There are books available that provide generic advice about prison and how to prepare for prison. These books are written either by someone who was an inmate or by someone who worked for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. They are full of anecdotes and lists. They may provide copies of forms used by the BOP to manage inmates as well as copies of rules and regulations pertaining to prisoners.
There are also books available that provide advice about how to exercise. Who among us would rely on an exercise book when we could use a personal trainer instead? Prison is no different. The difference between reading a generic book and having a prison consultant is just as important.
Prison consultants provide answers to questions from white collar federal defendants and their families, and so much more. A good prison consultant can prepare you and your family to navigate the process of preparing for, and surviving the experience of federal prison. You need to come out with the fewest scars possible.
Mistakes in prison can be costly. The goal is to conduct yourself in a way that minimizes the amount of time you will spend in custody. The rules in prison are strict, and violations lead to drastic consequences. An innocent comment to the wrong person may lead to loss of good time credits or worse. A gesture that is perfectly acceptable in normal life can result in punishment in prison that could range from solitary confinement to a transfer to a higher security prison. These mistakes are most likely to be made at the beginning of your sentence and they can be avoided.
No one who starts a prison term for the first time feels prepared enough for the experience. Even though most white collar defendants have spent their lives knowing how to prepare themselves for the other challenges they have faced in life, they do not do enough to prepare themselves or their families for this ordeal.
The money invested in a prison consultant is nominal when compared to the benefits. Consider the benefit of knowing what to expect when you arrive at the gate. Combine that with being prepared to avoid mistakes and knowing how to minimize your time in prison. Add to that the comfort of knowing that your family has someone to call who can provide answers to their questions when you are gone, and you have a sense of the value of your investment in a federal prison consultant.
Yes, there are books available that provide generic advice about prison and how to prepare for prison. However, you only have one chance to prepare for this experience. This is not the time to cut corners. Too much is at stake.
Showing posts with label federal prison consultant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal prison consultant. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
White Collar Defendants Need a Federal Prison Consultant
White collar defendants are usually faced with the prospect of having to go to prison for the first time. They are afraid of what they will face. They want to know how to prepare themselves and their families for their ordeal.
Where will I go? What will I do when I get there? Will there be violence? How am I going to manage? Who is going to care?
Prison consultants provide the answers to these questions and so much more. A good prison consultant can prepare you and your family to navigate this process so you and your family can manage to survive the experience of federal prison. You need to come out with the fewest scars possible.
Mistakes in prison can be costly. The goal is to conduct yourself in a way that reduces the amount of time you will spend in custody. The goal is to prepare you to take advantage of the programs available that can reduce your stay in prison to an absolute minimum.
The rules in prison are strict, and violations lead to drastic consequences. An innocent comment to the wrong person may lead to loss of good time credits or worse. A gesture that is perfectly acceptable in normal life can result in punishment in prison that could involve anything from solitary confinement to a transfer to a higher security prison. These mistakes are most likely to be made at the beginning of your sentence and they can be avoided.
No one who starts a prison term for the first time feels prepared enough for the experience. Even though most white collar defendants have spent their lives knowing how to prepare themselves for the other challenges they have faced in life, they do not do enough to prepare themselves for prison. Even though most white collar defendants take care of their families, they start prison without preparing their families for this ordeal.
Yes, there are books available that provide generic advice about prison and how to prepare for prison. There are also books available that provide advice about how to exercise. Who among us would rely on an exercise book when we could use a personal trainer instead? Prison is no different. The difference between reading a generic book and having a personal trainer is just as important.
The money invested in a prison consultant is nominal when compared to the benefits. Consider the benefit of knowing that your family has someone to call who can provide answers to their questions when you are gone. Add to that the comfort of knowing what to expect when you arrive at the gate. Combine that with being prepared to avoid mistakes and knowing how to minimize your time in prison and you have a sense of the value of your investment in a federal prison consultant.
You only have one chance to prepare for this experience. This is not the time to cut corners. Too much is at stake.
Where will I go? What will I do when I get there? Will there be violence? How am I going to manage? Who is going to care?
Prison consultants provide the answers to these questions and so much more. A good prison consultant can prepare you and your family to navigate this process so you and your family can manage to survive the experience of federal prison. You need to come out with the fewest scars possible.
Mistakes in prison can be costly. The goal is to conduct yourself in a way that reduces the amount of time you will spend in custody. The goal is to prepare you to take advantage of the programs available that can reduce your stay in prison to an absolute minimum.
The rules in prison are strict, and violations lead to drastic consequences. An innocent comment to the wrong person may lead to loss of good time credits or worse. A gesture that is perfectly acceptable in normal life can result in punishment in prison that could involve anything from solitary confinement to a transfer to a higher security prison. These mistakes are most likely to be made at the beginning of your sentence and they can be avoided.
