Juan Martinez: A Prosecutor's Success

by Women In Crime Ink

As the jury determines in the next few days whether convicted killer Jodi Arias should serve life in prison or get the death penalty, we thought we'd take a look back at this sensational case and voice our opinions on what went right.

If you've followed the case, you know that after a four-month trial, 32-year-old Arias was convicted of killing ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander in his Phoenix townhouse. It was a particularly grizzly murder, with Arias stabbing Alexander 29 times, most of which were in the back, slitting his throat, and shooting him once in the head. Alexander, 30, didn't stand a chance.

While the final phase of the trial -- the sentencing -- winds down, this seems like the perfect time to take a look back and ask this question:

During the trial, what did Deputy District Attorney Juan Martinez do best to win a guilty verdict?

Here's what some of our WCI bloggers had to say:

Donna Pendergast: The facts in the Jodi Arias case speak for themselves. In terms of a prosecution case, it doesn't get much better than this. Her story of self defense was negated by the physical evidence, her false statements and her manipulative testimony, which came across as very calculated.

Jurors are not stupid and they don't like to be played like they are. Although we have seen a few high-profile cases in the news where the verdict seemingly was inconsistent with the evidence, in most circumstances jurors try to do the right thing. They saw right through Jodi Arias and delivered a verdict consistent with the overwhelming evidence. As a prosecutor, I think that Juan Martinez overdid the histrionics, but I can't quarrel with success.

Gina Simmons: Jurors had a chance to witness Jodi Arias lie frequently and with incredible detail over a long period of time. Psychopaths can create detailed pictures with their lies. These self-serving pictures can appear so convincing that jurors might find it hard to believe that they were completely created from imagination. Jurors got a close-up view of a pathological liar. Psychologically, this close-up view might make it difficult for some jurors to give her the death penalty. 

Robin Sax: If this case shows anything at all it's that the public (even post-OJ) has an insatiable appetite for a good crime story. This had it all: Sex, lies, photos, and a frighteningly smart narcissistic defendant. While Juan Martinez was certainly passionate, he did not make the same mistakes many high-profile prosecutors have made in the past, and that is he didn't drink his own Kool Aid. He spent the time proving each element, painting a picture, and presenting a strong case. Of course, Jodi helped with unbelievable lies, horrific evidence and narcissism that spoke volumes.

Katherine Scardino: As a defense attorney, I agree that this was a dream case for the prosecution. I would have handled her defense in a much more realistic manner. First of all, she would never have spent a minute on the stand much less 19 days. Bad lawyering for her. But seems like Guilty verdict is the right one.

Cathy Scott: The interesting thing in this case was how Martinez brought the pieces of the puzzle together for the jury in his closing. Some things he brought out didn't make sense during the trial, at least to me, until he laid it all out in the end. It was brilliant, and it worked.

Tweet

Media and the Public Miss the Mark in Identifying Domestic Violence

Article Written By *Ava Rose and Robin Sax with input from Debi Biederman-Ash, Patti Giggans (Peace Over Violence) Hillary Selvin (NCJWLA), Terra Slavin (LA Gay Center), Ruth Williams (NCJWLA) 

The headlines come in every day, from cities, suburbs, rural communities, and elite enclaves:

 

“Authorities say a man fatally shot his estranged wife at the Hemet Courthouse Wednesday, then turned the gun on himself in his car a few miles away…. Both victims were at the courthouse to attend a hearing regarding child custody/support issues.” (KTLA5.com, 1/04/12) 

 “An employee opened fire outside a northeastern Georgia food processing plant Thursday, fatally shooting his wife before killing himself, authorities said.” (Atlanta Journal Constitution, 1/05/12). 

“Bayonne was reeling Tuesday from a spasm of butchery after a jealous man murdered his estranged wife, her boyfriend, and his rival’s baby boy."  (NY Daily News, 12/06/11).

Or just today: “A pregnant woman was allegedly beaten and held captive for nine days in a bizarre ordeal that ended when police in the Central Valley town of Ceres arrested her boyfriend and two other men Tuesday. The victim's boyfriend, 21-year-old Richard Garibay, found a message on the woman’s phone on Jan. 27 that he didn't like, according to Ceres police.” (LA Times, 2/09/12)

So often, the reports characterize the attacks as “bizarre,” “unexplained,” and “shocking.”  The authorities are unsure what motivated the attacks.  Sometimes, the perpetrator is even identified as one of the “victims.”  And always, the reports describe the disbelief of families, friends, coworkers and neighbors, who never saw it coming.  Events like these are so often presented by the media as “unexpected and unexplained.“  But are they really?

