In addition to his law practice, Richmond DUI and traffic lawyer Bob Battle has gained international attention for what he does when he is not practicing law- as a professional comedian and actor, as the press box announcer for the Washington Redskins, and even as a model for the tabloid Weekly World News. ("Woman Has Twins by Different Fathers!") As a result, he is in great demand as a speaker- both as a comedian and as an expert on the art of persuasion. Bob is converting his popular lecture "Winning Your Trial With Style: Teaching Lawyers the Untaught Art of Persuasion" into a book. Here he comments on a new movie about prison which is being marketed with the phrase "Don't Drop the Soap."
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that prisoner advocates are protesting a new film that makes light of what an expert has called one of the major untreated human-rights abuses in America today.
"Let's Go to Prison," a comedy released by Universal Pictures this month, is being marketed with the phrase: "Don't drop the soap."
That has angered Keith DeBlasio, founder of AdvoCare Inc., a nonprofit organization promoting criminal-justice reform, prompting him to write a Nov. 19 letter to Vivendi Universal Entertainment's president and CEO, Ron Meyer.
DeBlasio asked: "Would you promote a comedy that makes fun of women being raped? I hope the answer is, 'No.' Would you use the sexual molestation of a child as a way to gain a few laughs? I don't think so. So why is it so easy for you to chuckle at something that is so devastating to the actual victims?"
"I am one of those victims," wrote DeBlasio, who has also called the company's public relations offices. Other groups, including Virginia Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants and Stop Prisoner Rape, are upset by the movie.
Universal representatives did not return calls yesterday.
The movie's Web site, http://www.letsgotoprison.com/, notes that there are about 2.2 million inmates in U.S. jails and prisons and then states that, "While a sad statement on poverty, crime and our legal system . . . it also provides a few writers with very twisted senses of humor one undeniable thing: fodder for dark comedy."
In a statement released Monday, Lovisa Stannow, co-executive director of Stop Prisoner Rape, complained, "Sexual violence in detention shatters human dignity and derails justice, but as long as late-night television shows, sitcoms, and movies deem this type of abuse amusing, there will be no public outcry to end it"
In 1996, two years after DeBlasio entered the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Mich., the leader of a gang started making passes at him. DeBlasio was convicted of interstate trafficking of forged securities and embezzlement.
The 6-foot, 2-inch, 210-pound DeBlasio, who would later serve time in a Virginia prison, was forcibly raped more than 30 times over two months by the inmate, who was armed with a knife and had AIDS.
As someone who has performed as a professional comedian and represented clients who have been raped in prison, I am absolutely amazed at the marketing of this movie and comments about "dont' drop the soap", "dark comedy" and "twisted" comedy. Most of my favorite comics are constantly on the edge and far from clean. I am thinking of Richard Pryor and Bill Hicks. There is a fine line between edgy comedy and tasteless comedy. The subject of prison rape is not close to that fine line- it is just not funny.
This issue brings back several random thoughts. As a comic, I have performed for the Retired FBI Special Agents National Convention and for the DC Rape Crisis Event. Prior to each I got bizarre phone calls from the persons who hired me. Before the FBI gig, I was reminded not to do any J. Edgar Hoover jokes. I assured the gentleman who hired me that there were no J. Edgar in a dress jokes in my set for the evening. Even stranger, before the DC Rape Crisis Event, I was reminded not to do any jokes about rape. I told the woman that there was nothing funny about rape and I do not have any jokes about rape. I thought it was strange that I was asked, but I guess after reading about this movie, there are producers in Hollywood who have now "greenlighted" such a project with jokes about prison rape and call it twisted and dark!
As a grade schooler, Mike Morrison and I would often ask Wakefield High School janitor David Vasquez to let us into the gym to play basketball when the weather was bad outside. Vasquez (as he was known) would say very little and mumble what he did say, but he was nice enough to always let us in. It was well known that Vasquez was slow mentally. Fast forward about a decade and a woman is murdered in the house she purchased from the Morrisons. A police officer sees Vasquez walking by. He badgers him and badgers him in a police interview room. He screams at Vasquez that he knows he killed the woman. Confused, Vasquez says it must have happened in a dream. He asks Vasquez how he killed her. He is wrong several times and the detective yells, "No, you strangled her with the blinds." Vasquez begins telling this version of the story. At trial, the jury never hears of how the entire "confession" occured, just that Vasquez admitted he strangled this woman with the blinds. He is convicted of murder and spends many years behind bars. He is raped and abused in prison. Eventually, the real killer is found and Vasquez is released. (Note: false confessions and the push to require all interrogations to be recorded are fascinating topics. But that, Little Adam, is another blog post!)
