Seattle Private Investigator -

Domestic Violence Victims Likely Child Victims First

Adult Domestic Violence Victims Likely Child Victims First by John F. Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator

Domestic violence cases almost always leave me feeling a mix of emotions, anger, sadness and frustration. Too often, adult domestic violence cases involve the abuser and a victim who keeps coming back for more abuse, time after time after time. When a victim keeps making excuses for the abuser’s behavior and keeps returning for more, the sick co-dependency becomes obvious. The emotions I feel are for both abuser and victim, because the abuser very likely has a history of being a victim of abuse as a child.

The following report about a recently published research project helps explain this phenomenon. I believe that teenage abusers and some of their victims are very likely to go on to similar behavior in adulthood.

“Teen victims of dating violence are overwhelmingly more likely to have been victims of other forms of violence, such as sexual violence and child abuse, according to new research from the University of New Hampshire Crimes Against Children Research Center.”

February 22, 2012 Tags: child abuse, crime, criminal defense, domestic violence
Category: Defense Investigator, Domestic Violence, Investigative Science, Private Investigator No Comments

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Forensic Science Meeting 2012

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers – Forensic Science Meeting 2012 will be held in Las Vegas on March 23rd to March 24th at the Cosmopolitan Hotel. For more information please see their website.

NACDL & CACJ’s 5th Annual Forensic Science Seminar will be a two-day event in the City of Lights—Las Vegas! In the modern world, you need to know and understand the forensic sciences in order to effectively represent your clients. Attend this one-of-a-kind CLE seminar and leave with a better understanding of forensic evidence and technology to use in the arsenal of tools to win your next case. If it involves forensic evidence or technology in a criminal case, it will be covered at this one-of-a-kind seminar.

This year’s seminar topics include:

-The Amanda Knox Case: What Role Did DNA Transfer and Contamination Issues Play?
-Fighting the Prosecution’s “Fantasy of Forensics”
-State of NC v. Gregory: A Case Study
-Mental Defenses
-Cognitive Interview Techniques, Signs of Deception, and Forensic Artistry
-Bloodspatter Evidence for Lawyers
-Working with Forensic Experts
-Trends and Tips in Computer Forensics Discovery Prerequisites
-Forensic Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases
-The Science of Eyewitness Identification
-Burning Down the House: Defending Accusations of Arson
-Pharmacology for Lawyers
-The Role of the Forensic Pathologist in the Criminal Justice System
-DNA: From Basics to Advanced

February 17, 2012 Tags: criminal, criminal defense, defense, defense attorney, forensic science, investigator, las vegas, nacdl, private investigator
Category: Defense Investigator, Defense Law, Seattle No Comments

Guns, Violence and Society – Causes

Guns, Violence and Society – Causes by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator

I think we already know at least some of the causes of violence in our society; but we’re too diverted and divided to look closely at the problem and take it on.

Aside from a limited number of cases where brain damage, drugs (Phencyclidine or PCP, et al.), or psychosis (schizophrenia, paranoia, et al.) contribute to violent behavior, most people, including researchers, believe that violent behavior arises from conditions that might be labeled as environmental. While the scientific community seems unwilling to say that they know the exact causes of violence in society, or in the case of any individual violent person, they do acknowledge a number of conditions or factors that appear to make individual violence more likely. They also point out that sometimes these factors show a “which came first” complexity.

It’s a nature versus nurture question. We are all born with the potential for violence. However, civilizing factors make most of us much less violent than that potential. I believe that most of us can be brought to violence by certain situations or conditions that threaten the life and safety of ourselves, our loved ones, and our communities.

The factors cited that contribute to, if not cause, violent behavior are numerous and often interrelated. It is clear that some people survive the adverse influence of these same factors and never act out violently. The following is only illustrative and is not an exhaustive treatment of the subject.

Causes within the family

Being born into a dysfunctional family, including some combination of

    poor or nonexistent parenting
    intra-family violence
    drug abuse
    unemployment and poverty

Causes within the larger society

Being raised in a society

    that glorifies violence and distorts its true nature and consequences
    that feeds us violence as entertainment
    that engages in a violent domestic war, labeled The Drug War, which enables violent gang culture and police corruption
    that engages in perpetual war against domestic and foreign terrorists as a substitute for The Cold War, in order to feed the Military Industrial Complex at the expense of our warriors, our domestic needs, and our economy
    that has turned our prisons into advanced training bases that fail to rehabilitate while enabling the incarcerated to learn more criminal skills.

