Minnesota legislators are considering adopting a bill that would restrict public access to juvenile delinquency records, except in cases where the juvenile committed a violent crime or was charged as an adult.

The bill received strong support last week when it was presented to the State House, as it passed with a 120-13 vote.  Supporters of the bill are in favor of restricting access to some juvenile crimes because certain misdemeanors can carry heavy consequences 10, 20, or even 30 years down the road.

A Clean Slate

Proponents of the bill believe that by blocking the public from seeing juvenile convictions, those individuals who have learned from their mistakes can get a fair chance at opportunities later in life.  Oftentimes people who have committed a crime as a juvenile face an uphill battle when applying for school loans, finding a job, or securing a home.  Northeastern Minnesota Chief Public Defender Fred Friedman said he personally knows people who are still feeling the repercussion of an immature crime they committed during their youth.

“I know a woman in her 30s with a nursing degree and license and she can’t get work because when she was 13 or 14 years old some older guy talked her into delivering a package of drugs from Point A to Point B,” Friedman said. “Why should that keep her from getting work 20 years later?”

As we’ve discussed on our blog before, a juvenile’s brain is still developing well through their teen years.  Everybody wishes they could have a “do-over” at some point in life, and this bill could help give those people who have made positive changes in their life a chance to make amends for a mistake they made as a teen.

It’s also important to note that the crimes wouldn’t be completely erased from the record.  Law enforcement officials and judges would still have access to the juvenile records, ensuring that appropriate penalties would be levied against repeat offenders.  Violent or particularly heinous crimes where the juvenile was charged as an adult would remain part of the public domain.

Another reason why supporters of the bill hope the measure passes is because oftentimes very little information is available on electronic records, meaning academic officials or potential employers may not get the full story behind the alleged crime, said Arrowhead Regional Corrections Executive Director Kay Arola.

“The dissemination of the information is so broad that employers and academic institutions and others are not necessarily able to accurately interpret the data that they are looking at,” Arola said. “So just because I was arrested for a crime, doesn’t necessarily mean that I was convicted or did that behavior, and that’s the kind of fine nuisance that is often missed.”

Future consequences

While some juvenile crimes are more serious than others, some specific crimes can make it nearly impossible to receive a related opportunity. For example:

• Juveniles convicted of a misdemeanor shoplifting charge may find it next to impossible to land a job in retail or sales.
• Individuals who are convicted of drug charges are often denied federal student loans, meaning some teens can’t afford to go to college.
• Underage drinking violations can make it extremely difficult for a person to secure a position in law enforcement.
• Reckless driving charges can prevent teens from getting a job where extensive travel or driving is required.

There is no set date for when the bill may make its way in front of the State Senate, but the strong bipartisan support appears to show that the bill has a good chance of passing.  Rep. Carly Melin, who introduced the bill to the State House, said she believes its adoption would be a step in the right direction for Minnesota’s reformed youth.

This (bill) is a way to…recognize the fact that kids make mistakes and this shouldn’t be held against them for the rest of their lives.”

Related source:  Duluth News Tribune

A neurocriminologist who has spent years studying brain development in criminals believes there exists a biological basis for criminal behavior.

Adrian Raine has spent 25 years in the US studying cognitive development, and before that he spent years in Britain attempting to decipher why criminals committed the crimes they did.  In 1994, Raine conducted a small but comprehensive study on 41 convicted killers and 41 “normal” individuals in a control group.  Raine used brain-imaging technology to reveal the size and functionality of different parts of the brain.  After looking at the images, Raine found that the two groups exhibited different metabolic activity in certain parts of the brain.  In the group of convicted killers, Raine noticed a significant reduction in the development of the prefrontal cortex, or the decision-making part of the brain.

Neuroscientists have done extensive research on the problems associated with an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, linking it to many behavioral problems including:

• Less control over the generation of strong emotions, like anger and rage
• A greater addiction to risk
• A reduction in self-control
• Poor problem solving skills

All of these traits, of lack thereof, may mean a person is more predisposed to violence than other individuals.

