The End of Spousal Privilege in Georgia

Lawmakers in Georgia are poised to change the balance of power in the prosecution of domestic violence. The Georgia House of Representatives approved HB 711 last month and sent it on to the Georgia Senate. The bill was approved without change and sent to the governor’s desk. Once it goes into effect, HB 711 will allow prosecutors to compel victims of domestic violence to testify against their abusive spouse. It also protects the communications between victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse and the agencies that are created to help them.

This changes an age-old loophole in the law that made it much more difficult for prosecutors to obtain convictions against battering spouses. The loophole, coupled with an 8-year-old opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States, severely tied the hands of domestic violence prosecutors and allowed batterers to go free. In recognition of the sanctity of marriage, a spouse has a general privilege as not to be compelled to testify against one another in criminal proceedings. This privilege became abused in the prosecution of domestic violence cases. Spouses, generally under pressure from their abusers, could refuse to take the stand to testify against the attacker.

Until 2004, prosecutors were able to get around this privilege with some creative legal maneuvering. Once spouses exercised their privilege to refuse to testify, the witness could be deemed to be legally unavailable, allowing the admission of hearsay statements of the victim to 911 operators and law enforcement officers at trial. This exception to the hearsay rule allowed prosecutors to present some very powerful evidence. But the noticeable absence of the victim on the witness stand or the noticeable presence of the victim in support of the batterer sent an equally powerful message to a jury as well.

In 2004, prosecutors were dealt another blow when the Supreme Court held in Crawford v. Washington that the admission of hearsay statements of unavailable witnesses was a violation of the Sixth Amendment in that an accused has a right to confront his accuser in court. This left prosecutors without a witness to many brutal attacks, trying to piece together cases with photographs of injuries and 911 recordings.

The new law will allow prosecutors to compel these victims to take the stand against their abusive spouses. Even if they fail to testify honestly, once these witnesses have testified, their prior inconsistent statements to law enforcement can be admitted to as evidence in trial. According to Solicitor General David Cannon, Jr., “Georgia was the last state to allow this privilege in domestic violence cases, but this bill will allow us to put some real teeth into prosecuting these cases. We will be able to make a difference.”

Eric Ballinger is private practicing attorney in Canton, GA. He serves as the attorney training coordinator for the Cherokee Family Violence Center and handles may pro-bono cases each year for victims of domestic violence.

 

Protect Indigent Defense Funding

Indigent defense is never a popular topic with lawmakers or the public. The concept of the government paying to help criminals go free runs contrary to conservative values. However, indigent defense is closely aligned with the most essential of conservative values: liberty and the regulation of government power.

The criminal justice system in the United States is the best anywhere. When our government chooses to accuse a person of a crime and restrict his or her liberty, there is a process the government must follow. Citizens, in the form of a jury, make the decision. While the government is represented by a lawyer to present its case, the accused is also represented a lawyer to challenge the government. When the two sides are matched, ultimately what the jury hears is the truth.

Yet many in this country are unable to afford to hire a lawyer or prepare a defense. Crime, for the most part, mainly affects the poorer members of our society. A society where liberty and justice is only available to those who can afford it runs contrary to core conservative values. It is why the effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed to all under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ever since Gideon v. Wainwright.

Our system is designed to protect its citizens from an overzealous government. If government is able to run roughshod over the poorest and weakest members of society, our society cannot be free. The men and women who work in the public defenders office and represent indigent persons accused of crimes act as a check and balance to government power on a daily basis.

However, indigent defense comes at a significant cost to the government. In this day and age of government cutbacks, the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council must struggle like every other government agency for funding.

In 2004, the General Assembly created the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council to ensure effective counsel for the poor. In order to fund this constitutional mandate, the Legislature also imposed an additional $15 charge on civil court filing fees. While these fees have generated between $41 million and $44 million annually, the state has only budgeted between $35 million to $38 million for indigent defense. This year, Gov. Nathan Deal has proposed a budget of $40 million for indigent defense. There is no guarantee that this level of funding will continue in future administrations.

