washington post

Should America be preparing for a national spike in crime?

In addition to what seems like a never ending stream of reports of violent incidents between police and citizens, community unrest and protests in the wake of heavily publicized cases like that of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray, large cities like New York have reported an increase in violent crimes and gun violence.

Although there’s no doubt these incidents have shocked the nation and certain crimes have increased in some parts of the country, the question now is whether these events are a reflection of crime rates for the US as a whole.

Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, wrote an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal called, “The New Nationwide Crime Wave,” which generated a significant amount of buzz about crime rates around the country.

One of the most controversial points made in the article is that police are at greater risk for attack, and are afraid to serve their communities due to heavy criticism of their professional judgment when it comes to using force on the job.

She explains that the deaths of “Eric Garner in Staten Island, N.Y., in July 2014, Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014 and Freddie Gray in Baltimore last month—have led to riots, violent protests and attacks on the police.”

Additionally, In New York, where there has been an impressive decline in crime over the past 20 years, crimes and homicides involving guns have increased. There have been 439 shootings so far this year, which is 20 percent higher than the number of shootings recorded in the same period in 2013.

Mac Donald suggests that this increase is a warning sign for a crime wave that is set to sweep across the rest of the country.

Although the information in Mac Donald’s article may be true, several other sources quickly refuted her claims, asserting that a new crime wave does not exist and her story is more alarmist than it is accurate.

Radley Balko, a criminal justice blogger for the Washington Post, countered McDonald’s claims with an article of his own a week later.

Balko argues that while anger against police brutality may be the cause of increased violence in cities like Ferguson and Baltimore, they are certainly not the only issues involved.

“Two of the factors that cause homicides to soar in American cities are a sense of a loss of government legitimacy, and a loss of a feeling of belonging among outcast or historically oppressed groups,” Balko said, citing Randolph Roth’s, American Homicide.

When it comes to police homicides, Balko explains that several officers were tragically lost due to violence in Ferguson and Baltimore; however, those were isolated incidents that don’t represent the rest of the country’s more peaceful efforts.

Ultimately, Balko argues that Mac Donald’s points could prove to be true when the crime reports for 2015 are available, but for now, there’s not enough evidence to support such alarming claims.

Instead, her article is a distraction from the more important issue at hand, which is the relationship between police agencies and the communities they serve.

“There’s some data suggesting that the 20-year decline in violent crime may have hit bottom. In a country of 380 million people, you aren’t going to reduce crime to zero. In some cities, there have been some recent increases in some crimes, just as there were all throughout the crime drop,” he said.

Del. Joseph D. Morrissey, 57, resigned his seat after being charged for a sex scandal involving a teenage employee but recently won it back during a special election, which he campaigned for from his office as a legislator by day, returning to jail at night to serve time for misdemeanor charges. Now, he’s being indicted on multiple new felony charges.

Morrissey was convicted last month for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was originally charged with multiple felony charges for being sexually involved with a young woman, prosecutors allege, but instead agreed to a plea deal requiring him to serve six months in jail for misdemeanor charges.

Prosecutors accused Morrissey of having sex with former 17-year-old employee Myrna Pride, saying nude photos of the girl from Morrissey’s cellphone were shared with a friend, AP reports.

Pride, now 18, is pregnant and both she and Morrissey said the accusations are not true. It is unclear whether Morrissey is the father.

His sentence was later reduced to 90 days with work release. Morrissey wears an ankle bracelet so that Virginia law enforcement can keep track of him while he goes to work during the day, and then he returns to jail at night.

Morrissey’s defense team released a new document showing that he and Pride were meeting to discuss legal problems she was having with her parents – not to engage in an illegal relationship.

The document is a fabricated court order, said special prosecutor to the case William Neely in an article in the Washington Post. However, who forged it is still under investigation.

Morrissey is accused of forging the document and persuading Pride’s mother, Deidre Lashawn Warren, to swear to its authenticity during her testimony, Virginia publication The Free Lance-Star said. Both are facing perjury and forgery charges.

Due to urges from the House, Morrissey resigned his seat until reelection time when he ran as an independent and won over his constituency with approximately 42 percent of votes.

Morrissey has been able to run for reelection despite his legal problems because the Constitution only requires that the person running lives in the state at hand, is at least 25 years old and has been a U.S. citizen for seven years. It’s up to the members of Congress in each state to determine whether a person, if elected, is qualified and can go through the process of expelling or suspending the him or her if enough votes are gathered.

Virginia House delegates have been disturbed by the sex scandal, and although Morrissey has been sworn in again, he was stripped of committee assignments, had to give up his old office and his desk on the House floor was put in a far corner, according to the AP.

“This is a truly painful and embarrassing chapter for the oldest continuously operating legislative body in the world,” said House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford). “The House will evaluate these new indictments as it pertains to disciplinary action,” he said in The Washington Post.