The Slippery Slope

Raine has dedicated his life’s work to better understanding the criminal mind, piling up books of evidence that reveals humans may not be as in control of our actions as we believe to be.  While he has been able to define set of “biomarkers” which may make a person more predisposed to crime or violence, the question he keeps circling back to is, “What should we do with this information?”

If stopping crime before it happens sounds like something out of Hollywood, you’re not wrong; the film Minority Report tackled just that subject.  Set in a futuristic world, Tom Cruise works as a government agent that fights “PreCrime” with the help of three physics who can see into the future.  Crime is at an all-time low with this system, but the issue at the core of the movie is how guilty is a person who has yet to commit the crime of which they are accused?  Not surprisingly, the movie’s protagonist has no problem locking up would-be murderers until the physics foresee that he’ll murder someone, which causes him to run for his life all while proving that the physics are wrong.

The question at the center of Minority Report has been around long before it hit the big screen.  If you knew with 100% certainty that a person would commit a murder or sexual assault, should they be arrested for the crime before it is committed?  While it’s hard to argue that a person should be locked up before they commit a crime, if the tragedies at Newton or Columbine could be prevented, do we have an obligation to protect the innocent?  As Raine said, “If we buy into the argument that for some people factors beyond their control, factors in their biology, greatly raise the risk of them becoming offenders, can we justly turn a blind eye to that?”

Many will argue that we cannot lock up would-be criminals because you can never say with 100 percent certainty that they would have committed the crime.  Even if you knew with 99.9 percent certainty, there’s still a possibility that the person would decide against their actions.  While people can argue over the logistics of such propositions, it appears that Raine and his colleagues are getting closer to formulating an exact science for recognizing the likelihood to commit crime.

Technology in the Courtroom

As scientific evidence continues to mount, it seems more likely that brain imaging may soon become more popular in the courtroom.

“Raine’s findings could lead to new avenues for criminal defense,” said attorney Melvin Welch.  “Although it is not uncommon for the defense to argue that their client should be admitted to a mental health facility instead of a prison on the grounds of mental illness, these findings can help support the argument, which could greatly affect the outcome of the trial. Science may soon tell us that what is perceived as ‘normative’ is different for each individual based on uncontrollable circumstances.”

Raine touched on a similar issue when discussing who is actually at fault for committing a crime.

“Is it really the fault of the innocent baby whose mother smoked heavily in pregnancy that he went on to commit crimes?” said Raine. There is, and increasingly will be, an argument that he is not fully responsible and therefore, when we come to think of punishment, should we be thinking of more benign institutions than prison?”

Brain Scans at Parole Hearings

While preventing the initial crime before it occurs may not be feasible, Raine believes parole boards oftentimes use poor evidence when deciding if a criminal is fit for parole.

“The fact is parole boards are making exactly these kind of predictive decisions every day about which prisoner or young offender we are going to release early, often with crummy evidence,” said Raine. “At the moment, the predictors are social and behavioral factors, marital status, your past record. What is not used are biological measures. But I believe that if we added those things even now into the equation, we could only improve the prediction.”

To support his claims, Raine conducted two studies on prisoners who were set to be released form prison.  In the first study, he found that if the anterior cingulate in the brain is lower than normal before a prisoner is released, the person is twice as likely to be reconvicted within three years.

The second study found that is the prisoner has a significantly smaller amygdala, which helps process memory and emotion, the prisoner is 2-3x more likely to reoffend.

“Now, this is only two studies, but what they are beginning to show is proof of concept, that if we added neurological factors into the equation we could do a better job at predicting future behavior.”

Related source: Guardian.co.uk

According to findings by the Minnesota Public Radio News and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, African-Americans in Minnesota are 12 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide by firearm than Caucasians.  The report also found that whites are much more likely to commit suicide with a gun than black Minnesotans.