If you do a Google search, you will find hundreds of these incident reports, and if you read past the first few paragraphs, between the statements of shock and incredulity, a pattern will begin to emerge.  The couple was “estranged,” the victim was the assailant’s former wife or girlfriend, there is a history of child custody “issues,” and the precipitating event was a break-up, divorce filing, or the discovery that the victim had begun another relationship. Often, if you make it down to the last paragraph, you will find a history of “domestic disputes,” a prior restraining order, or even a previous charge of spousal battery.  And yet, no one seems to identify the pattern. 

Even after the victim has been severely injured, killed, or goes missing, there is rarely an effort made to connect the dots.  And by reporting these stories as if they were inexplicable disasters rather than cautionary tales, we are missing an opportunity to educate the public about the signs that were missed.  Consider this.  What if domestic violence-related killings were given the level of scrutiny afforded to the passing of Whitney Houston?  What if we took the time to piece together the tragic events leading up to these deaths, as we did when years of substance abuse and sycophantic enabling resulted in Michael Jackson's overdose? Throughout the last week, many people had no trouble saying, "we are shocked but not surprised" by Whitney's demise, because the public has come to recognize the dire consequences of drug addiction.  In the world of Domestic Violence, so often we, too, are shocked but not surprised.  No one sees the pattern better than those of us who work with these victims.  We know, because if you have spent any time with battered women, you are not shocked by these murders at all, just overcome with a dreadful feeling of “here we go again.”  You know that an abused woman is seven times more likely to be killed when she leaves the relationship.  And this is not a random series of unforeseeable events.  In fact, the pattern is all too clear: possessiveness, jealousy and abandonment rage are pervasive in relationships that end in homicide, as are struggles over property and children. 

If you understand domestic violence, then you do not say, as many in law enforcement and the media do, “We do not know what was in the mind of [the suspect].”  You know that regaining control is the driving force in violent relationship, and you recognize that an abuser never feels more out of control than when his partner has left him, or has custody of their children, or takes up with another partner.

Are these events tragic?  Without question.  But are they unforeseen, “one-off” events that could not have been predicted?  The answer is NO.  And would recognizing the patterns prevent all these heinous crimes?  Of course not.  But until friends, neighbors, family, coworkers, law enforcement, prosecutors – and yes, the media – see the picture, we’ll never know how many deaths we could prevent.

*Ava Rose, LCSW is Director of Women Helping Women ~ Community Counseling & Support Services, a program of the National Council of Jewish Women/ Los Angeles, and Steering Committee Member of the Westside Domestic Violence Network.

Tweet

Casey, Michael, and Nancy

By Robin Sax  Casey Anthony, Michael Jackson, Nancy Grace … It sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, doesn’t it? I wish I could say it was. It’s not only not a joke but it’s crux of a legal argument.  Imagine this --The King of Pop -- now being mentioned in the same sentence as -- wait for it, ‘Tot Mom.'   That’s right, Casey Anthony is casting a giant shadow in a courtroom thousands of miles away from her Florida legal extravaganza. Lawyers representing the doctor accused in the Jackson drug overdose case, are demanding jurors be sequestered in this case. Why? Because, they say, interest in the upcoming Conrad Murray trial will be bigger than the Casey Anthony trial. Murray’s Lawyers have even gone on to say, “There is a reasonable expectation that Dr. Murray’s trial will be the most publicized trial in history."   Now, let me say I don’t disagree. Some of you may actually remember I left the Los Angeles County DA’s office because of this case. I knew on June 25, 2009 (the day Jackson died) what lawyers are arguing now. This case would receive gavel-to-gavel coverage. Now before you balk about my self-promotion, think about it, our society is obsessed with crime, obsessed with celebrity, obsessed with drama, characters, LA, so it’s the perfect story. Knowing this was going to be the biggest case of my time, I was NOT going to miss the opportunity to opine, as I actually have the skinny, the insight, and know the nuances of my former offiice. The LA District Attorney’s office -- the players, the case, the evidence, and strategies -- will all be under intense scrutiny. Who better to cut through the hype than a former DA like me?   OJ was called ‘the trial of the century,’ but that was before the world-wide-web. OJ was covered via good old fashion cameras, radio, and reporters. But that was before Nancy Grace, bloggers, tweets and status updates. And Casey proved it – minute-by minute coverage paid off with sky-high ratings.  And she wasn’t even famous. 