No one who starts a prison term for the first time feels prepared enough for the experience. Even though most white collar defendants have spent their lives knowing how to prepare themselves for the other challenges they have faced in life, they do not do enough to prepare themselves for prison. Even though most white collar defendants take care of their families, they start prison without preparing their families for this ordeal.
Yes, there are books available that provide generic advice about prison and how to prepare for prison. There are also books available that provide advice about how to exercise. Who among us would rely on an exercise book when we could use a personal trainer instead? Prison is no different. The difference between reading a generic book and having a personal trainer is just as important.
The money invested in a prison consultant is nominal when compared to the benefits. Consider the benefit of knowing that your family has someone to call who can provide answers to their questions when you are gone. Add to that the comfort of knowing what to expect when you arrive at the gate. Combine that with being prepared to avoid mistakes and knowing how to minimize your time in prison and you have a sense of the value of your investment in a federal prison consultant.
You only have one chance to prepare for this experience. This is not the time to cut corners. Too much is at stake.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Government Prosecutions Should Not Be Based on Innuendo
In his closing arguments in the federal prosecution of a current United States Senator, the AUSA reportedly asked the jury to infer guilt from a statement made by the Senator years ago.
During his closing argument the prosecutor used a vague portion of a single piece of evidence that was only admissible at trial because of an exception to the hearsay rule. The prosecutor played a portion of a phone call between Senator Stevens and another witness that was secretly recorded. In the portion of the recording played for the jury, Senator Stevens made a vague reference to jail time.
In his closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the jury should infer from this vague reference that Senator Stevens had guilty knowledge of his alleged failure to follow Senate reporting requirements. The prosecutor argued to the jury – "who talks about spending a little time in jail unless they have done something wrong?"
My concern is not about the guilt or innocence of Senator Stevens. My concern is about the strategy and tactics used by federal prosecutors. In this case for example, the prosecutor argued that it is proper to use an inference from a snippet of vague evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. Federal prosecutions should be held to a higher standard.
In the case in question, a case where the prosecution knew they would be under close scrutiny because of the profile of the defendant, the Court excluded other evidence from the trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. If we use the same lens to view the conduct of the prosecution that they are asking the jury to use to view the evidence against Senator Stevens, then where will that lead?
We have an opportunity to change course. We can reverse the trend toward criminalization of conduct. We can become a society that is understanding, a society that is not based on fear and hate.
Or not.
During his closing argument the prosecutor used a vague portion of a single piece of evidence that was only admissible at trial because of an exception to the hearsay rule. The prosecutor played a portion of a phone call between Senator Stevens and another witness that was secretly recorded. In the portion of the recording played for the jury, Senator Stevens made a vague reference to jail time.
In his closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the jury should infer from this vague reference that Senator Stevens had guilty knowledge of his alleged failure to follow Senate reporting requirements. The prosecutor argued to the jury – "who talks about spending a little time in jail unless they have done something wrong?"
My concern is not about the guilt or innocence of Senator Stevens. My concern is about the strategy and tactics used by federal prosecutors. In this case for example, the prosecutor argued that it is proper to use an inference from a snippet of vague evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. Federal prosecutions should be held to a higher standard.
In the case in question, a case where the prosecution knew they would be under close scrutiny because of the profile of the defendant, the Court excluded other evidence from the trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. If we use the same lens to view the conduct of the prosecution that they are asking the jury to use to view the evidence against Senator Stevens, then where will that lead?
We have an opportunity to change course. We can reverse the trend toward criminalization of conduct. We can become a society that is understanding, a society that is not based on fear and hate.
Or not.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Judge Makes Wrong Ruling on Spector Trial Evidence
The judge in the Phil Spector retrial has made a mistake that could jeopardize the outcome. In response to pretrial motions, Judge Larry Fidler has permitted the use at trial of an inflammatory statement made by Spector years before the murder of Lana Clarkson.
Judge Fidler has ruled that a police witness can testify at the re-trial about a derogatory statement made by Spector regarding women in general. The question now becomes, even though prosecutors won the right to use the evidence, should they?
Spector’s defense reportedly argued that the statement should be prevented from use at trial because it is prejudicial. However, most evidence used by prosecutors at trial is prejudicial to the defendant. This ruling really raises another issue.
The fact that the statement may be prejudicial seems to be the only reason why a prosecutor would want to use this piece of evidence. The problem with introducing evidence of this nature is that it is designed to put the defendant in a bad light, however it does not tend to prove whether Spector committed the crime that is being tried.