The findings were first reported on Minnesota Public Radio after analysts looked into gun violence data between 2008 and 2010.  The report detailed numerous findings that provide an interesting look at how firearms are used across racial lines.  Some of the findings in the report include:

• Over the three-year period, 73 African-Americans died from gun-related homicides, while 78 Caucasian Minnesotans were killed by guns.  When adjusted for demographics, this meant that 7.3 blacks per 100,000 were killed by firearms while only 0.6 whites per 100,000 were killed by guns.

• During the same time period, 800 white residents committed suicide with a firearm, compared to 17 black Minnesotans.

• Most African-American gun homicide victims were boys or men in urban areas, while most white suicide victims were men in rural areas.

• African-Americans are less likely to own firearms than Caucasians.
• According to a separate report by the Pew Research Center, more than 70 percent of blacks said controlling gun ownership is more important than protecting second amendment rights, while only 43 percent of whites felt the same way.

Analyzing the Findings

The findings paint a contrasting picture of gun ownership and violence across racial lines.  Roxann Storms, a clinical social worker in St. Cloud, said many factors influence gun violence across different demographics.

“It’s a multifactored, complex problem,” said Storms

She offered some possible reasons behind the findings, saying:

• Rural, white suicides may be more prevalent because they have easier access to firearms and less access to mental health services.

• Research found that African-Americans in urban areas tend to be more closely connected with their family or social networks, which lessens the likelihood of suicide.

Varying Reasons for Gun Ownership

Based on the findings in the Pew report which highlighted the difference in opinion regarding controlling gun possession, it is evident that white and black communities are affected differently by firearms.  Mad Dads President V.J. Smith, who works towards curbing drug and gun crimes in Minneapolis, said stricter gun laws may help lower crime in urban areas.

“Most of our families don’t have guns in our homes for recreational use. Those guns come in from the streets and they come in from the mob; they come in from drug deals; they come in from different things,” Smith said.

Smith added that the influx of weapons through illegal activities simply spurs more illegal behavior.

“Those guns get used to rob people,” Smith said.

Gun control regulations at the state and national level are expected to continue to be hot-button issues in the coming months as legislators decide if stricter gun laws are necessary.

Related source MPR News

On Monday, we discussed that federal agents were well within their rights to refrain from reading the Miranda rights to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the lone surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.  Sixteen hours after they began questioning Tsarnaev, a judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney’s office entered Tsarnaev’s room and read him his Miranda rights.  After being advised of his rights, Tsarnaev immediately stopped talking and refused to answer any more questions.

Before being read his rights, Tsarnaev had been cooperative with FBI officials.  He answered questions by writing answers or nodding his head, and he began to explain his motive behind the attack.  Now it seems the next time Tsarnaev talks, it may be in front of a jury.

The decision to read Tsarnaev his rights has touched off a legal debate between Democrats and Republicans.  The general sentiment is that Republicans feel that the Obama administration is going soft on Tsarnaev by reading him his rights, as it was reasonable to believe that the suspect would remain silent after hearing his rights.  Others argue that the United States operates as a democratic society because everyone has certain unalienable rights which should not be denied, regardless of the alleged crime.

The Public Safety Exception

The argument in question is over a clause called the “public safety exception” which states the officials can refrain from reading a suspect their Miranda rights if it is “necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”

This passage is intentionally ambiguous so as to leave it open to wide ranging interpretation.  It’s possible that authorities felt that they had collected enough information to quell their fears over related radical groups, but most would argue the more Tsarnaev talked, the more we would learn.

All Citizens Have Rights

There has been a lot of debate over Tsarnaev’s rights in wake of the bombings. Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Avery Appelman said despite his transgressions, Tsarnaev needed to be informed of his rights.

“Tsarnaev is an American citizen, and regardless of his actions, the Constitution offers him certain protections, one being his right to remain silent in the face of police interrogation,” said Appelman. “When Tsarnaev was finally ‘mirandized’ it was by a judge at his initial court appearance, the judge is required to advise those charged with crimes of their rights as their case proceeds forward through the justice system.”