When everybody’s jaws finally returned to normal after the Anthony not guilty verdict, the experts began discussing what kind of impact this case would have on the jury system. I was one of them. Was I surprised by the Anthony verdict? Not really. I know what it’s like to stand up in front of a packed courtroom for a big trial. I know what it means to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and never discount the burden of proof, something I think the Florida prosecutors did.   This one is going to be big. I just hope that the DA in LA doesn’t watch too much of its own press, drink too much of their own Kool-Aid, or get too cocky, like the Florida prosecutors did. This case, while seemingly easy on the surface, is actually tough. There are many legal nuances presented by a case involving a drug like Propofol. Then, there is the question of whether Michael was responsible for his own demise or not. And even with the best lawyers, a smart judge, and a good jury, the DAs will have to do their job. And they will have to do it even better than they think.   Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor has previously said he doesn’t believe round-the-clock isolation of jurors is going to be necessary. And whether you agree or not, one must ask how much does the analysis, the talk, and the hype affect the case. Was Casey Anthony acquitted because her case got too much attention? I mean her jurors were sequestered after all. Face it people, circumstances impact all cases. Rampart haunted LAPD for years. Kobe Bryant and the DSK cases affect all rape cases. We are a knowledgeable society, and we will weigh in. But are we weighing in fairly? I mean how crazy is it - the “People versus Dr. Conrad Murray” is being dubbed, ‘The Jackson Trial.’ Michael’s family will be seated in that courtroom day-in and day-out. His parents, siblings and his children will watch, as Michael is once again center stage. His health, use of drugs, odd behaviors, and yes, the condition of his body after death, will be exposed for all to hear. TV, analysis or not, these circumstances will affect the case just as much as a camera, and yes, even Nancy Grace.  

The prosecutor in this case, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren, is a darn good lawyer. He’s fair and hard working, but in this post-Casey Anthony era, does he stand a chance? The evidence as laid out so far, seems to put Murray in a heap of trouble. But we’ve all seen what reasonable doubt can do to a jury. After Casey, I called for professional juries. The idea isn’t a new one, but it may be worth looking at. With 24 hour, seven days a week coverage of a case like this one, what pressures will Murray and his defense team face? What about the DA and his team? Can justice prevail? I don’t know about you, but I’ll be watching, tweeting, and Facebooking just as I’ve planned since 2009.  Photo credit: ...ven y siente el RUIDO 

Tweet

Rushing to Judgment from Coast to Coast

by Robin Sax

The dust is just beginning to settle from three of the most explosive legal cases since O.J. rode in the Bronco on the 405, long before we knew anything about “Carmageddon.”

First, there is Casey Anthony, where once again our jury system has left people outside the deliberation room scratching their heads.

Then there’s the DSK debacle. Dominque Strauss-Kahn’s accuser told her story publicly, and while I find it compelling and convincing, it won’t matter for the case; it is O-V-E-R.

And in Los Angeles, law enforcement’s latest example of dropping the ball is the case of the wrong bad guy arrested in the brutal attack on that fan at Dodger Stadium. After arresting a suspect, and telling just about everyone they "had their man," police have now let that suspect go, only to arrest two others, who are what they now call the ‘real’ suspects. Some say, “Hey, he was on parole. No charges filed so no harm, no foul.” Well, maybe–or maybe not. 

If you don’t think these news stories affect all the other run-of-the-mill cases in courtrooms each and every day, think again. From my days in the Los Angeles DA’s office, I was forced to clean up a ton of debris left behind by every quick-acting, non thinking, big-mouth prosecutor or police officer. During the Rampart scandal that tainted the LAPD, I had to hear defense attorneys drone on during voir dire about whether ‘police officers can be trusted.'

After the Duke Lacrosse case, where a corrupt district attorney turned a sex crimes case into a three-ring circus, I had to listen to defense attorneys make arguments comparing my legit victim to the phony victim in that case–or even worse, comparing me to DA Mike Nifong.

In the Dodger beating case, defense attorneys are already picking holes in the case against the ‘new’ suspects.  As a defense attorney, I’d do the same. If cops didn’t get right the first time, why would this case hold water? In fact, there is no doubt in my mind in light of the DSK case as well as the Dodger fan-beating case, courts and jurors will be inundated with the themes of ‘rush to judgment’ with either direct or indirect reference to these two cases. So, what went wrong, and why the rush to judgment?

