6:20 p.m. The debate has ended. Moderator Warnken says, “This has been a hard-fought campaign. Obviously these people are not out having coffee with one another each night. A very health exercise.”

6:19 p.m. Lansey: “The primary goal for the entire criminal justice system…is public safety. I can see the horizon just coming because of the economy. The state’s attorney’s office is not the cure-all.”

6:14 p.m. Bernstein identifies his goal to take Baltimore off the list of the nation’s most violent cities. “The high incarceration rate has not made Baltimore less dangerous. It’s time for change, it’s time for a fresh look, a fresh start. It’s time to end the blame game and develop a true crime-fighting partnership.”

6:12 p.m. The closing arguments begin. Jessamy says her opponent has no experience in managing an office, and has only talked about things that have been done many times. “You need a leader, not someone who goes along to get along.”

6:10 p.m. Jessamy says that she has no rebuttal on the topic of the death penalty.

6:09 p.m. Bernstein: “We now have one of the most restrictive death penalty statutes in the country.” He added that the oldest person on death row currently has been there for 27 years.

6:05 p.m. Question 6: When should the state’s attorney pursue the statutory option of seeking the death penalty?

6:03 p.m. Bernstein: “I refuse to engage in the blame game and blame every other agency but my office for the problems in the criminal justice system. We need to be transparent and that we just don’t have. I think we need to keep and publish conviction rates. Engaging in the blame game just doesn’t cut it.”

6:00 p.m. Jessamy: “Police who…lie cause distrust in the community.” She says she tells her prosecutors that they need to have a love of the law and a centered moral compass.

5:57 p.m. Lansey says that people distrust the criminal justice system because they distrust the police. “When I was younger, police used to beat folks up just for fun,” she said. “They’ve witnessed that kind of behavior for so long…” that they distrust officers more than courts.

5:55 p.m. Question 5: Why do people distrust the criminal justice system and how can that be changed?

5:52 p.m. Jessamy responds: “We do train police.”

5:51 p.m. “The majority of police in Baltimore City are good guys and ladies,” said Lansey. “Any policeman who breaks the law is setting example for the general public and needs to penalized, punished, addressed just like any other citizen.” She suggests that perhaps officers could use some psychiatric counseling.

5:49 p.m. Bernstein also said he wants to provide “trainings, seminars and lectures” for cops so they know how to make arrests.

5:44 p.m. Bernstein says that he supports Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s cell phone jamming bill in prisons. “We need to protect our witnesses who are already in jail who are cooperating.”

5:42 p.m. Jessamy: “Again, it’s obvious my opponent has no clue about what is happening within the criminal justice system.”

5:40 p.m. Question 3: What is the best strategy to counter the Stop Snitchin’ mentality?

5:37 p.m. Sheryl Lansey: “I don’t think threatening parents who don’t care will solve this problem. If the gangs get ahold of them, then we’ll have a bigger problem.”

5:35 p.m. “I don’t think anyone in this room can say that juvenile crime is better than it was 15 years ago. In fact, it’s worse,” Bernstein said.
“The state’s attorney’s office’s job is to prosecute these violent offenders.”

5:34 p.m.Jessamy responds: “Line of Defense…One of those lines of defense is truancy.”

5:33 p.m. Bernstein responds: It’s necessary to address juvenile crime as early as possible while at the same time we need to focus on the most violent juvenile offenders.

5:30 p.m. Question 2: How can the criminal justice system prevent repeat juvenile offenders from becoming adult offenders?

5:20 p.m. “We need to stop this revolving door,” said Bernstein. “I am a career lawyer, not a career politician.”

5:06 p.m. Dean Closius gives his opening remarks‬, stating that he wants the law school to be a “neutral place” to discuss ideas and views.

“For the three or four people in the crowd who don’t know Byron Warnken, he is Mr. UB…”

4:55 p.m.Challenger Gregg Bernstein arrived first. “For those of you who don’t know why you’re here, this is estates and trusts,” he said, adding there will be a quiz afterwards.

Earlier this year, my (former) colleague Caryn Tamber wrote entertainingly about her appearance in traffic court. Earlier this week, I, too, stood before a city judge and explained why I should not have to pay a fine. Among other differences between our experiences: she won and I lost. But it’s not whether you win or lose…

Caryn was found not guilty and didn’t have to pay her $60 ticket — the right decision, I thought. I, on the other hand, had my $42 ticket halved but had to pay $22.50 in court costs (forgot about those!), bringing my total bill to $43.50. So not only did I have to spend part of my morning at the Patapsco Avenue courthouse but I had to pay $1.50 more than if I had simply typed and clicked on my laptop from the comfort of home.