In essence, once the criminal process was initiated by the filing of criminal charges, the judge is duty bound to advise the accused of their rights.  Despite having the right to remain silent, Appelman believes it may be in Tsarnaev’s best interest to continue speaking with authorities.

“With all of the evidence obtained through this investigation, the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers were involved in a firefight with the police and evidence was collected from Tsarnaev’s home, it would appear that the government has a very strong case against him,” said Appelman. “It may be in his interest to show remorse and cooperate fully with law enforcement, and thereby structure a plea negotiation that saves Tsarnaev from execution.”

Tsarnaev has officially been charged with federal counts of using a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property, both which carry the death penalty as the maximum sentence.  He was charged as a civilian, despite outside efforts to have him designated an “enemy combatant” which would subject him to fewer freedoms.

Related source: Washington Post

It’s no surprise that the FBI has been questioning Dzhokhar Tsarnaev over the weekend in hopes of learning more about his motives in connection with the bombing that took place at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.  What is surprising is the fact that he is being questioned without first being read his Miranda rights.

If Tsarnaev wants to seek legal counsel, he’ll need to remember on his own that he has the right to an attorney, and that anything he says is admissible in court.  Under normal circumstances, failure to read a person the Miranda rights means that anything they say may not be admissible in court, but Tsarnaev’s case is anything but normal.

The FBI are well within their rights to refrain from reading Tsarnaev his Miranda rights because they can cite the “public safety exception”, which is an extension of the law that allows authorities to question a suspect if they fear the general public may be in danger.  Below is a description of the exception.

“Agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents.”

The exception goes even further, saying that police can continue to question Tsarnaev even if they collect enough information to conclude the public is no longer in danger.

“There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”

The public safety exception first appeared in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles.  In the case, the police were attempting to arrest a potential rapist who allegedly had a gun.  When police arrived on scene, they noticed the perpetrator was wearing an empty holster.  Before reading him his Miranda rights, police asked the suspect where the gun was located.  The court allowed the evidence to be admitted under the exemption because the gun presented an immediate threat to the officers.

The law was later expanded to its current state in 2010, due in large part to a 2009 interrogation session that ended after authorities read the suspect his Miranda rights.  In that case, the suspect was terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to blow up a plane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day.  Police spoke to him for 50 minutes before they determined the public was no longer in immediate danger.  After reading him his rights, Abdulmutallab requested a lawyer and refused to answer any further questions.  This drew ire from Republicans who chastised the current administration for going soft and failing to gather intelligence from a suspected terrorist.

Although the majority of Americans may be happy that Tsarnaev wasn’t read his Miranda rights, others say the government is walking a fine line in regards to what information is admissible in court.

Tsarnaev appears willing to consent to questioning, as he has been communicating by writing answers on a piece of paper.  He suffered a wound to his throat during Friday’s standoff with police, and he has been unable to speak.

Tsarnaev could be charged with several federal crimes including use of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and bombing of places of public use, and homicide.  Although Massachusetts doesn’t impose the death penalty, federal law would allow it to be applied.  It’s uncertain if the death penalty will be sought.

Related source:  Huffington Post, Yahoo, Slate

A law-abiding Texas man ran into some trouble for openly displaying a weapon that he had a permit to carry, renewing the debate over unlawful searches and seizures.

It all began when Army Master Sergeant C.J. Grisham accompanied his son for a 10-mile hike.  Grisham’s son needed to do the hike to earn his hiking badge, which was the last badge he needed to earn before becoming an Eagle Scout.  Because there was a possibility of encountering a feral hog or cougar, Grisham strapped a rifle to his backpack.  He also equipped himself with a handgun, and the proper paperwork to show that he could legally possess the firearms.

During their hike, Grisham and his son were stopped by a police officer.  Authorities are well within their rights to request to see a person’s firearm permits, but Grisham said the officer attempted to disarm him before asking for the permits. Grisham details what happened next:

 “‘Where you going with that rifle?’ he asked me. I said, ‘does it matter? Am I breaking any laws?’ [The officer] grabbed the rifle without telling me – but it was attached to me. My immediate reaction as a combat veteran was to grab it back and then take a step back. I asked him what he was doing. So he pulled his gun on me. Then I thought about my son, so I put my hands off my gun and he told me to move over to the car. Luckily my son had the video camera to document the hike for his merit badge. I told him to turn it on.”