Just because someone may have said something mean or thoughtless in the past does not tend to prove that they committed a crime years later. Imagine if, at every trial, the prosecution could present evidence of every other bad thing the defendant did during his life. That tactic may convince a jury that a defendant is a bad guy. However, evidence of that nature is usually excluded. Evidence that is prejudicial is usually only admitted if it can prove a relevant issue in the case.
The point of a criminal prosecution should not be merely to win the case. Prosecutors should be held to a higher standard than attorneys in civil cases. Prosecutors are the representatives of the people and their focus should be on the truth. Ideally, personal vendettas should have no role in a criminal prosecution. Likewise, nor should a win-at-all-cost mentality.
The prosecution may want to reconsider whether it is proper to actually introduce this evidence in this trial. Even though the prosecution has won the right to introduce the evidence, they may want to take a step back and consider what they are planning to do. Do we -- the people -- really want prosecutors to obtain convictions by cutting corners or taking advantage of mistakes? Even when the mistake is in a ruling made by the judge? I hope not.
Judge Fidler has ruled that a police witness can testify at the re-trial about a derogatory statement made by Spector regarding women in general. The question now becomes, even though prosecutors won the right to use the evidence, should they?
Spector’s defense reportedly argued that the statement should be prevented from use at trial because it is prejudicial. However, most evidence used by prosecutors at trial is prejudicial to the defendant. This ruling really raises another issue.
The fact that the statement may be prejudicial seems to be the only reason why a prosecutor would want to use this piece of evidence. The problem with introducing evidence of this nature is that it is designed to put the defendant in a bad light, however it does not tend to prove whether Spector committed the crime that is being tried.
Just because someone may have said something mean or thoughtless in the past does not tend to prove that they committed a crime years later. Imagine if, at every trial, the prosecution could present evidence of every other bad thing the defendant did during his life. That tactic may convince a jury that a defendant is a bad guy. However, evidence of that nature is usually excluded. Evidence that is prejudicial is usually only admitted if it can prove a relevant issue in the case.
The point of a criminal prosecution should not be merely to win the case. Prosecutors should be held to a higher standard than attorneys in civil cases. Prosecutors are the representatives of the people and their focus should be on the truth. Ideally, personal vendettas should have no role in a criminal prosecution. Likewise, nor should a win-at-all-cost mentality.
The prosecution may want to reconsider whether it is proper to actually introduce this evidence in this trial. Even though the prosecution has won the right to introduce the evidence, they may want to take a step back and consider what they are planning to do. Do we -- the people -- really want prosecutors to obtain convictions by cutting corners or taking advantage of mistakes? Even when the mistake is in a ruling made by the judge? I hope not.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Senator Steven’s Trial Goes to the Jury of Public Opinion
Federal Sentencing Expert, Geoffrey Mousseau, was asked his opinion on the outcome of the trial of Senator Ted Stevens.
Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, is being tried for violating ethics laws.
It is hard to support either side in this case, according to Mousseau. On the one hand, we have federal prosecutors who reportedly are mugging for the jury. On the other hand, we have someone who, during his 30-year tenure in the United States Senate has participated in the largest expansion of prison populations in US history.
US attorneys have one of the most powerful positions in society today. In the wake of scandals involving the politicization of that office, it is horrifying to think that the federal prosecutor in this case may be making faces to the jury as Stevens attempted to respond to her questions.
The reports on Senator Stevens’ conduct are not much better. Apparently he has taken a page from Clinton’s playbook and is attempting to parse words into oblivion. Is it really true that a member of the Senate does not understand a gift? Is it proper for a Senator to pretend to be confused in front of a jury? A loan? A gift?
A federal trial seems to be an inappropriate forum for undignified behavior. One can only hope that media reports are exaggerated and that the participants are treating the trial of a Senator as a solemn pursuit of the truth.
Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, is being tried for violating ethics laws.
It is hard to support either side in this case, according to Mousseau. On the one hand, we have federal prosecutors who reportedly are mugging for the jury. On the other hand, we have someone who, during his 30-year tenure in the United States Senate has participated in the largest expansion of prison populations in US history.
US attorneys have one of the most powerful positions in society today. In the wake of scandals involving the politicization of that office, it is horrifying to think that the federal prosecutor in this case may be making faces to the jury as Stevens attempted to respond to her questions.
The reports on Senator Stevens’ conduct are not much better. Apparently he has taken a page from Clinton’s playbook and is attempting to parse words into oblivion. Is it really true that a member of the Senate does not understand a gift? Is it proper for a Senator to pretend to be confused in front of a jury? A loan? A gift?
A federal trial seems to be an inappropriate forum for undignified behavior. One can only hope that media reports are exaggerated and that the participants are treating the trial of a Senator as a solemn pursuit of the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)