Yesterday through tomorrow, the Washington Post is publishing an investigative series about a multi-billion dollar law enforcement industry, property forfeiture. Part One is available here, and Part Two is available here. While taking criminally-derived property from convicted felons might make sense, property forfeiture does not always require proof of criminal activity. In fact, once police.
I’m pleased to present my first piece as Contributor to “The Hill,” an online source for political news of all kinds. Do check back with The Hill from time to time, to see what’s new. Naturally, I’ll keep you posted here about my new publications.
We were pleased last month to consent to a Government motion in United States v. Burney, App. No. 13-4925, confessing a trial error to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit has now agreed, and vacated our client’s conspiracy conviction for insufficient evidence. We are pleased that the Government recognized.
Beginning July 11, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice will reverse its long-standing policy forbidding federal agents from recording interrogations. Instead, with narrow exceptions for national security or immediate safety needs, the national police forces will require agents to record these interrogations of criminal defendants. For too long, federal agents have been allowed to be.
For many years, across presidents and political parties, the Office of the Pardon Attorney has been criticized for offering too little mercy. Presidential pardons (forgiving crimes, as if they did not happen) and commutation (forgiving sentences, while leaving convictions in place) happened almost as frequently for holiday turkeys as for human beings. From federal judges.