You can see video of the 13-minute encounter below.

Many things the officers said during the encounter are troubling, including:

• Grisham was stopped for “rudely displaying” a weapon
• “He has a right to disarm you”
• “I told you I was going to take your gun”
• “People shoot just as quick here as they do [Iraq or Afghanistan]”
• “I have a right to disarm you.  I don’t know you.”

Probably the most concerning statement is when the police sergeant says “we are exempt from the law”.

Grisham was eventually arrested for resisting arrest, and the matter will surely be fought in court.

Criminal Defense Attorney Mel Welch comments

In Minnesota, a person may legally carry a firearm as long as they have a permit.  Carrying of a firearm in a public place without a permit for the first time (with no prior “crimes of violence”) is a Gross Misdemeanor crime which is punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $3000 fine; conviction of a second violation for this would be a felony – punishable by up to Five (5) Years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

A person who is permitted to carrying a firearm must have that permit on their person, as well as photo-identification, at all times.  If a person is in possession of a firearm, they should inform law enforcement of that possession.  A police officer may lawfully demand to see the permit and your identification, as well as demand a writing sample. The police may also lawfully demand to ask whether the permit-holder currently possesses the firearm.

There are serious concerns here when a civilian, fulfilling their obligations under the law, is seized by officers.  A person has a right under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.  Every time a person comes into contact with law enforcement personnel, issues of constitutional proportions arise which require the government (police) to act reasonably.  Here, the information we observe are of an officer demanding a civilian disarm himself and claim he was “feel[ing] threatened” even as the civilian had both hands occupied while he carried his firearms, and after the civilian has allowed himself to be disarmed and put in restraints.

This incident illustrates numerous issues which arise through the course of prosecuting – and defending against – a crime.  There is the inherent conflict in the relationship between those tasked with duty of upholding the law (not just prosecution but also protecting rights) and those tasked with the obligation of following the law (we, The People).  The arresting officer’s behavior and disingenuous assertions (“I feel threatened”) attest to the latitude police receive in performing their duties and the expectations they enjoy in being trusted and believed by prosecutors and courts, those charged with upholding the law.  Granted, it is difficult to back down from a staked out position, especially when a person is supposed to know the law and is being challenged (and proven wrong) on their understanding of it, but it is very troubling that the sergeant on the scene, tasked with the guidance and management of officers under his care, is making assertions for which he does not have support in the law.  This is NOT Iraq.  This is NOT Afghanistan.  This is America, where specific guarantees against government overreach have been etched in stone and inked in blood.

This also illustrates the importance in seeking legal advice whenever conflicts with police arise.

Related source:  National Review

Appleman Law Firm is excited to announce that we have added another fantastic attorney to our legal team.

Melvin R. Welch will serve as the firm’s newest criminal defense and appeals attorney.  Mel previously worked as an Assistant County Attorney for Hennepin County before joining Appelman Law Firm.  Many of the cases he prosecuted involved weapons, drugs or violent criminals.  Before serving as an Assistant County Attorney he worked as a criminal appeals attorney.

Mel has a wide variety of legal knowledge that began during his curriculum at the University of Maryland.  He graduated from the university in 2000 with his B.A.  His interest in law led him to enroll in the University of Minnesota Law School, from which he graduated with his J.D. in 2007.

In addition to his legal studies, Mel also served in the U.S. Navy and worked as a Russian translator for the Department of Defense.  He is fluent in Russian, and can also translate Serbo-Croatian.

Mel is also a member of some local and regional groups.  He is a member of the Minnesota American Indian Bar Association and an Enrolled Member of Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin.  He was also a former Board Member of the Ramsey County Bar Association.