It’s easy to blame the media. Rightly so, I have appeared on and watched many a cable panel try, convict and sentence before the first commercial break. Is this what we want from our justice system? But blame the media all you want, it’s the officials who make the decisions and it’s the officials' words on whom we rely.

As a prosecutor and defense attorney, we constantly have to deal with the fall out of the media. People blame the media yet it’s the public that feeds the media machine. So, I ask you why are we so obsessed with these cases, are the officials forced to give answers, and is the rush to judgment simply a rush to appease the media watching public?

Tweet

Medical Marijuana: The Voters Have Spoken

by Robin Sax

The stories are heartbreaking. Young mothers fighting to survive the ravages of breast cancer and the nausea of chemotherapy; seniors struggling with the tremors of Multiple Sclerosis. Illness has touched all of our lives in one form or another. Whether it is cancer, glaucoma, Crohn’s disease, or even Alzheimer’s, we have all seen people live in pain. I am not talking about minor “ouchies”–this is chronic pain: debilitating headaches, inability to eat, swallow–pain that makes the one suffering just want to curl up in a ball and die.

Doctors have an arsenal of drugs to try to help those patients, medications like OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, and Morphine–powerful drugs that come with serious side effects like addiction. These drugs often don’t even work to erase the pain, leaving the patients in a hazed out prescription cloud.

As a society, we have all become very well versed in caring for our bodies. Eat healthy, exercise, watch your red meat, a glass of red wine is okay, as is dark chocolate. We’ve even become more open to alternative medicine such as acupuncture or homeopathic remedies, which are now are seen as real options. But not, it seems, when it comes to the use of medical cannabis – otherwise known as therapeutic marijuana.

Why do people have so much trouble with therapeutic cannabis? Many people see their mission in life is closing down cooperative after cooperative, collective after collective, and dispensary after dispensary. What’s worse, these people are our community leaders–elected officials, city councils, small town mayors. It’s mind-boggling, frankly.

California voters spoke in 1996 when they approved Proposition 215 allowing for therapeutic use of cannabis. The people have spoken, and yet their voices go unheard. The political nonsense doesn’t even end there. The government itself has acknowledged the benefits of therapeutic cannabis. Yep. None other than the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services took out a patent based on research done by the National Institute on Health. Patent number 6,630,507 states unequivocally that cannabinoids are useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including auto-immune disorders, stroke, trauma, Parkinson's, Alzheimer’s, HIV dementia.

So, the voters have voted and the government has acknowledged that patients can get relief and yet the courts are clogged with the day-in, day-out state/federal war over this issue. Give me a break. Isn’t there a better project for a city or county to worry about than therapeutic cannabis? Now don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting every farmacy is legit. But how about some standards, regulation, or at least some recognition for the people that do play by the rules?

A better example of the rub and constant governmental shut down than a case in the little city of Temecula in Riverside County. Despite the California law enactment in 1996, and an additional Senate amendment passed in 2004, Temecula unilaterally decided to ban dispensaries in the city of Temecula in 2006. Per the report that was done at the time, city staff members justified their ban by saying that there is nothing in state law that requires Temecula to allow dispensaries within its boundaries.

Doug Lanphere, tireless advocate, and the force behind Cooperative Patients’ Services, or CPS, in Temecula, is insistent on dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. He has carefully studied all of the Department of Justice requirements and prides himself on CPS’s undisputed class act collective. He is happy to oblige in insuring patients can be treated, and the city’s concerns dealt with. He has voluntarily submitted himself to various law enforcement agencies to walk through, and approve the collective, as well as offered time and time again to meet with city officials, and police representatives in order to work together in the mutual interest of serving their community.

Colleen is a member of Doug’s cooperative and she is what keeps him awake at night–trying to figure out how to keep his doors open despite legal attack after legal attack by the city of Temecula. For Colleen, and every other suffering patient, I say give them the choice to do what the California legislature allows. Let them have access to the therapeutic cannabis. If it can help, who are we to remove that chance for some relief, and perhaps even some quality of life.

CPS has an important function in Riverside County. Unlike Los Angeles, San Francisco or other areas known for “lax” drug rules, Temecula serves a small desert community where many people move to the dry heat specifically to assist in their health matters. Patients like Colleen, a nurse, who has found cannabis the only way to beat back the agony of her ruptured spinal discs. From her morphine haze she called cannabis the only treatment that gave her some sense of quality of life, something opiates could not.

