney in New York’s Southern District, in order to influence investigations affecting Trump friends ranging from Rudy Giuliani to the late Jeffrey Epstein. It did not matter that these investigations have been aggressively pursued under Barr’s tenure.

     The problem is that, when Berman released his written statement to Congress, he did not allege this change was an effort to hamper any investigation. (Notably, on a committee known for leaking information from closed hearing, no such allegation was leaked and no member said that it was made). Instead, Berman said he told Barr that he not want to leave the Southern District of New York because he wanted to see “important investigations … through to completion” and “to help lead the Office through the COVID crisis and get the Office back to normal functioning.”

      Berman said Barr wanted to shift Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton into the Southern District position to accommodate Clayton’s desire to move back to New York. As Barr stated, he offered other positions to Berman that would have been effective promotions.

      There still is no evidence of any effort to hamper Southern District investigations. To the contrary, the Epstein investigation has continued full bore with the extraordinary arrest of Epstein’s close associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Barr has pushed for Britain’s Prince Andrew to give evidence in that case. Barr’s DOJ has pushed to incarcerate Trump’s close friend, Roger Stone, and Barr reportedly opposed Trump’s decision to give presidential clemency to Stonein the form of a commutation. And Barr specifically asked the DOJ’s inspector general to monitor the Southern District office to prevent any interference in its investigations.

      That is when the bribery theory came sputtering back on to the road. Nader announced: “We don’t know yet if the attorney general’s conduct is criminal, but that kind of quid pro quo is awfully close to bribery.” It is not awfully close. Just awful.

      The suggestion is so wildly absurd that it defies belief — unless you have been following the legal analysis of the last three years. A leading proponent has been former prosecutor and Washington Post columnist Randall D. Eliason, who insisted that “allegations of a wrongful quid pro quo are really just another way of saying that there was a bribe … it’s bribery if a quid pro quo is sought with corrupt intent, if the president is not pursuing legitimate U.S. policy but instead is wrongfully demanding actions by Ukraine that would benefit him personally.” Eliason further endorsed the House report and assured that “The legal and factual analysis of bribery and honest services fraud in the House report is exactly right” and “outlines compelling evidence of federal criminal violations.”

      The theory was never “exactly” or even remotely right, as evidenced by the decision not to use it as a basis for impeachment. And yet, it’s back.

      In my testimony, I went into great historical and legal detail to explain why this theory was never credible.  While it was gleefully presented by papers like the Washington Post, it ignored case law that rejected precisely this type of limitless definition of the offense.  As I told the House Judiciary Committee, the Supreme Court has repeatedly narrowed the scope of the statutory definition of bribery, including distinctions with direct relevance to the current controversy in cases like McDonnell v. United States, where the Court overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell. Chief Justice John Roberts eviscerated what he called the “boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” The Court explained the such “boundless interpretations” are inimical to constitutional rights because they deny citizens the notice of what acts are presumptively criminal: “[U]nder the Government’s interpretation, the term ‘official act’ is not defined ‘with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited,’ or ‘in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’”  That is precisely what is being threatened if offering an alternative job to a subordinate in government would constituted bribery.

      I will be repeated the litany of cases the refuted this theory but it did not matter then and it does not matter now to those who believe that the criminal code is endless flexible to meet political agenda.

      It doesn’t even matter that the Supreme Court reaffirmed prior rejections of such broad interpretations in a recent unanimous ruling written by Justice Elena Kagan. In Kelly v. United States, the Supreme Court threw out the convictions in the “Bridgegate” case involving the controversial closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic problems for the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who refused to endorse then-Gov. Chris Christie.

      Yet, Nadler is suggesting that by simply offering Berman alternative positions, Barr was offering a criminal bribe. Keep in mind that Barr’s offer also included the promise to fire Berman if he refused to vacate the position. Barr did not have to bribe Berman to remove him. Barr wanted Berman to remain in the administration but, in the end, the only certainty was that Berman would not be in his current position. Again, imagine if such a choice could be deemed criminal bribery because an offer of an alternative job can be construed as a quid pro quo. That is what the Court meant by the “boundless interpretation” of bribery.

      I have disagreed with Clayton’s nomination to the Southern District, and I also disagreed with the suggested substitution of an acting U.S. Attorney rather than the obviously qualified choice of Audrey Strauss from within the SDNY. However, none of that suggests a crime, let alone bribery. While Berman insisted he could have litigated his removal, he would have lost. While it is true that he was appointed by a court, he — like all U.S. Attorneys — serves at the pleasure of the president. Barr gave him various options, but remaining in his position was not one of those — which is why Barr would say confidently that Berman was stepping down … one way or the other.

      That is why the latest road-test of the bribery theory is a Pinto-like hazard given even the smallest collision with actual law.

  When “Awfully Close” Is Just Awful: Nadler Raises Invalid Bribery Theory In Call For Barr Investigation published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/