When he’s not fighting for his clients, Mel likes to spend time with his family.  He also enjoys reading during his free time.

Authorities are recommending second-degree murder charges be brought against a 50-year-old Washington woman who allegedly murdered her boyfriend by smothering him with her breasts.

Donna Lange was arrested after authorities were called to a mobile home after her boyfriend was found unresponsive.  Witnesses claim that Lange and her boyfriend had fought throughout the night, and they found Lange with her chest in the man’s face.

Medics performed CPR on the man, but their attempts to revive him were unsuccessful.  One witness said the victim may have had a heart condition.

In addition to the victim, a man and three women were in the mobile home at the time of the incident.  The witnesses said they saw Lange throw her boyfriend down during an argument, and they heard the victim tell Lange to get off him.  All parties were heavily intoxicated during the incident.

“She smothered him to death,” a witness said in an official statement.

Deputies investigating the incident photographed what appeared to be Lange’s hair in the victim’s hand, and they noticed that the man had recently suffered injuries to his face and hands.  Lange also appeared to have suffered an injury to her face.

When interviewed about the incident, an intoxicated Lange denied having any knowledge of how her boyfriend died.  Authorities said the victims were almost the same height, but Lange outweighed the victim by nearly 20 pounds.

This isn’t the first time breasts have been used in a deadly manner.  Last November, a German lawyer claimed his girlfriend attempted to suffocate him with her 38DD breasts.  When asked about the incident, his girlfriend said she wanted his death “to be as pleasurable as possible”.  She was accused of attempted manslaughter with a weapon.

A similar case occurred in the UK in 2010, when a woman mistook her boyfriend’s failing arms as a sign of pleasure, not suffocation.  Luckily, the man only lost consciousness and was not seriously injured.

Although it is a tragic incident, it certainly gives new meaning to the term “conceal and carry”.

Related source:  Huffington Post

Convicted felons may soon find it harder to regain their right to possess a firearm after a new gun control bill was proposed to Minnesota legislators.

The bill would require anyone convicted of a violent crime to appear before the state Board of Pardons to request to have their right to possess a firearm reinstated.

“I don’t plan on giving an inch on anything except making it harder for bad guys to get guns,” said Rep Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center.

The current law states that “the court may grant [the right to possess firearms] if the person shows good cause to do so and the person has been released from physical confinement,” but Senator Barbara Goodwin believes that isn’t tough enough.

“All they have to do is find a friendly judge, and they could have their right to get the weapons restored,” Goodwin said.

The proposed bill is just one of what could be several proposals focused on keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

“I think there’s a sea of change occurring,” said Representative Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul.

Many people feel that it is too easy for convicted felons to have certain rights restored.  For example, a Minnesota felon can appeal to have his 2^nd amendment rights reinstated before he regains the right to vote.  A person may appeal for the right to own a weapon as long as they show cause and are out of jail, but all aspects of parole or probation must be complete before a felon can restore their voting rights.  Senator Goodwin said she would like to reevaluate both policies.

Is there a problem?

While the majority of people may agree that keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted felons would be beneficial, there aren’t a lot of felons petitioning to have their rights restored under the current process.

In 2011, the New York Times published an article that examined how many convicted felons in Minnesota sought judicial approval to have their 2^nd amendment rights restored.  The article found that at least 70 violent criminals appealed for judicial permission over a seven-year period, or less than one felon a month.

The numbers might not be completely accurate, as pundits say violent offenders can find other channels to obtain illegal firearms.  Others claim the numbers show that many felons are not interested in regaining their right to bear arms because they would face stiff penalties for weapons possession.

Greg Kryzer, an assistant attorney in Wright County, said he’s seen five petitions from violent offenders requesting permission to possess a firearm.  Kryzer said he supports any initiative that would make the process more thorough.

“I would say it is very easy for felons to get their firearms rights restored,” Kryzer said.

Other measures that may soon come before Minnesota legislators included a ban on high-capacity assault weapons, increased penalties for armed criminals, and increased security presence in schools.