The next post will suggest possible, partial solutions to the root causes of violence. The final post in the series will address the highly volatile “gun” issue.

February 7, 2012 Tags: criminal, defense, domestic violence, firearms, gun control, poverty, private investigator, seattle, unemployment
Category: Criminal Defense, Defense Law, Domestic Violence, Private Investigator No Comments

Guns, Violence and Society – Addiction

Guns, Violence and Society – Addiction By: John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator

In spite of the best efforts of my history and civics instructors, I eventually found out that they lied and distorted many things about the history and government of my country of birth. They didn’t do this out of malice. They were doing no more than unconsciously engaging in the propaganda and indoctrination that they were subjected to in their own educations. It’s what the political classes do in every country. The victors not only get the spoils; they get to write or rewrite history, the revisionist history that glorifies the winners and ignores or justifies all the less than glorious truths behind their “victories”.

I’ve been around for more than 66 years and I’ve been paying attention for most of that time. I credit my political awakening to the Jesuits who ran my high school and the first university I attended. Though I am no longer a Catholic or a Christian, I greatly appreciate Jesuit involvement in my intellectual development, such as it is. They taught me two things that inform my way of thinking to this day. They taught me how to think, as opposed to what to think; and they taught me to question authority. These are dangerous traits, but are, in fact, essential to citizenship in a democracy. How can we learn and advance as a nation if we don’t know the truth about our past and the current machinations of those in power? How can we aspire to match the potential espoused in our high and mighty principles if we aren’t willing to look at our failures at living by those principles?

Our history starts with an invasion and the forceful taking of land belonging to indigenous peoples. By violent revolution, we broke away from an onerous overseas government. We continued our violent subjugation of the indigenous people, an effort that continues, in a somewhat less overt way, to this day. We fought wars to establish our northern and southern borders. We fought an internal war over the economic and human rights issue of slavery. We’ve had labor wars. We’ve had outbreaks of violence directed against voluntary and involuntary immigrants (Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Hispanics, Irish etc). We’ve experienced political assassinations and attempts at assassination. We’ve fought numerous foreign wars, some seemingly justified, some not. Violent crime, domestic violence, sexual violence, gang violence, road rage, highway carnage fueled by alcohol and drugs, the Drug War, the list goes on.

Modern culture is rife with violence and we wallow in it willingly. Movies, TV, music, games, sports, all glory in violence. Billions are spent producing and consuming violence. We honor and pay handsomely the actors, singers and athletes who feed our blood lust.

We are a product of violence…and we love it.

The debate continues over the effect of media depictions of violence on human behavior, especially that of our children. Now we are debating whether violent and hateful political speech can influence or cause violent behavior. We love to debate. We hate to actually engage collectively in defining problems that can be solved, finding real solutions and doing the hard work to attain them.

We are like alcoholics; and like alcoholics, we must admit to our addiction to violence before we can begin the journey to a cure. As a citizen, I have a stake in this situation. As a Seattle private investigator, working mostly in criminal defense, the stake I have has become more clear and tangible.

February 7, 2012 Tags: constitution, crime, criminal defense, gun control, investigator, private investigator, seattle, second amendment
Category: Criminal Defense, Defense Investigator, Domestic Violence, King County, Private Investigator, Seattle No Comments

Guns, Violence and Society – The Issue

Guns, Violence and Society by John F. Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

For me, the Tucson shooting illustrates the topic of guns, violence and society better than any other incident in modern history. It has gotten me fired up to dive into this most contentious subject. I guess I’m a glutton for punishment. While the gun control issue was certain to arise again, as it does after every high-profile shooting incident, I find it particularly interesting how long it took for the anti-gun faction to get into gear. Of course that meant that it took correspondingly long for the pro-gun faction to react to their opponents. I suspect the pros were holding their collective breath wondering what the antis were up to while the antis were trying to prepare a response that wouldn’t disrespect the victims but would make some kind of sense in the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court findings on the Second Amendment.

District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller

McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.