There is no accounting for taste, but public opinion can make a difference. Just look at O.J. Simpson's new book. So please don't go to see "Let's Go to Prison." Go see something less offensive- like Borat! Or maybe you can catch Michael "Kramer" Richards at a comedy club near you. I am sure he has a lot of open dates on his calendar these days.
to read entire article, click here
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
Ex-Prosecutor Bob Battle Reveals: 8 Secrets Your Prosecutor Doesn't Want You To Know About Your Virginia DUI
1. If everyone insists on their constitutional right to go to trial, the prosecutor will be in court all day.
2. In most cases, the mandatory minimum sentences for DUI are so harsh that a defendant in a DUI trial risks absolutely nothing by going to trial. Many clients ask me if a judge will penalize them with a harsher sentence if they assert their right to trial. The Virginia legislature has now raised the minimum sentence for all DUI cases to such a high level, that, if you decide to go to trial on your case, in most instances, as a practical matter, you are going to get the same sentence as the person who pleads guilty.
3. The prosecutor doesn’t want to be there. No one takes a job at a prosecutor’s office because they fantasized about prosecuting in traffic court! In most jurisdictions, the prosecutors would rather be prosecuting their felony cases than handling a traffic court docket. Furthermore, the prosecutor has 20 to 30 other cases with attorneys on the traffic court docket that they must handle that day. When I was a prosecutor in Fairfax County, there would be at least five traffic courts with five different prosecutors going on every day. The first prosecutor to arrive would get to pick which courtroom they would be in. The only consideration on every prosecutor’s mind was to pick the judge that was known to be the fastest, so they could be through with court as soon as possible.
4. The prosecutor is unprepared. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in Virginia, prosecutors do not look into traffic cases ahead of time. Most of my clients are shocked when I tell them that it is impossible for me to contact a prosecutor with knowledge about their case prior to the court date to discuss their case, because the prosecutors do not look into the cases ahead of time. In most jurisdictions, if someone shows up without an attorney, the prosecutor does not get involved. Thus, it is impossible for someone attempting to represent himself in these jurisdictions to discuss a possible plea bargain with the prosecutor, because the prosecutor will not speak to them. In some jurisdictions, such as Virginia Beach, there is not even a prosecutor for any traffic case, even a DUI with an attorney!
5. The police officer is unprepared.Your case is just one of an entire docket full of cases that the officer has on that date. It is not unusual for an officer to have 5 to 10 DUI cases on one date in addition to dozens of other traffic tickets. The officer often has little if any recollection of your arrest. That becomes apparent time and time again in court when I object to an officer testifying by reading from his notes and, after my objection is sustained by the judge, the officer clearly has no independent recollection of the arrest.
6. Most prosecutors know very little about the science (or lack thereof) behind field sobriety testing. At no time during law school does the professor ever say, “Today we’re going to learn about standardized field sobriety testing.” A thorough knowledge of these tests would actually hurt their cases and prevent them from making arguments that I routinely hear prosecutors make to judges while trying to argue that the results of these tests should be given more weight than they were ever intended to. For example, the three standardized field sobriety tests were only used to predict a BAC of .10 or above. Since the legal limit is now .08, there is almost no weight that a judge could give to these tests on someone with a BAC of .08 or .09.
7. The police officer did not follow proper procedures for the field sobriety tests. If a police officer receives proper training about field sobriety tests, they will be told the proper standards and procedures according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”). However, for example, on the “follow the pen with your eyes” test (the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, or HGN), the manual says that if the suspect moves his head during the test, the officer should use his flashlight or his free hand as a chin rest of the suspect. In 22 years of practicing law, I have never seen an officer use anything as a chin rest for a suspect, even though in the vast majority of those cases the officer testifies that the suspect was swaying and unsteady on his feet! The manual also states that the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand test should not be done if the suspect is over 50 pounds overweight or has physical impairments that could affect his balance. The manual also states that the walk-and-turn test “requires a line that the suspect can see.” This is rarely done.
8. The breath testing equipment is inaccurate. The breath testing machine is just that- a machine. The machine uses an assumption to calculate the amount of alcohol in a person's blood based on the amount of alcohol that is released into a person's breath. The amount can vary from between 1100 and 3200. However, the machine uses a standard ratio of 2200, the average between the two. If you exchange alcohol at the 1100 rate, the machine gives a reading twice as high as it should. On the other hand, if you exchange at the 3200 rate, it gives a reading half as high as it should. In any event, the principle is flawed and readings can vary up to 50% from the actual breath content. The manufacturers of the Intoxilyzer 5000 have flat out refused to reveal their source codes to defense attorneys. The source codes are basically the mathematical formula that the machine uses to convert a small sample of breath to a blood alcohol content number. Courts in Florida have already ruled that this refusal is a basis to dismiss DUI prosecutions. Virginia appeals courts have yet to rule on this issue.