So I ask you; isn’t time to listen to the voters and let those who are ill be comforted with the therapy that works?

To stay up on CPS and therapeutic cannabis follow on Twitter at @coop420cps

photo credits: Goodnight London and harminder dhesi photography

Tweet

July System Failures - Part One

by Robin Sax

When you see injustice all the time, as I do every day at work, you get used to it. It's a sad reality of my profession, where I too often witness bad results for victims of horrible crimes. But rarely do I see such disgusting manifestations of system failures as I did this past week in two cases. The first, the one I'm exploring today, is the case of Baby Vanessa. The second example will be up tomorrow, in part two of this post.

These two cases make one think of flipping through the Discovery Channel, TruTV, or the like, where one encounters unbelievably sensational crimes and incredible wrongs. I worry that we live in a disheartened, blasé society -- one that prefers to ignore critical issues rather than engage and change them. It's painful to watch our system fail our citizens, and I refuse to stand on the sidelines. This is important, and these two cases are happening now!

BABY VANESSA

The battle for baby Vanessa made headlines last week when a local KNBC Los Angeles journalist, Tara Wallis Finestone, got wind of the heartbreaking tug-of-war between the adoptive mother Stacey Doss (right) and birth father Benjamin Mills, Jr.

Doss adopted Vanessa at birth with the help of an adoption agency. This was a legitimate adoption. Unfortunately, however, the birth mother lied - under penalty of perjury - on the forms when she stated the child was as a result of a “one night stand” and that she had no idea of the birth father's identity.

Before you condemn the birth mom for lying, consider these harrowing facts: Benjamin Mills, Jr. has four other children (none of which he has custody of); he has a child endangerment charge on his record; and he has been imprisoned for domestic violence – once pulling the birth mother so hard by the hair that when the police arrived at the house, they discovered bloody clumps of hair all over the floor. So when the mother could not care for baby Vanessa, do you blame her for not listing this man as the father on the adoption papers?

Baby Vanessa, now two years old, has been ordered to return to Ohio where she will be cared for by her paternal grandmother, whom she has never met. Stacey Doss, Vanessa’s adoptive mother, was given until July 16 to turn over the child.

When Doss filed a petition of adoption for Vanessa on July 1, 2008, all she wanted was to give Vanessa the love, security and stable, supportive family network that she enjoyed. Since then, Stacey has been engaged in stressful and expensive (to the point of nearly wiping out all her income and potentially losing her home) litigation with the birth father (photo left) – a convicted felon who resides in Ohio and whose legal fees are being paid by the State of Ohio and the State of California.

Since birth, little Vanessa has lived with the only mother she knows - Stacey Doss - in Southern California. Baby Vanessa has been safe and happy and has an extended family of loving grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins with the Doss family. Stacey is being challenged by the birth father, who is African-American; Toddler Vanessa is bi-racial . While Stacey is Caucasian, her extended family includes bi-racial children and marriages . The big question is why does the birth father want to uproot Vanessa from her loving home with Stacy? What are his motives?
“I ask all decent people from both California and Ohio to help me in this cause, not only to ensure Vanessa stays permanently with the only loving family she has ever known, but to bring situations like this to the attention of the public for all adoptive parents who are fighting a fight like this,” said Stacey. “I'm frightened for my daughter and have cried endlessly at the thought of her being taken away from me and placed with complete strangers. How would you feel? In this instance the law has lost its common sense and regard for human decency . . . children are not a commodity that you put in a warehouse until a decision is made as to where to place them!” As you can tell, Stacy is distraught and at her wits end with trying to fight this.

Stacey has said, “Even though this case has been gut wrenching, the decision to adopt Vanessa is still the best decision I ever made.” Stacy plans to commit the rest of her life to adoption reform, making it easier, faster and more affordable so that no one suffers needlessly the way she and her daughter have.

Regardless of where you fall on the question of whether an adoptive mom should trump a biological parent – how about considering the best interest of the child? After all, in family court cases that's the exact standard that we use to determine the custody orders of natural parents when there is a divorce. In this case, it's not even a close call. The best interest of this child is with Stacey Doss.

So, if we can all see it, how come Benjamin Mills, Jr. doesn’t? Why wouldn’t he want to do what was in the best interest of the child? While I can only speculate, it seems to me that the cycle of violence is continuing. This a person who has been convicted for domestic abuse. An integral part of the domestic-violence cycle is power and control. And what better way for Benjamin Mills to jack bio-mom around than keeping her from doing what she wanted? So, while the tug-of-war appears to be between Stacey Doss (adoptive mom) and bio-dad, in my opinion it's really bio-dad's desire to gain power and control over his favorite victim, bio-mom.