Read the rest of this entry »

Instead of writing about yet another day of evidentiary motions in the run-up to trial in the murder of former Baltimore City Councilman Ken Harris, allow me to offer a couple of curtain-raiser thoughts.

With jury selection scheduled to start tomorrow and go into next week, this high-profile trial is expected to get underway in earnest on Sept. 13 — one day before voters go to the polls to decide whether State’s Attorney Pat Jessamy deserves another four-year term as Baltimore’s top prosecutor. Although the confluence of events appears to be a coincidence — trial has been postponed four times — the case contains many of the issues Jessamy and principal challenger Gregg Bernstein have argued about this summer and could provide fodder for some 11th-hour posturing.

Read the rest of this entry »

It seems like anyone with an e-mail account could’ve seen this one coming.

Last month, a Silver Spring attorney filed suit against the Federal Republic of Nigeria and its National Universities Commission, alleging he had been hired, but not paid, by the NUC to collect nearly $1.9 million of the government agency’s money that had somehow been misplaced when the scandalized Riggs National Bank was taken over by PNC.

Sound familiar? The old “Help me access millions of dollars in some foreign bank account and we’ll share the proceeds. It won’t hurt a bit …” solicitation?

Read the rest of this entry »

I have an article in today’s paper about one blind person’s galling experience of taking last week’s Maryland Bar Exam. To wit: human readers who weren’t strong readers and a major computer malfunction, in addition to other imperfect conditions faced by all test-takers (e.g., the background drone of construction).

Today’s story was a follow-up to an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit filed by three blind law school graduates in June which was basically mooted last month when a federal judge denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. (Things might heat up again in November when the test results come back…)

I wasn’t able to speak to the third plaintiff, Tim Elder, before my deadline on Friday, but I did receive a voicemail message from him over the weekend.

“I got through the exam,” he reported. “Everything with the laptop worked fabulous.”

So far, so good. Especially since co-plaintiff Anne Blackfield had software compatibility problems with the JAWS (Job Access With Speech) program, which is what Elder also used. But as with Blackfield and Michael Witwer, there was more to the story.

“However the reader, despite being an incredibly nice person, and incredibly helpful and willing to be helpful, I think, was less than qualified to be a reader for a law exam and may have even had some trouble just in being qualified for reading in general. I think the reader was probably just a standard proctor that had been asked to read,” said Elder, who is slated to work for the plaintiffs’ lead law firm this fall. (That’s Elder on the right in the photo above, along with Witwer).

I’m just a reporter, not a federal judge or licensing exam administator, but this doesn’t seem right. Am I missing something or is some re-evaluation of protocol in order here?

Let me start by saying I went to The Senator last night simply to see, for free, a classic film I’d never watched all the way through and to check out what I thought would be a neat event. I didn’t go as a reporter; I didn’t bring a notebook; I didn’t interview former Senator owner Tom Kiefaber (who I’ve actually never spoken to, only read about), and didn’t intend on writing anything until after the whole evening unfolded. Rather, I went dressed in shorts and sneakers with some old family friends and got there only a few minutes before the festivities kicked off, lucky to snag one of the few remaining unclaimed seats in the auditorium.

All disclosures and caveats aside, the point is I’m glad I went because how many opportunities do you get to watch Obi-Wan duel Darth Vader for the first time while simultaneously taking part in a memorable episode of Baltimore history?

Read the rest of this entry »

The other day, I found in my office mailbox a photocopied Subway coupon sheet addressed to “Daily Record Newspaper Employees” and touting “great offers.” As a longtime Subway customer, I read on, expecting to find a deal that would save me a few bucks. Instead, I met with an insult to my intelligence.

“Daily Record Newspaper Employees,” one coupon advertised, could get a FOOTLONG sub, chips and a drink for $7.

Thanks for the personal invitation, Subway, but spare me the disingenuous implication of exclusivity. As any regular patron of the sandwich chain knows, that’s what everybody pays when they make a $5 FOOTLONG into a combo meal.

I don’t know whether the other coupons offer similarly misleading deals. Maybe somebody at another downtown Baltimore employer who eats six-inch subs and has little tolerance for “one for $1, two for $2″ bargains cares to chime in.

After Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake introduced the city’s new health commissioner at a press conference Wednesday morning, I approached the mayor to ask about her vote to approve a $200,000 settlement payment to an anonymous plaintiff regarding a mysterious, mistaken run-in with police.