2. In most cases, the mandatory minimum sentences for DUI are so harsh that a defendant in a DUI trial risks absolutely nothing by going to trial. Many clients ask me if a judge will penalize them with a harsher sentence if they assert their right to trial. The Virginia legislature has now raised the minimum sentence for all DUI cases to such a high level, that, if you decide to go to trial on your case, in most instances, as a practical matter, you are going to get the same sentence as the person who pleads guilty.
3. The prosecutor doesn’t want to be there. No one takes a job at a prosecutor’s office because they fantasized about prosecuting in traffic court! In most jurisdictions, the prosecutors would rather be prosecuting their felony cases than handling a traffic court docket. Furthermore, the prosecutor has 20 to 30 other cases with attorneys on the traffic court docket that they must handle that day. When I was a prosecutor in Fairfax County, there would be at least five traffic courts with five different prosecutors going on every day. The first prosecutor to arrive would get to pick which courtroom they would be in. The only consideration on every prosecutor’s mind was to pick the judge that was known to be the fastest, so they could be through with court as soon as possible.
4. The prosecutor is unprepared. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in Virginia, prosecutors do not look into traffic cases ahead of time. Most of my clients are shocked when I tell them that it is impossible for me to contact a prosecutor with knowledge about their case prior to the court date to discuss their case, because the prosecutors do not look into the cases ahead of time. In most jurisdictions, if someone shows up without an attorney, the prosecutor does not get involved. Thus, it is impossible for someone attempting to represent himself in these jurisdictions to discuss a possible plea bargain with the prosecutor, because the prosecutor will not speak to them. In some jurisdictions, such as Virginia Beach, there is not even a prosecutor for any traffic case, even a DUI with an attorney!
5. The police officer is unprepared.Your case is just one of an entire docket full of cases that the officer has on that date. It is not unusual for an officer to have 5 to 10 DUI cases on one date in addition to dozens of other traffic tickets. The officer often has little if any recollection of your arrest. That becomes apparent time and time again in court when I object to an officer testifying by reading from his notes and, after my objection is sustained by the judge, the officer clearly has no independent recollection of the arrest.
6. Most prosecutors know very little about the science (or lack thereof) behind field sobriety testing. At no time during law school does the professor ever say, “Today we’re going to learn about standardized field sobriety testing.” A thorough knowledge of these tests would actually hurt their cases and prevent them from making arguments that I routinely hear prosecutors make to judges while trying to argue that the results of these tests should be given more weight than they were ever intended to. For example, the three standardized field sobriety tests were only used to predict a BAC of .10 or above. Since the legal limit is now .08, there is almost no weight that a judge could give to these tests on someone with a BAC of .08 or .09.
7. The police officer did not follow proper procedures for the field sobriety tests. If a police officer receives proper training about field sobriety tests, they will be told the proper standards and procedures according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”). However, for example, on the “follow the pen with your eyes” test (the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, or HGN), the manual says that if the suspect moves his head during the test, the officer should use his flashlight or his free hand as a chin rest of the suspect. In 22 years of practicing law, I have never seen an officer use anything as a chin rest for a suspect, even though in the vast majority of those cases the officer testifies that the suspect was swaying and unsteady on his feet! The manual also states that the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand test should not be done if the suspect is over 50 pounds overweight or has physical impairments that could affect his balance. The manual also states that the walk-and-turn test “requires a line that the suspect can see.” This is rarely done.
8. The breath testing equipment is inaccurate. The breath testing machine is just that- a machine. The machine uses an assumption to calculate the amount of alcohol in a person's blood based on the amount of alcohol that is released into a person's breath. The amount can vary from between 1100 and 3200. However, the machine uses a standard ratio of 2200, the average between the two. If you exchange alcohol at the 1100 rate, the machine gives a reading twice as high as it should. On the other hand, if you exchange at the 3200 rate, it gives a reading half as high as it should. In any event, the principle is flawed and readings can vary up to 50% from the actual breath content. The manufacturers of the Intoxilyzer 5000 have flat out refused to reveal their source codes to defense attorneys. The source codes are basically the mathematical formula that the machine uses to convert a small sample of breath to a blood alcohol content number. Courts in Florida have already ruled that this refusal is a basis to dismiss DUI prosecutions. Virginia appeals courts have yet to rule on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