This is not the first time Morrissey has been in the news. In 1993, he gained the nickname “Fighting Joe” after engaging in a fistfight with another lawyer in court. He has also faced several contempt of court citations and lost his license to practice law but was later reinstated.

Morrissey is popular among voters, and is well liked for being a representative who fights for the underdog. Even if the House decides to expel him – this hasn’t happened since 1876 – Morrissey has a strong following of voters who could support him.

A small church in Gilbert, Arizona has taken its sign case to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping to change the city’s code, which depending on the outcome, could directly impact future rulings regarding First Amendment rights.

Signs advertising real estate agents and political campaigns populate streets and sidewalks for weeks at a time, while others are restricted to more specific dates and sizes, leading the church to believe that its free speech rights have been violated.

The First Amendment issue facing this case is content neutrality. Content-neutral regulations aim not to limit speech but to provide regulations based on the circumstances of how types of speech can take place.

Good News Presbyterian Church rents space to hold its services for approximately 30 adults and 10 children. Good News pastor Clyde Reed argues that the sign code in place in Gilbert is discriminatory because it specifies the size of the signs he can put up to advertise the church’s religious services as well as the number of signs and how long they are permitted to stay posted.

Directional signs posted in public places, like local neighborhoods and retirement communities, must not exceed 6 square feet, can be posted no earlier than 12 hours before the event and must be taken down within an hour after the event’s end. By contrast, political signs may be as large as 20 square feet and can remain posted for the duration of a political campaign, The Washington Post said.

The city said that Reed’s rights have not been violated by the sign code because all non-commercial signs must follow the same rules, regardless of content. However, Alliance Defending Freedom, the Scottsdale-based conservative Christian activist group representing Reed, argues that Gilbert’s code may not be content neutral just because the city said it does not discriminate based on content, azcentral reports.

The Supreme Court appears to be leaning in favor of the church; but their ruling could simply affect the Gilbert ordinance and little else, or the justices could take a broader ruling that could affect future free speech cases.

Reed first sued Gilbert in 2007, after the he was cited for posting signs too early. Since then, other courts have ruled in favor of the city.

Several religious activist groups and the Obama administration support Reed and are urging the Supreme Court to change the city’s sign ordinance, The Washington Post said.

An opinion is expected to be given by the Supreme Court by June.

The guidance of an experienced attorney can make all the difference when it comes to defending your rights, which is why you shouldn’t take on a case alone.

If you’re looking for a trustworthy attorney, contact Corso Law Group today. Your case will be handled by a licensed Arizona or Texas attorney.

A Virginia appellate court recently ruled that “Liking” on Facebook is protected as free speech under the first amendment.

The new ruling stems from a lower court case in which Sheriff’s Deputy Daniel Ray Carter was fired for “Liking” the campaign page of his employer’s opponent in a race for re-election as sheriff.

Brian Fung of the Washington Post reported that the issue in question was whether or not Carter’s action in “Liking” a post on Facebook could be construed as speech and therefore protected under the first amendment.

The case caused national attention and controversy worldwide. The court viewed the “Like” button on Facebook as positive speech, hence the symbolic agreement. Some Facebook users would disagree, recognizing that “Liking” something on Facebook does not necessarily mean supporting a page or post, but simply engaging in the conversation or choosing to follow future commentary on the post.

Regardless, the case revolved around the question of whether Sheriff B.J. Roberts of Hampton Va. violated his employee’s right to free speech when he fired Carter.

In deciding that Carter’s right to free speech was violated, the court ruled that using the “Like” button on Facebook is protected under the first amendment, citing the 1994 case City of Ladue v. Gilleo, in which a political campaign sign was ruled as free speech because it was a symbolic expression of opinion.

What are the consequences?

Now reporters and individuals are questioning what this means for other electronic forms of communication like the share button, retweets or pins. Are these forms of symbolic expression, too?

From a legal perspective, this ruling can impact the concept of hearsay in court cases. The language from the court seems to specifically address the concept of hearsay – that a statement can be a symbolic representation of an opinion (shaking your head no is still hearsay even without saying anything).

As criminal defense and family law lawyers, this case could have an interesting impact on Arizona cases, especially family cases where parties research Facebook pages and internet searches for anything and everything they can use against one another.

Could your liking of craft beers or medical marijuana Facebook pages end up being allowed in court?

As we see it, that depends. On one hand, the court is saying that liking those pages actually communicates something (making it relevant) but on the other hand, the fact that the statement was made out of court makes it hearsay.

In family court, hearsay doesn’t automatically apply unless one of the parties files a motion with the court to follow the strict rules of evidence – a decision that the family law attorneys at Corso Law Group can help you make based on this decision.