Rep. Rich Golick (R-Smyrna), chairman of the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, has proposed a constitutional amendment to ensure funding for indigent defense. HR 977 provides that the funds that collected from the civil filing fee add-on be used to support indigent defense and not other budget items. This resolution has made it out of committee and is going to the floor of the General Assembly. A two-thirds majority is required to approve a constitutional amendment and send it to the general public for a vote. All those who support liberty and justice for all should contact their representative to support this important amendment
.

 

Changes to the Garnishment Laws: Corporations Need Not Answer Through A Lawyer

On Feb. 7, Gov. Nathan Deal signed HB 683 in to law, effectively eliminating the requirement that corporations have a lawyer represent them to answer a garnishment.

This new law is lauded as removing an unnecessary regulation on business. While this change to the law does help cut some amount of bureaucracy and expense for business, but it is not without some pitfalls. A garnishment is a legal proceeding and if it not handled properly can come with some very expensive consequences for business.

Garnishments are a routine part of operating a business. It is a legal process that allows a creditor who has received a judgment in a court to have the money taken from that person’s wages or bank accounts. Employers and banks respond to garnishment proceeding for creditors collecting from their employees and customers as a part on a regular basis. Most of the information required for a response to a garnishment is administrative in nature, such as payroll information and account balances. These tasks can and in the past have been handled by bookkeeper or payroll clerk. In fact, this is how most businesses have handled garnishments in Georgia up until 2011.

On Sept. 12, 2011, the Supreme Court of Georgia approved a formal advisory opinion of the State Bar of Georgia's Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee that interpreted the current law, as it is written, to prohibit non-lawyers from answering garnishments on behalf of corporations. This ruling had a profound effect on employers and banks that are most likely to answer garnishments. Justice David Nahmias, following the recommendations of the State Bar of Georgia on the issue, recommended that those interested should seek to modify either current Georgia State Law or the Court Rules.

HB 683 did just that, giving clerical workers and agents the authority to file a garnishment on behalf of the corporate entity. While this comes as a great relief and savings to business, garnishments should not be seen as just routine paperwork. A garnishment is a legal proceeding pending in a court, and as such, as procedures that must be followed. Failure to follow those procedures and meet the specific deadlines can result in the creditor taking a judgment against the employer or the bank for the amount owed to the creditor. This could have the effect of the employer or the bank taking the place of the original debtor. While there are some provisions in the law that give the corporation some relief, those measures are time sensitive and procedurally driven and may cost the creditor out of pocket as well.

The law allows for an employer or bank to deduct up to $50 for legal fees to answer a garnishment. While this probably will not cover the cost of hiring an attorney to answer the garnishment, it may cover the cost of getting some sound legal advice to make sure the garnishment is answered correctly.

 

Cracking the DUI Code

There is a controversy brewing in how law enforcement makes cases for driving under the influence, and that controversy is coming to a head. For a number of years, criminal defense lawyers have been mounting an attack on the breath testing device used in Georgia to detect the level of alcohol in the blood stream of suspected drunk drivers. Now, defenders are closer than ever to cracking the code.

At the heart of the controversy is the Intoxilyzer 5000, the device approved by the  state as the official breath testing device since 1995. The device is manufactured by CMI, Inc. a company out of Kentucky, and is used in several jurisdictions as well as government agencies and private firms. The device is designed to scan a sample of deep lung air with ultraviolet light and detect the amount of alcohol in the air. Internal software called the source code calculates the amount of alcohol in the bloodstream.

While the base models of the Intoxilyzer 5000 all work on the same principle, the model used in Georgia is unique in its features. CMI manufactures the device to meet specifications selected by theGeorgia Bureau of Investigation Division of Forensic Sciences and selects some features while rejecting others.

The device is supposed to be equipped with certain failsafes to prevent false readings. These include detection for radio frequency interference, a means to rule out mouth alcohol as opposed to deep lung breath alcohol, and filters to rule out substances that could mimic alcohol in the test. Some of the options rejected by the state include a feature that allows the device to capture and seal a breath sample for independent testing as well as the ability to download results to keep a database of test results.

