 |
Legal Rights Center News
October 2011
The problem with increasing criminal penalties for non-alcohol related automobile accidents, however tragic the results, and the need for greater consideration of restorative justice in such circumstances, was the subject of a Star Tribune guest editorial by the Legal Rights Center’s Executive Director, Michael Friedman. Read it here.September2011
At a statewide meeting highlighting best practices in juvenile justice, LRC Executive Director Michael Friedman co-presented with Julie Young-Burns of the Minneapolis Public Schools about our unique project partnership which helps restore to good standing students who have been recommended for expulsion. The presentation followed on the heels of the University of Minnesota releasing its interim evaluation report of the project, which concluded:
Overall, it appears that student and parent/guardian participation in the [project] is a positive experience. In addition to the significant increase in students reporting that they make good choices about how to act even when they are upset, we also noted some positive trends in terms of student behavioral outcomes including slight increases in positive feelings about school and adults at school, feeling safer at school, and increases in talking to family members about school and people they are dating. Results also showed encouraging trends in student behavioral changes including a significant reduction in fighting and a slight reduction in cutting classes or skipping school. In addition to feeling their child is safer at school and increases in parent/guardian reports that they know someone they could ask if they have concerns about a problem at their child’s school, results indicate positive trends in how often parents/guardians talk to their children about school and friends or someone they are dating, how often they talk with their child’s teachers, and their awareness of community supports.
The University of Minnesota has been chosen to give a poster presentation about this successful project at the November 2011 meeting of the American Society of Criminology.August 2011
In a malicious punishment of a child case in which our client had deep remorse for the consequences of his actions, our attorney – with the help of the client’s own testimony – successfully explained to the jury why this was a crime without willful intent. The corporal punishment used was similar to what the defendant had received as a child, and reflected the historical impact of slavery and its aftermath, descending from the fear that children behaving less than perfectly in public could create dangers for themselves or others. The case well exemplifies the Legal Rights Center’s ability to help juries understand and contextualize the unique circumstances experienced by every single defendant.July 2011
Letter received from a former client (excerpt):
“I’m writing to touch base … I’m still sorry for taking that drink and getting behind the wheel of a car. I’ve completed a program at [omitted]. I’ve been attending meetings at [omitted]. I want you to know how grateful I am for Legal Rights Center, especially you and [the volunteer law clerk]. I’m still on the bracelet and sober.”May 2011
As a community-based
organization
serving the public interest, the
Eric Dietz, a summer law
clerk from
The
April 2011
The Juvenile Justice
Coalition of
Much is at stake as noted by
the Juvenile
Justice Coalition of Minnesota: For many,
diversion and referral to community-based services will address
underlying
issues and result in better outcomes than sending the youth through the
formal
court system … Being diverted … can mean the difference between a
youth’s
continued engagement in offending behavior or development into
successful
adulthood.
The Legal Rights Center has long specialized in resolving underlying issues that led to police or juvenile justice system involvement, whether in defense practice or through restorative justice methods. Our staff’s particular expertise in restorative family conferencing allows us to excel in two highlighted components of the ideal diversion process: family involvement, and cultural relevance. Our program currently accepts some juvenile diversion referrals from the Hennepin County Attorney and the Minneapolis Police Department. If those agencies follow the recommendations of the Minnesota Diversion Guidebook, diversion will become the first choice in far more circumstances.
March 2011
Every week, the LRC helps several
individuals in our community solve legal problems. Many successes would
not appear
to merit highlighting, but the impact can be huge to those who we are
helping,
and the cumulative effect of our services is substantial.
Here’s one example from this
month.
A Somali individual was denied an opportunity to pursue a driving job at the MTC because of a record of some non-driving related misdemeanors. An LRC attorney investigated and found that the convictions were supposed to have been vacated and dismissed. After securing the helpful cooperation of a city attorney, our lawyer arranged for the record to be corrected, and successfully explained the circumstances to the MTC, allowing the employment application to go forward.