For more information, read "The Battle For Vanessa" and the most recent update. Check back tomorrow for my second post, this one on a self-confessed mafia hit-man who got a get out of jail free card.

Tweet

Point, Click, Stalk?

By Robin Sax and Guest Contributor Melissa Alonzo Kriz

Ever pass by a building or landmark, wonder what it is, and wish you could find out right on the spot? Now you can -- with the click of your phone's camera and the launch of "Goggles," a new image-recognition technology that instantly provides pictures and information based on a single photo. The beta (still in testing) application was developed by Google to run on the Android operating system, also developed by Google for mobile devices.

This remarkable visual search technology soon will be expanded to allow a user to take a mobile-phone picture of an item (work of art, book, plant, etc.), then instantly search for similar images and information about the object on the Internet. As our technological capabilities increase exponentially, we might all say this was inevitable. We might be comfortable with how we'll use the new programs for fun and for good. 

But a pause is necessary.

Imagine you are at the gym or the grocery store, and a creep sidles up and manages to take a picture of you with his cell phone. Within seconds, using this image-recognition technology, he would have access to your photos on Facebook and find your name, where you work and live, and any other information about you that exists in cyberspace. That's a scary prospect. 

Take it one step further: What happens when predator aims his camera at a child on the playground? The predator would have access to similar images of the child on the web; they could lead to the child's name, school and possibly home address.

Goggles is currently limited to letting users find and learn about inanimate objects. However, technologies (including a yet-unreleased component of Goggles itself) already exist that use similar methods to crawl the web looking for images containing facial characteristics of people. The photos could be culled from your employer's public website, online community newsletters, schools' and universities' sites, Facebook and other social-networking sites, and any other public area on the web where your photo may reside (even without your knowledge).

Google has taken some heat for privacy concerns on some of its services, so for now it is holding off from releasing the facial-recognition aspect of Goggles. However, other software developers are already delivering mobile and web applications containing facial-recognition technology. Just look at your iPhoto if you are a Mac user.

The Swedish company The Astonishing Tribe (TAT) is currently testing a product called Recognizr. The TAT product allows a user to snap a photo of anyone in public, select the "recognize" button, and then receive photos and information about that person from social networking sites. TAT does have privacy policies; they offer an opt-in provision (or permission) from the subject of the photo in order for Recognizr to work. 

But TAT doesn't plan to offer its service directly to consumers. Instead, it will make the technology available to mobile-phone makers and phone-service provides so they can develop their own applications.These companies may or may not choose to follow TAT's privacy standards.

Face.com, an Israeli company, also has developed several products that include facial-recognition technology. Developers will be able to use and expand upon its services. One Face.com product, CelebrityFinder, uses facial recognition technology to pull all photos (and lookalikes) of a celebrity from Twitter feeds. Face.com is in the process of enhancing the face detection function to include profile poses. Face.com privacy policies say the use of its product may not violate user privacy, and that users must inform their subjects that they've been tagged and provide them the ability to remove those tags. I feel safe already.

The bottom line is that the facial recognition technology is already here. We live in a "point, click, and stalk" world. So how can we protect ourselves, and our families, from stalkers who'll use this technology to their criminal advantage? It is unlikely we can pass an enforceable law making it a crime to take a non-celebrity's photo in public, even if the photo taken is of a child.

Perhaps federal legislation could be aimed at the technology companies and mobile phone carriers? We could demand strong, mandatory privacy policies for the facial-recognition software from Face.com, TAT, and other developers as a pre-condition of sale or use. While this type of legislation wouldn't guarantee protection from illicit use of this potentially creepy technology, it would assist in increasing consumer awareness. Most of all, we must hold those who develop, host, and use the technology accountable so we can prevent the next wave of cyber-stalking before it begins.

Tweet

My Big Mouth

 by Robin Sax

I went to law school because I knew I wanted to use my voice to help others, as well as to express myself. I saw the law as a way to get my voice heard.

Unfortunately, I was really miserable during my first year of law school. I hated every minute of my studies and was terrified that I was going to be forever in debt for a career that wasn’t right for me. But one spring day during my first year of law school, everything shifted for me. It was a Saturday, with only a month of classes left. I was arguing Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure in a moot court presentation to a mock panel of appellate lawyers. They grilled me on the law, questioned my analogies, and forced me to think on my feet.