Defense lawyers have been skeptical of the Intoxilyzer 5000 since it was proposed by the GBI. On his website, noted Atlanta DUI lawyer William "Bubba" Head said that the device was originally manufactured in 1982, before the advent of cell phones and other devices that cause low level radio frequency and effect the accuracy of the test results. Defense lawyers have also noted other problems over the years to include issues with the volume of air required to provide a sufficient sample and the effects that some substances (smokeless tobacco, gum or mints) in the mouth have on (the test's) accuracy.

One of the biggest red flags to defense lawyers is the extent which CMI has gone to protect is proprietary device. All repairs and maintenance on the Intoxilyzer 5000 must be done by the manufacturer at its facility in Kentucky. Nobody in Georgia knows how the device works, not even the technicians who are charged to inspect, calibrate and certify each machine every quarter. Defense lawyers want to get ahold of the device to see if it works the way the manufacturer claims. However, CMI refuses to sell an Intoxilyzer to any third party.

At the heart of the controversy is the source code or the computer program that operates the Intoxilyzer. Thomas Workman, Jr, an engineer and computer programmer from Massachusetts with experience working for Xerox, Texas Instruments, Hewlett-Packard and IBM device emulation, contends that the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000 consists of some 60,000 lines of code, making it highly probable there is a flaw somewhere in the programming. This has prompted defense lawyers to subpoena the computer program that runs the Intoxilyzer as well as the engineers that write the code. This is not so simple.

Because CMI and its employees are located in Kentucky, they are not subject to direct subpoenas from the Georgia courts. There is a two step process. First, the courts in Georgia must find that the out of state witness is material or necessary to the case. Second, the court in Kentucky must order the witness to appear in Georgia. CMI and prosecutors have fought these "source code motions" vigorously here in Georgia as well as in other states. In Georgia, the Prosecuting Attorneys Council, an agency that assists and coordinates the various prosecuting agencies throughout the state, has an attorney who is a resource to help prosecutors fight these motions.

Last year, defense lawyers received some help from the Supreme Court of Georgia on this issue. In June 2011, the Supreme Court issued opinions in Yeary v. State and Davenport v. State, which addressed the issue of materiality of the source code and gave the green light to forward the subpoenas on to the courts in Kentucky. Before long, defense lawyers will crack the DUI code and be able to put the Intoxilyzer 5000 to the test.  

To what end will the production of the source code bring? While prosecutors who stand by the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000 contend that it is a bit like the dog who catches the car, defense lawyers contend that the code will expose the flaws in the device. For many, this is an issue that goes beyond the prosecution of driving under the influence. It goes to transparency of government. If the government is going to use a computer program to arrest, convict and incarcerate its citizens, the government should disclose its methods and means.

 

Ryan Brunn: It's Only Just Begun

This week's indictment of Ryan Brunn is just the beginning of the quest for justice for Jorelys Rivera.The 13-count indictment gives the public a sickening glimpse of the last minutes of this 7-year-old Canton Elementary student, yet authorities are still tight-lipped about the evidence that ties the 20-year-old maintenance worker to the crime.In order to indict the case, District Attorney Garry Moss presented evidence to convince the 23-member Grand Jury that there was probable cause, or reason to believe, that Brunn committed the crimes alleged.As the weeks progress, prosecutors and law enforcement will continue to prepare their case for arraignment and trial while Brunn and his lawyers look at every aspect of this case to challenge the allegations of the government.In high profile cases, especially those that may involve the death penalty, both prosecutors and defense lawyers will work vigilantly to make sure that due process guaranteed by the United States Constitution is flawlessly followed.While many would prefer swift justice be meted out, the process ensures the guarantee of justice for all. It is often said, "The wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind fine."While justice will move forward, it will come with a substantial cost. Prosecuting and defending such a high profile murder case will come at a high cost to the taxpayers of Cherokee County and the state of Georgia. Yet that cost will pale compared to the price that the family of Jorelys Rivera pays as they are forced to relive the gruesome tragedy already visited upon them.