February 2011
The LRC’s Family & Youth
Restorative Services Program Director, Simone Abel, teamed with staff
at the
In the same week, the LRC’s Legal
Education Program Director, Andrew Gordon, joined with other members of
the
Youth Law Summit – the Children’s Law Center, the Council on Crime and
Justice
and the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis – to educate staff at the
Epsilon
Program of special school district #287 about the short and long term
impacts
of students being prosecuted for school-based incidents.
The thank you email included this comment
from a staff member: “… in the 15 years I’ve worked at Epsilon, this
was by far
the most useful information I have ever heard. Thanks
...
I
could listen to them for another two hours.”
January 2011
LRC volunteer attorney, Diane M. Dodd,
successfully obtained
a dismissal on behalf of her client in a murder trial.
In September of 2009, charges had been
brought against a mother for killing her own baby.
The allegations depended substantially upon
the testimony of the child’s babysitter, who later fled to her country
of citizenship
when it emerged that the defense had reason to believe she was the
actual
perpetrator. The county prosecutor had
fought prior attempts to dismiss the case, creating a fundamentally
unfair delay. The prosecution finally
dismissed the charges
at the onset of a hearing on a new defense motion.
The Star Tribune report of the dismissal
referenced the
missing witness but repeated details from the original police complaint
without
including the defense’s key contention. Such
reporting
was
not
only agonizing to our defendant in this case, but was
reflective
of the media bias often perceived within the communities of color
served by the
LRC. Given the broader issue, the LRC’s
Executive Director,
Chief among our
constitutional rights is that police do not have the final
word over who has committed a criminal act and who has not.
We cannot be denied our
liberty without due process, which includes the
right to a trial before an impartial judge or jury and the right to
challenge
witnesses through cross examination.
It's a shame that the
Star Tribune's public safety reporting frequently
quotes from the police version of events as the final word on alleged
crimes.
The problem is that
reporters rely too heavily on an easily accessible
public document known as the "complaint." The complaint is a summary
of the case first presented to the court at charging and need only
summarize
the basis for why police believe a crime has been committed.
While a complaint may
assert police beliefs as facts, it's not until the
trial that facts become proven. Much can be learned between the time
the
complaint is filed and when the case is heard.
Accurately informing the public requires reporters to gather such information and interview attorneys on all sides. For the sake of fairness, editors should insist that such steps are taken.
December 2010
After a lengthy and careful planning and fundraising process, the Co-Parent Court is up and running. The Co-Parent Court, led by Judge Bruce Peterson, is a pilot project of the Hennepin County Family Court in which substantial support is offered to unmarried mothers and fathers who do not share a household. Along with the Legal Rights Center, project partners include the Northpoint Health & Wellness Center, the FATHER Project, the University of Minnesota Extension, and others. The Legal Rights Center’s role comes at the end of a process of parents receiving educational and social service assistance. Using restorative methods or mediation, we help parents develop their own parenting and child support plans that may be presented to the court, thereby empowering their role in making key decisions that are subject to court jurisdiction and building a cooperative pathway that may benefit their child over the long-term. The first year of the Legal Rights Center’s participation in this project is supported by a grant from the Jay and Rose Phillips Foundation.November 2010
The Legal Rights Center has initiated a
Capital Campaign,
seeking to raise $57,000 to pay for needed projects to update our
building and
technology. Projects include: a
substantial update of our elevator (and related wiring design) to
maintain code
compliance; replacement of heating and air conditioning systems; and
the
replacement of our phone system. Donations
to support our capital campaign can be sent to:
Capital
Campaign,
October 2010
The Legal Rights Center is pleased to announce that Terrence J. Fleming of the Lindquist and Vennum firm has joined our Board of Directors. Terry is a nationally known litigator and ADR practitioner in Securities matters, and follows a long line of Lindquist and Vennum attorneys who have participated in our governance and contributed greatly to our success, including (among others): Norman Newhall, Charles Lloyd, and Todd Guerrero.