She calmly told me, as others in city government have, that it was the plaintiff who requested confidentiality and that she and other city leaders deemed that was a reasonable request given the circumstances. Asked how that squared with her professed commitment to transparency, she said, more than once, that “transparency for the public good” is actually what she believes in and that this case, while a “very tough call,” did not fall into that category.

Her principles are flexible, she said.

“This is a rare case,” she continued, “and it’s important to be principled but also flexible and this case called for flexibility.”

Asked how the public can be assured, without knowing the details of the incident, that there won’t be a repeat performance – humiliating to the subject and expensive for the public – the mayor implied no public concern over a confidential settlement with an anonymous claimant concerning a mysterious event means it should stay private.

“There isn’t a public outcry,” she said. “That’s why the only calls we’re getting are from you.”

Is she right?

An exasperated Michael McCrary was on the witness stand in Baltimore City Circuit Court for what seemed like the umpteenth time Tuesday afternoon.

As he attempted to answer his attorney’s questions about the various corporate documents and e-mails that prove his business partners defrauded him of millions of dollars in Hurricane Katrina-related insurance proceeds, defense counsel objected repeatedly to leading questions. Judge Pierson’s phone rang, leading him to take a brief recess.

When McCrary asked the courtroom clerk if he was allowed to take a break from sitting behind the microphone, she waved him over, said a few words, handed him a bag, and just like that, his mood seemed to lighten.

The clerk, Amy Powell, had speculated during the first days of trial last month that she was the only person in the courthouse who didn’t known who Michael McCrary was. Well, apparently her grandson, 15-year-old Levi Masterson, had heard of the former All-Pro defensive end and was not about to miss the opportunity to meet him.

Masterson, a rising sophomore middle linebacker at Henry E. Lackey High School in Indian Head, made the trip up from Southern Maryland Tuesday with his father.

As Masterson told McCrary about his gridiron accomplishments and dreams, the hulking plaintiff carefully wrote with a black marker on the football Powell had given him.

“To Levi,” McCrary wrote, “Best of Luck. Stay focused!”

“McCrary #99,” he signed it — no smudges — and handed it to the young fan, who had been sitting in the gallery waiting for the chance to shake the big man’s hand.

“Good things happen to those who hustle,” McCrary told him, repeating advice he had heard from a former coach.

Later, after hearing more about operating agreements and LLCs than he probably ever hoped to, Masterson seemed satisfied with his trip up to Baltimore, even if the legal back-and-forth was hard to follow.

“I didn’t know why they were there,” he admitted. (Masterson said he’s taken pre-law classes but is instead hoping to be a software engineer.)

For McCrary, it was a pleasant diversion.

“It’s always a nice opportunity when you have a chance to talk to the 12th man on the football team,” he said, referring to fans.

Asked if a 15-year-old could really remember his playing career, which ended in 2002, McCrary noted that his legacy lives on in video games.

“He’s still playing Madden 2001,” McCrary said. “I’m kicking butt in Madden 2001.”

I don’t know if this is quite Freakonomics, but it turns out it’s a better idea to steal in Baltimore, then wait several years to turn yourself in, than to get caught swiping in Johannesburg — at least this month. Allow me to explain.

Both Baltimore and South Africa temporarily sped the wheels of justice recently, for different reasons and with different results.

Baltimore, with roughly 40,000 open warrants, put on its version last week of Fugitive Safe Surrender, a popular program run by the U.S. Marshals, offering “favorable consideration” and expedited disposition to non-violent fugitives who showed up at a Westside church. Almost 1,000 people turned themselves in during the four-day event, which seemed to be a good result for almost everyone involved. Many simply checked in, met with a public defender, prosecutor and maybe a judge, and were free and clear in a few hours. (A small number wanted for more serious offenses were carted off to jail.)

Several thousand miles to the southeast, South Africa, host of the closely-watched World Cup, set up so-called instant justice courts of its own this month. The National Prosecution Authority conceived of the courts to mete out swift and severe penalties for anyone behaving badly during the international event, and by extension, adding to the nation’s high-crime reputation. Steal a cell phone from a visiting soccer fan? Five years in prison.

So, what do you think of these quick fixes? Besides the fundamental question of fairness, are they just Band-Aids for good publicity or is there some broader virtue to such swift adjudication of criminal cases?

Update: The U.S. Marshals Service office in Baltimore reported Tuesday some results for the Safe Surrender effort. During the four days of the event, 979 individuals surrendered themselves on outstanding arrest warrants, 989 misdemeanor warrants were cleared, and 50 felony warrants were cleared.