Over the next several posts, I want to try to dissect the gun control issue in a way that supports a rational discussion by otherwise reasonable people who hold a range of opinions that exist along a spectrum from totally banning firearms to removing all government imposed controls. I will not define my position at this point because I don’t want to be dismissed by those readers who might react with strong emotions to my observations and analysis. Accept or reject my ideas as you will; but, give me the benefit of the doubt until you have heard me out.

Come along for the ride. I welcome disagreement; but think first; and then comment if you wish to contribute. Of course, I have the right to terminate the involvement of anyone whose comments are rude, uncivil, or obviously deranged.

Filed under: Civil Rights, Firearms, Gun Control, Law Observations, Second Amendment, Supreme Court | Tagged: civil rights, constitution, Federal Government, firearms, gun control, second amendment, Supreme Court | Leave a Comment »
A system error has occurred.
Please try the page again later.
The system administrator has been notified.
Reference # 5AAC8985-16EB-4F8D-9408-0DB79ECB4351

To help stop this from happening again, click here.

February 7, 2012 Tags: constitution, firearms, gun control, second amendment, supreme court
Category: Civil Rights, Court System No Comments

Domestic Violence – Protection Orders Useless?

Domestic Violence – Protection Orders Useless? by John F. Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

Having worked on a number of domestic violence cases over the years and being an avid reader of crime related news, it is quite obvious that the whole behavioral and crime category of domestic violence is very complex. As a practical matter, it seems to be beyond the ability of law enforcement and the courts to effectively deal with the problem or, more correctly, the complex of problems associated with the issue. Two things stand out to me as particularly problematic.

First: A protection or no-contact order is a very tenuous form of protection against future violence by a perpetrator against the same victim. My experience as a private investigator is that the orders are frequently violated by both parties, in collusion. From all the cases we’ve read or heard about over the years, it is sadly obvious that a violent person, intent on injuring or killing his or her victim, is not deterred by fear of legal consequences based on a bit of dead tree with some words printed on it.

Second: Victims of domestic violence are not easy to categorize. Some are mentally healthy, normal people who make the mistake of hooking up with people who later turn out to be violent. In spite of all their efforts to deal with the problem, these people sometimes fall prey to more harassment and violence from the same person. Some domestic violence victims have complex, personal psychological issues that result in their choosing to have co-dependent relationships with violent people. Too often they either return to the same relationship or find another person with whom to form another co-dependent relationship.

There is an old adage that goes something like this. If what you’re doing isn’t working, do something/anything else. The behavioral issues, including their roots, get a lot of attention from the mental health community. Both perpetrators and their victims need better access to counseling. The legal community needs to start from scratch in reforming its response to the crime of domestic violence. What they’re doing isn’t working.

Seattle Times Article

February 6, 2012 Tags: courts, harassment, investigator, personal protection orders, private investigator, seattle
Category: Domestic Violence, King County, Seattle Cases No Comments

Eyewitnesses Can’t Be Trusted.

Eyewitnesses Can’t Be Trusted by John F. Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

Eyewitnesses helped send an innocent man to prison. He ended up spending 30 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit. Seattle Times article. Because of cases like this, this Seattle criminal defense investigator is against the death penalty. Because of cases like this, this investigator is strongly motivated in my criminal defense and personal injury cases to get the best information from witnesses that I can and to expose unreliable witnesses when I find them.

Eyewitness identification is unreliable. We’ve known that for a very long time. An eyewitness can be honest, but wrong. An eyewitness can be confused by a variety of factors. An eyewitness can lie for a variety of reasons. An eyewitness can be manipulated by careless or unscrupulous law enforcement officers. In the absence of substantial collaborating evidence, why do we continue to accept eyewitness testimony as sufficient to convict anybody of anything?

February 6, 2012 Tags: courts, defendant, eyewitness, investigator, police, seattle, Seattle times
Category: Court System, Criminal Defense, Defense Investigator, Private Investigator, Seattle No Comments

Mock Juries for Mock Trials

Mock Juries for Mock Trials by John F. Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

Serve on mock juries for mock trials; and no one has to go to jail.

Whether or not you have ever been on a jury, if you wish to have some experience and education on the matter, you might try what my wife and I have done and thoroughly enjoyed on a summer weekend for each of the last two years. We plan on doing it again next summer.