September 2010
The
Otto Bremer Foundation renewed support for the Legal
Rights Center’s restorative measures project in partnership with the
Minneapolis Public Schools. They join
the Minneapolis Foundation and the Minnesota Office of Justice
Programs, which
granted support earlier in the year. Our
ongoing project’s goal is to resolve the underlying basis for student
behavior
severe enough to warrant a recommendation for expulsion, and to ensure
support
and stability for such students as they continue in the school district. A meeting with our school partners to prepare
for the new school year included the report that -- over the two years
to date
of the project -- we have changed the culture of the school district. Formerly, a student with a severe behavioral
incident in his or her past tended to get shuffled from school to
school. Now, school administrators are
welcoming to
students who have received our restorative services, knowing how we
have made a
difference in the student’s motivation and ability to contribute
positively to
the school environment. An assistant
principal at a district high school wrote:
We have worked with [LRC employees] Simone and
Sylvia since Minneapolis Public Schools
began our partnership with the Legal Rights Center, and they have been
nothing
but supportive to our causes. They have
worked with our at-risk students and parents in ways that have proven
to be
respectful and supportive to all parties involved.
As
our society woes continue we will need agencies and programs like the
Legal
Rights Center to intervene with solutions that are helpful to those in
need,
especially to our students in their educational and social development.
August 2010
An East African immigrant came to us for help in clearing his driving record. Minnesota would not license him because of a suspension in Texas, where the client had lived several years before. Navigating such a circumstance does not necessarily require a lawyer, but it requires substantial capacity to understand the law and its underlying government structures. The Legal Rights Center is unique in our service area for being able to offer advocacy in non-charged matters relating to criminal law (i.e. this is not something Legal Aid or the public defenders could take on, and finding a pro bono lawyer for matters arising from criminal/traffic offenses is very difficult). Our Community Advocate was able to locate the right office in Texas in which instructions were provided for clearing a fine from an unpaid speeding ticket. Moreover, the Texas clerk authorized a reduction in the fine, and a plan to spread out the payment, ultimately facilitating our client becoming eligible for a Minnesota license.
July 2010
As a community-based nonprofit law firm, the Legal Rights Center has always championed the role of the client in contributing to his or her own defense. A great example of that took place this month, in which our attorney and client helped achieve a jury acquittal for a serious charge. This post will not include case details so as to respect the privacy of all the individuals involved. But the signature aspect of this case was that acquittal depended upon finding the alleged victim’s testimony not credible. During jury selection, some prospective jurors revealed that they had at one time been a victim of the same or similar crime as was charged in this case. Normally for lawyers, that’s an automatic reason to reject such a juror. However, our client believed that such jurors would be in the best position to evaluate the alleged victim’s testimony. Our lawyer agreed – and while we will never know what happened in the jury room – the results speak for themselves.
April 2010
During 2009, we randomly surveyed approximately 5% of our full representation criminal defense clients, and here are the results:|
Statement |
% Agreeing |
% Strongly Agreeing |
|
I would
recommend the LRC to others |
98 |
86 |
|
LRC
helped me obtain a successful outcome. |
95 |
73 |
|
My
attorney
provided
a
reasonable
amount
of
time
and
attention
to
my
case. |
95 |
79 |
|
The
consequences
of
my
case
were
clearly
explained
to
me. |
95 |
69 |
|
My
life
circumstances
were
considered
while
my
case
was
handled. |
91 |
70 |
|
I
was empowered to make the key decisions in my case. |
93 |
63 |
|
My
opinions
and
desires
were
valued
and
respected
during
the
legal
process. |
93 |
69 |
|
I
trusted my attorney to seek a fair and just outcome in my case. |
93 |
79 |
|
The
Community
Advocate
had
good
suggestions
about
issues
surrounding
my
case. |
97 |
71 |
|
The LRC
provided me with quality representation |
95 |
82 |
Phone: (612) 337-0030 Fax: (612) 337-0797
Email: office (at) legalrightscenter.org