Sex Offender Probation Violations

This week I tried two sex offense probation cases with different results. The critical issue in both cases is what is incidental contact with a minor child. Rule 9 of the special rules of sex offender probation does not define incidental contact with a minor child. according to two probation officers incidental contact is contact with a minor for over 3 seconds. In one case it was a phone call. In the second case the contact was a Kroger's. The bottom line is it is impossible to comply with the terms of probation. Also, some judges don't care about getting defendants treatment because it is easy to violate someone. I hope to post more thoughts on how to survive sex offender treatment in the future.

Marijuana May Soon Fix Budget Crisis

After years of defending marijuana charges and drug charges in Nashville and around Middle Tennessee , I may have to look for a new job. A California lawmaker propose new laws to allow the state to sell marijuana to cure the state's budget crisis. Pot is believed to be California's biggest cash crop. Why let the drug dealers make all the profit and let it fund the budget deficit. In addition to revenue , the lawmaker proposes it will also cut down on teen drug use , cut police costs,and even help environmental concerns. The anti-drug folks are up in smoke(small joke) about collecting any money from the sale of weed while marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

DNA Case Before The Supreme Court

Today , The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about DNA evidence and a rape case settled long ago. The issue is whether a defendant can obtain DNA evidence long after the case was tried. The defendant was convicted for rape years ago. The jury heard evidence from the victim identifying the suspect and DNA evidence which was not as accurate as it is today. The defendant wants to test the DNA under the new technology . However, Alaska refuses to allow him to test the DNA evidence. Thirty-one other states have joined in to support the State of Alaska's position. Interestingly, several victim's rights groups have weighed in support of additionally DNA testing. I heard an interview on NPR this morning that one rape victim who made a positive identification that resulted in a conviction which was later set aside by DNA evidence supported the defendant's request. The argument she made was the victim should know as well. I predict the Supreme court denies his request bases upon the passage of time.