We act as jurors in mock civil and criminal trials argued by practicing lawyers in front of practicing judges.

The National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA) trains practicing lawyers to be more effective trial lawyers.

A bit about NITA from their website at http://www.nita.org/:

“NITA’s Mission Statement

“NITA, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, is a dedicated team of professors, judges and practicing lawyers who believe that skilled and ethical advocacy is a critical component of legal professionalism and all systems of dispute resolution that seek justice.

“NITA’s mission is to:

* Promote justice through effective and ethical advocacy;
* Train and mentor lawyers to be competent and ethical advocates in pursuit of justice; and
* Develop and teach trial advocacy skills to support and promote the effective and fair administration of justice.

“NITA’s Mission Statement defines NITA and articulates its Mission. We will fulfill our Mission through NITA’s Goals and Objectives to be carried out through a Strategic Plan outlining NITA’s programs and publications.

“NITA Long-Range Goals and Objectives

“NITA’s Goals and Objectives are to:

* Enable and encourage lawyers to become effective, ethical and professional advocates.
* Create and promote the highest quality professional and ethical advocacy training and educational materials.
* Support and assist the Judicial System in providing the important, effective administration and resolution of disputes.
* Encourage, support and assist advocacy training for and dedication to public service.”

You can participate for both days or either day. If you do both days, you hear a civil case on one day and a criminal case on the other.

You sit in court, listen to the arguments, select a jury foreman, weigh the evidence and present your verdict to the court.

One thing that happens in these mock trials that doesn’t happen in real life is the post-trial discussion involving the judge, the attorneys and the jurors. The trial experience and the post-trial discussion provide an incredibly educational and entertaining way to spend a day or two.

They give you a small stipend and a box lunch each day. You meet and spend the day with some really nice people.

Go to the NITA website at http://www.nita.org/and explore.

Find out where the programs entitled “Building Trial Skills” are being held and contact them about your interest in participating as a juror in the mock trials. If they haven’t already filled the juror pool, volunteer. I believe you will find the experience (plus the stipend and the lunch) to be well worth your time.

February 6, 2012 Tags: courts, criminal, defendant, investigator, jury duty, NITA, seattle, trial, verdict
Category: Court System, Criminal Defense, Defense Law, Seattle No Comments

Jury Saves Justice System

Jury Saves Justice System by John F. Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

The justice system didn’t have a case and they wasted my taxes, but the justice system ultimately worked.

My first and only experience on a jury was an eye-opener and, in fact, very disturbing. I had been called to jury duty a couple of times before but had never ended up serving. I was actually looking forward to the experience. I got more and less than I expected on the third call to duty when I survived the selection process and was actually chosen for the jury.

The defendant was charged with trading crack for cash. The SPD had been conducting a sting at the busy drug market on the SE corner of 2nd and Yesler in Seattle. SPD officers were everywhere in plainclothes and in uniform, in marked and unmarked cars and on bikes, on the street and on rooftops.

This should have been an easy bust but wasn’t as the seller spooked after taking the plainclothes officer’s money and handing over the crack in a baggy. The seller made the trade while sitting in his idling car at the curb with the buyer standing on the sidewalk. Something about the situation caused the seller to panic and run.

He took off southbound on second and turned left to go east on Washington. He blew the 4-way stop at 3rd and the stop sign at 4th, a very busy, three lane northbound road. He headed uphill to 6th and turned north towards Yesler. He almost ran over two bicycle cops and evaded hot pursuit by an officer in a marked squad car when the officer stopped the pursuit for safety reasons.

The seller got away and was not arrested ‘til months later. He was arrested for the sell during the sting described above; the arrest was based on identification of the seller by the buying officer. The prosecutor decided there was enough evidence to support prosecution. This led to the trial where I got some education about how the system sometimes works.

The prosecution’s case consisted of: Officer X says the defendant was the person who sold him the crack. The prosecution had no other witnesses, no tie in to the seller’s vehicle, no marked money, nothing but the officer’s assertion.

The prosecution managed to mention that the defendant had a criminal record. The judge rightly ordered this struck from the record and told the jury to ignore the information.