As I was arguing my position, I realized I was actually enjoying myself. I was opinionated and passionate, and everyone was actually listening to my ideas. I realized that not only could I do good work as a lawyer, but it could actually be fun and fulfilling.

My second and third years flew by. Now I knew I was going to be a trial lawyer! I wanted to see the inside of a courtroom and stand up for justice for the underdog or victim. I decided to become a prosecutor. Then I could do the two things I love — educate and advocate. Even better, I could remain committed to always doing “the right thing.” Every decision I made revolved around one central question: “Is what I am doing in this case, with this defendant, in the best interest of the people I represent?”

I began working for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in 1999. Although I received a great deal of satisfaction handling each of my cases, eventually I wanted to seek justice in other lawyers’ cases, in other cities, counties, and countries. Each and every day in court, I watched the wheels of justice move at pace slower than molasses in winter.  I would listen to arguments in court and feel some frustration. I saw things that seemed unjust and unfair. 

As a prosecutor, though, I could not speak out on cases being prosecuted in Los Angeles; I could only discuss cases in other jurisdictions. In order to make sense of what I was observing in Los Angeles, I began examining sexual assault and abuse cases around the country. I looked at best practices and missed opportunities to help me understand the victims I was working with. 

What shocked me most was how many cases were filled with mistakes, injustices, and plain old mediocre work. It was tough to sit in court and watch these injustices happen day in and day out. So, I thought, “Well, Robin, don’t just think about it, do something!” I did. I began writing, teaching, and advocating.  As I did this, I was always mindful of my responsibilities and duties as a representative of the Los Angeles County DA’s Office.

As I was contemplating writing a book about the inner workings of the system (which I later did), I was assigned the case of Thomas Beltran.  Beltran was a 30-year veteran Lincoln Middle School teacher from Santa Monica who sexually assaulted a large number of his female junior high students.  While the case became an example of best practices (in terms of the sexual assault investigation and coordinated efforts between law enforcement, prosecutors, social workers, etc.), it also presented one of the saddest examples I'd seen of modern-day parents-gone-bad. 

Beltran was arrested on a Friday. Through the course of that weekend, top notch Santa Monica Police Department detectives and I worked together. They interviewed a number of teenagers who came forward, contained the classroom, secured the defendant's whereabouts, and obtained his confession to committing all acts with all victims.

As disturbing as the case was, the silver lining was that Thomas Beltran took responsibility early. He confessed both in interview and via lie detector. But that Monday, during a town-hall meeting at Lincoln Middle School, I witnessed parents standing up for him. I heard murmurs of “he’s not guilty,” and cries that the victims weren't telling the truth.  I couldn't believe this.  In my mind, I thought there were only one of two possibilities: Either these parents were the cruelest I have ever seen, or they were the most naïve parents I have ever seen.  I preferred Option Two.  

Yet it dawned on me that if the default response of these parents was to doubt the victim, what would happen if their own kids came to them?  It was then that I knew I needed to use my experiences to educate and speak out instead of processing justice one case, one victim at a time. Armed with that story, I convinced Prometheus Books to allow me to write Predators and Child Molesters: A Sex Crimes DA Answers 100 of the Most-Asked Questions.

In February 2009, two months before the release of that book, I delivered notice to the DA's Office that I wanted to resign. Though it was a difficult decision, I wanted to pursue a career in the media.  After my experience with the Beltran case, I was driven more then ever to support victims on a macro level.

My boss suggested I wait to resign (to see how I liked being away from the office), so I instead took an official leave of absence from the DA’s office to write books, teach classes, do public speaking, and appear on television as a guest analyst and commentator.

My leave of absence was for a maximum of six months. I had until September to decide whether I was going to pursue justice as a prosecutor or as an author and advocate. During my time away, I blogged, wrote articles, spoke and lectured, and I realized the huge impact one can make on society through the power of the media. 

Thanks to my experience as a courtroom prosecutor, public speaking and "performing” are not new for me. Many of the same reasons I love being a trial lawyer -- using my strong voice to share a particular point of view -- apply to my love of communicating via television, radio, and the Internet.  I could educate, pontificate, and ensure change.  For the first time, I could say it as I saw it was with no censorship, no fear of angering my boss -- just expressing how I felt, purely, simply, and honestly.

