Click here to buy the books

More on page 190

Hand it over, Jack

Jack McCoy has a habit of playing fast and loose with the rules. He also isn’t very fond of disclosure. Back when old Jack was Executive ADA his assistants often had to convince him to disclose favorable evidence to the defense. The lovely ladies weren’t soft-hearted; they were being pragmatic—and practicing safe law.

According to the model rules of professional conduct (and a little old ruling by the Supreme Court), “a prosecutor in a criminal case is duty-bound to make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence known to the prosecutor that supports innocence or mitigates the offense.” In other words, if Jack has evidence that supports Jill’s contention of innocence, he is required by law to hand it over to her defense attorney.
(more…)

More on page 184

Every F–ing Day of My Life Premiers on HBO

EVERY F—ING DAY OF MY LIFE records one woman’s final days of freedom as she prepares to be incarcerated for manslaughter in the death of her abusive husband when the documentary airs tonight, exclusively on HBO.

From Digital Communications:

In the early-morning hours of May 1, 2005, Wendy Maldonado, a mother of four in Grant Pass, Oregon, called 911 in hysterics. “I just killed my husband,” she confessed, adding, “I just want my kids to be safe.” When the operator asked how long her husband had abused her, Maldonado replied, “EVERY F—ING DAY OF MY LIFE.”

EVERY F—ING DAY OF MY LIFE follows Maldonado and her family in the days before she begins serving a ten-year sentence for the crime. Alternately shocking and heartbreaking, the film tells the story of one woman’s fateful decision to make a new life for her and her children at any cost, even her own freedom.
(more…)

More on page 897

Ssshhh…the dishes are listening

The other day I watched an old CSI episode in which Gil & the Gang extracted a conversation from a piece of pottery at a crime scene. I was highly doubtful such a feat was possible. Thankfully, it’s not. (Imagine the embarrassing conversations our pots and pans could reveal.) The guys over at Mythbusters later exposed this bit of gee-wizzardy (officially known as archaeoacoustics) for what it was: junk science. It certainly was inventive though.

Speaking of inventive….spurred on by the inventive scientific techniques and procedures used on shows like CSI, defense attorneys are turning to more unorthodox science (voice spectrograms, ion microprobe mass spectroscopy, for example) in an effort to acquit their clients. At trial, it is up to the judge to rule on whether or not certain scientific evidence can be admitted.

In New York*, an attorney who wishes to introduce new or unfamiliar scientific evidence may request a Frye hearing during which the trial judge determines whether the scientific evidence in question meets accepted standards set by the scientific community. If the scientific evidence is deemed legitimate, the attorney will be allowed to introduce it at trial; if the evidence is deemed unacceptable, the judge may ban it from trial.

The Frye standard was adopted in 1923, after the Supreme Court of the District of Colombia was asked to rule on the admissibility of the results of a lie detector test. The polygraph, as we all know from watching cop shows, didn’t pass muster with the court.

*New York (and Nevada where Gil & the Gang work) still uses the Frye test. However, numerous other states including New Jersey, Texas, and Alaska have replaced Frye with the Daubert Standard.

More on page 891

Law & Order: Special Valentine’s Unit

Crime & Justice Comments (0)

Forget the roses. This Valentine’s Day nothing says “Be mine!” better than one of Brandon Bird’s cool Law & Order-themed cards. Throw in a box of chocolates and a cheeky I ‘Huang’ to be with you t-shirt and you’re good to go.





And if the romance cools, you can always let Fred Thompson break the news to your soon-to-be former flame.





p.s. You can see more of Brandon’s work at brandonbird.com.

Administrator @ February 5, 2010

Great Bastards of History

Crime & Justice Comments (2)



In our True Stories of Law & Order books, Juré and I wrote about some of the biggest bastards in the annals of crime. Now, Juré has moved on to a different type of “bastard”—people burdened with the stigma of being born illegitimately who still managed to put their thumbprint on history. While some of the men and women in her new book seem to have been nice enough bastards, some fit the bill in both senses of the word.

So check out her new book. It’s called Great Bastards of History: True and Riveting Accounts of the Most Famous Illegitimate Children Who Went on the Achieve Greatness and it’s great.

—Kevin Dwyer

Dwyer @ January 15, 2010

Juvenile Justice

Crime & Justice, Law (In No Particular Order) Comments (0)

Truffaut takes us to juvvy in his classic The 400 Blows

In the past decade we’ve heard a lot about juvenile super predators—sociopathic kids that allegedly pose a danger to us all. Of course, there are kids who kill, but they are the exceptions. The reality is that most juvenile offenders commit non-violent misdemeanors such as vandalism, petty theft, and property damage. Most juveniles are tried in juvenile court.

Juvenile courts are now part and parcel of our criminal justice system. But this was not always so. Before the 18th century, juveniles–some as young as seven years old—as were tried in adult criminal courts in the United States. Those juveniles found guilty were given adult sentences.

It wasn’t until 1899 that the first court for juveniles was established. Based in Chicago, Illinois, this juvenile court was inspired by parens patriae—the doctrine that held that the state was responsible for the parenting of any child or individual in need of protection. Gradually, the rest of country followed Illinois’ lead; by 1945, all 50 states had adopted juvenile courts.

The implementation of juvenile courts saved most young offenders from being prosecuted in adult criminal courts. Juveniles who committed especially heinous crimes, or who were thought to be beyond redemption, were transferred to adult courts. The Juvenile Court Act required that the court examine the offender’s record and personal situation before determining where the juvenile should be adjudicated.

Fio @ January 9, 2010