The defense denied the accusation and said the officer was mistaken. It came down to one man’s testimony versus the other’s. Prosecution and defense had made their cases; it was time for the jury to decide.

I was a bit perplexed. My reaction to the trial up to this point was that the defendant was likely guilty, but the prosecution hadn’t proved it. Furthermore, it seemed to me that the prosecution must have counted on the jury to be ignorant and prejudiced. I was wondering why the prosecutor had wasted our taxes for such a weak case.

The defense attorney had failed to point out the weakness of the prosecution’s case.

The judge’s instructions to us were to decide if the defendant was guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. If a reasonable doubt existed, we were to find the defendant not guilty.

We began deliberating and immediately deadlocked; six said guilty and six said not guilty. Guilty versus not guilty really boiled down to six saying the prosecution had proven the defendant’s guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, and six saying there was reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt and, therefore, we should find the defendant not guilty.

Notice that I said that six said he was guilty and six said there was insufficient evidence to affirm guilt. Actual guilt could never be known by anyone but god and the defendant. The faction that said he was guilty actually said that the defendant must be guilty because the police officer said he was.

On top of my observations about the prosecution and the defense now I had to reconcile the idea that a jury of twelve is not such a reliable group to make decisions having such consequences for a defendant’s life.

The bad thing was that six of twelve were so ignorant of the concepts of “innocent until proven guilty” and “reasonable doubt” and so willing to bow down to the power of the government in the form of law enforcement. The good thing was that the other six of us were able to block a railroad job by the same forces.

A justice system in which the police, as agents of the government, have the power to act as law enforcement, judge, jury and executioner is a police state. I still have concerns about the experience I had in that court. That experience still resonates in my experience as a private investigator. It is one reason that I have such a burn about the work.

It takes diligence on the part of each player in this process to make it work properly. It is critical for the health of our justice system that all citizens have an appreciation for how the law is supposed to work.

After all, whose interests are at stake in the court rooms of this country? If you don’t understand that it is the interests of us all that are at stake, we are in a whole lot of trouble.

You reactions? Your experiences?

February 6, 2012 Tags: courts, criminal, defendant, prosecutor, seattle, trial, verdict
Category: Court System No Comments

Jury Nullification – Judges Trumped

Jury Nullification – Judges Trumped by John F. Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

In jury nullification, juries trump judges. And prosecutors. And legislators.

While I’m on the subject of jury duty, here’s a peculiar feature of the law that some prosecutors and judges and others in the legal field seem to be afraid might become general knowledge.

Jury nullification

General public knowledge of jury nullification might put greater power in the hands of juries than that held by judges, prosecutors and legislators (in a very limited but useful sense).

The concept of jury nullification challenges the idea that, in the courtroom, judges interpret the law and juries interpret the evidence and render verdicts under the instructions of the judge regarding the law and its application.

Jury nullification allows the jury to ignore the judge’s instructions and, in essence, nullify, or throw out, the law or its application in the specific case being tried. Jury nullification is the finding by the jury that either the law is a bad law or it is being applied improperly in a specific case.

The concept is centuries old and is based in Common Law, which is part of the foundation of our legal system. Its history in North America starts in 1734 when a printer named John Peter Zenger was acquitted of seditious libel, contrary to the instructions of the judge hearing the case.

Jury nullification challenges State power. As such, it is a dangerous, subversive and powerful tool for maintaining the peoples’ hold on power.

It has a potential dark side. Theoretically, it could be used by a jury of racists or homophobes to acquit a person guilty of a hate crime.

On the other hand, consider the medical marijuana controversy. What if juries in Federal courts refused to convict medical marijuana growers, distributors and users in States that have legalized such use? Could the Federal government continue to interfere with the medicinal use of a proven, beneficial and natural drug?

There are a lot of questions that come to mind as I study jury nullification; I’m just getting started. It’s not my purpose here to expound on a complicated and controversial subject. I would be happy if a few of my readers pursued the study, on their own.

Following is a list of web-based resources. Google for more.

Reactions?

http://www.fija.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

http://www.levellers.org/jrp/

http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/nullification.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

February 6, 2012 Tags: county, courts, criminal, federal, judge, jury, marijuana, trial, verdict
Category: Court System, Criminal Defense, Defense Law, Seattle No Comments

Seattle Private Investigator