I found my public voice growing and actually being heard. People appreciated seeing a prosecutor shaking things up, calling out lawyers, police officers, and others who weren’t living up to the requirements of their positions, letting down the people they were supposed to protect.  

The biggest difference between working in the popular media versus the courtroom is that people watch TV, listen to the radio, or read because they want to -- not because they received a jury summons in the mail.  They want to hear what I have to say as a spokesperson in the public eye

My other frustration as a prosecutor was seeing how completely different public life is from private sector life. So often I went to work and was amazed that justice was ever dispensed, considering the many shortcomings inherent in the system. I didn’t understand the lack of accountability, the lack of diligence and the overall complacency of a justice system that was supposed to exist to protect our society. 

Without even realizing it, I was traveling a new career path as an outspoken advocate and legal commentator.  No longer a DA, I'm now a watchdog of the very system I once worked in. Instead of following policy and accepting my marching orders and memoranda, I'm doing what I've always done, one way or the other: "saying it like it is." Only this time, there’s no one hanging over my shoulder vetting my words.

When I officially resigned from the DA’s office in July 2009, I told them it was better for me not to try to walk the extremely tight line between being a prosecutor and an outspoken advocate. I wanted to use my voice in the media without worrying whether it was inconsistent with the beliefs or philosophies of the Los Angeles County District Attorney.

Still, while I had not always been able to  speak out and reveal my opinions, as a prosecutor I  had a great deal of latitude and discretion in terms of how I handled my own cases. In them, I was making a difference and changing the lives of children who were being abused. 

I never actually got in trouble, but I always felt that I was teetering at the edge. That was part of my decision: I wanted to leave before I blew it, while I still had a good relationship with the DA’s office, law enforcement, etc.  Besides, I loved the people I worked with. I just wanted us to do better!

Now, I represent "the people,” but in a whole new way. Every lawyer has her own story and her own inspiration.  Mine just happens to have been written by my big mouth.

Tweet

An Investigative Journalist Who Has a Heart and a Soul: A Review of The Last Day of My Life

by Robin Sax

I am not really a crier. I did bawl my eyes out in the movie Precious, but generally – as a veteran sex crimes prosecutor – it takes a lot to get my tears flowing.  Especially with books!  But Jim Moret’s The Last Day of My Life did make me cry. 

Why did it resonate with me so much? At first I didn’t know why – I was truly surprised at my reaction.  I looked inward to try and understand why this book touched me so much.  I realized it must be the dichotomy inherent in Jim Moret.  Someone like him, a public personality, appeared to have it all. And yet Moret was truly suffering inside. He faced the same woes and worries that many of us share, but had to put on a “happy face” for his TV appearances and for his family’s sake. 

Moret hits a nerve when he talks about a universal fear for those who suffer from depression: the idea that we may be better off dead. What makes this book ultimately so moving is that Moret actually had the courage to go public with his struggle. He truly went out on a limb, both professionally and personally, to help us all be more open with ourselves and with our families. And he did it without shame. Moret gives us a book with transparency, honesty, and raw emotion.

Moret tells his stories, tells of his pain and woe, with beautiful simplicity. I understood, heard, and sympathized with his struggles right away. After finishing the book, I was downright hopeful. 

One would never guess that such an emotionally charged book could come out of an investigative journalist – whose job is basically about exposing someone else’s soul without exposing his own motivations, bias, ideas, and emotions.

Jim Moret is neither a psychologist nor a therapist.  He is currently the Chief Correspondent for "Inside Edition". Like many other TV personalities, he comes from a background in law.  Yet he relates to us on a deeply psychological level. So many of us are desperately seeking answers and understanding.  In a mere 161 pages, Jim Moret provides us with more then just answers.  He pours his heart and soul into the book and gets the reader to examine their own.  Not many therapists can do that (for the price of a book anyway)! 

The Last Day of My Life was a deeply moving account of courage and wisdom. Jim Moret not only gives himself a gift, he gives each of us one as well. 

To Order, click here 

Official Synopsis:

If you had 24 hours to live...Should you finally forgive the one who hurt you the most, and would you find the courage to apologize to the person you wronged? Who would you remember as your life's greatest love? Could you recognize what you are truly grateful for? Jim Moret didn't fully understand the answers to those questions until he was literally a day away from ending his own life. This veteran television broadcaster and interviewer turns the camera on himself, taking the reader on an intimate journey. He moves beyond depression, tragedy, and self-doubt and grapples with his greatest decision: not simply whether to live but how to live. If you only had 24 hours left...what would you do?

Tweet