 

To find out more go to http://ballingerlaw.com

Criminal Justice Reform: A Challenge for the 2012 Legislative Session

Each year, criminal justice is a serious concern for the Georgia Legislature.  Fighting crime is always an important platform for lawmakers, however with costs increasing and budgets tightening, changes need to be made to the $1 billion a year corrections system. While costs of corrections are increasing, many question whether or not business as usual is effective.

House Bill 265 from the 2011 session of the General Assembly created the Special Council for Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians. The Council, made up of appointees from the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, was established to address the spiraling costs of crime and punishment. With help from the Pew Charitable Trusts, they were tasked to identify the current problems and make recommendations on how to best use the state resources. The Council made its report to the legislature on Nov. 1, 2011.

The Council found that prison population in the past two decades has doubled to nearly 56,000 inmates, placing 1 in every 70 adult Georgians behind bars. Projections show that by 2016, that inmate population will grow to 60,000.

Georgia’s prisons are already operating at 107 percent capacity. Much of this space is presently being taken by non-violent offenders. Yet this rising prison population is not deterring crime as recidivism—offenders returning to the community to commit new crime—remains unchanged.

Similarly, the Council found the state’s community based corrections systems are stretched to the point of becoming ineffective. As of 2010, there were 156,000 probationers and 22,000 parolees supervised in Georgia. Those charged with supervising these offenders are without the tools to rehabilitate as the services and programs that the officers refer offenders—particularly substance abuse and mental heath services—are insufficient and in some cases non-existent.

Overall, the Council found that business as usual in the criminal justice system in Georgia is going to break Georgians and needs to become more effective in preventing recidivism. In its November 2011 report, the Council made a three part recommendation that called for improving public safety and holding offenders accountable; focusing expensive prison beds on serious offenders; and examining the priorities of reinvestment of funds in the criminal justice system.

The overall plan outlined in the report calls on the system to strengthen community based corrections (probation and parole; allowing for increased supervision; and more resources for rehabilitation). The Council also saw a great deal of benefit in “accountability courts” that use a carrot and stick approach of intensive court supervision over a period of rehabilitation.

Offenders in these accountability court programs see a judge routinely and interact with a panel of counselors, probation officers and drug testing personnel on a daily basis. Offenders that are making progress are rewarded while offenders that slip spend short periods in jail. These courts presently function in several counties as “Drug Court” and “DUI Court” and are enjoying very successful numbers in both rehabilitation and preventing recidivism at costs far less than incarceration.  Accountability courts received attention last year as Governor Deal’s son, a Hall County Superior Court judge, oversees the drug court in that county.

While strengthening community based programs offers more opportunity for rehabilitation to non-violent offenders, it frees up the expensive bed space for serious violent offenders that need to be removed from society. To effectuate such changes will require a reinvestment of the funds spent on the criminal justice system. Money will need to be focused on community based treatment for mental health and drug treatment as well as funds to establish the statewide system of accountability courts.

Now, the task of breaking the centuries old model of crime and punishment in the State of Georgia is laid at the feet of the Georgia General Assembly just in time for the 2012 session. Implementing these changes is not only going to require a reinvestment of funds but also a change in the mindset of the many people and agencies that operate the criminal justice system. While many of the players are resistant to change, it is clear that Georgia can no longer afford business as usual.

Gingrich Divorce Documents Tell New Story

By Eric A. Ballinger

Today, documents were released to the media regarding Newt Gingrich's first divorce from Jackie Battley Gingrich.  The documents seem to show that the first Mrs. Gingrich fought the grant of the divorce because her husband would not admit that the marriage was irretrievably broken.  This contradicts statements that the Gingrich campaign has made indicating that his wife sought the divorce.  

While snippets of the pleadings filed in a high profile case can make for some interesting sound bites for the media, they do not tell the entire story.  The statements made can reflect a position taken by a party at one time during the case or could just be a part of some legal wrangling by the Warner's to get a better position with the Court.  Once the entire file is made avaiable to the public, the documents can be placed in thier proper context and wil unfold the entire story of the divorce.  Of course this will not fit into a 15 second sound bite or even a newspaper article.