Jailhouse lawyer

Last updated

Jailhouse lawyer is a colloquial term in North American English to refer to an inmate in a jail or other prison who, though usually never having practiced law nor having any formal legal training, informally assists other inmates in legal matters relating to their sentence (e.g. appeal of their sentence, pardons, stays of execution, etc.) or to their conditions in prison. Sometimes, they also assist other inmates in civil matters of a legal nature. The ability that inmates have to help other illiterate inmates file petition for post conviction relief was first recognized in Johnson v. Avery. This same case also determined that unless states provide reasonable alternative, they must permit such action by jailhouse lawyers.

Contents

The term can also refer to a prison inmate who is representing themselves in legal matters relating to their sentence. The important role that jailhouse lawyers play in the criminal justice system has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has held that jailhouse lawyers must be permitted to assist illiterate inmates in filing petitions for post-conviction relief unless the state provides some reasonable alternative. [1]

Many states in the U.S. have Jailhouse Lawyer Statutes, some of which exempt inmates acting as jailhouse lawyers from the licensing requirements imposed on other attorneys when they are helping indigent inmates with legal matters.[ citation needed ] However, this is a service that can be taken away or restricted and states may lay down restrictions on jailhouse lawyers especially if they find that inmates are not only being abused by jailhouse lawyers but committing abuse themselves. Such restrictions that can be placed include limitations on the times when and places where such business can be conducted, but none of these restrictions can simply be placed without reason or simply arbitrarily. The most common reason that restrictions are added is that prisoners have started to provide more formal legal advice. Unless one has taken a bar exam in the state in which one resides and has passed said exam, one is not allowed to provide legal counsel. They also found in Shaw v. Murphy that inmates do not hold a First Amendment right to provide formal legal counsel to other inmates. [2]

Cases brought by inmates have also called attention to the need for jailhouse lawyers to have access to law libraries. [3]

The Center for Constitutional Rights and National Lawyers Guild wrote The Jailhouse Lawyers Handbook in 2003 for inmates needing rudimentary information on jailhouse lawyering. The Columbia Human Rights Law Review of Columbia Law School publishes A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual ("the JLM"), intended to help prisoners and jailhouse lawyers appeal their sentence, protest their conditions of imprisonment, etc. [4] The eleventh edition was published in 2017 and is the most up-to-date version. It is also available for free viewing online. [5]

Notable jailhouse lawyers

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Criminal procedure is the adjudication process of the criminal law. While criminal procedure differs dramatically by jurisdiction, the process generally begins with a formal criminal charge with the person on trial either being free on bail or incarcerated, and results in the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. Criminal procedure can be either in form of inquisitorial or adversarial criminal procedure.

Disfranchisement, also disenfranchisement or voter disqualification is the restriction of suffrage of a person or group of people, or a practice that has the effect of preventing a person exercising the right to vote. Disfranchisement can also refer to the revocation of power or control of a particular individual, community or being to the natural amenity they have; that is to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity. Disfranchisement may be accomplished explicitly by law or implicitly through requirements applied in a discriminatory fashion, through intimidation, or by placing unreasonable requirements on voters for registration or voting. High barriers to entry to the political competition can disenfranchise political movements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rehabilitation (penology)</span> Process to re-integrate a person into society

Rehabilitation is the process of re-educating and preparing those who have committed a crime, to re-enter society. The goal is to address all of the underlying root causes of crime in order to ensure inmates will be able to live a crime-free lifestyle once they are released from prison. It generally involves psychological approaches which target the cognitive distortions associated with specific kinds of crime committed by individual offenders, but it may also entail more general education like reading skills and career training. The goal is to re-integrate offenders back into society.

Courts-martial of the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the U.S. military for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They can also be convened for other purposes, including military tribunals and the enforcement of martial law in an occupied territory. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of procedure and evidence laid out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), Military Rules of Evidence, and other guidance. State courts-martial are governed according to the laws of the state concerned. The American Bar Association has issued a Model State Code of Military Justice, which has influenced the relevant laws and procedures in some states.

Attorney's fee is a chiefly United States term for compensation for legal services performed by an attorney for a client, in or out of court. It may be an hourly, flat-rate or contingent fee. Recent studies suggest that when lawyers charge a flat-fee rather than billing by the hour, they work less hard on behalf of clients and clients get worse outcomes. Attorney fees are separate from fines, compensatory and punitive damages, and from court costs in a legal case. Under the "American rule", attorney fees are usually not paid by the losing party to the winning party in a case, except pursuant to specific statutory or contractual rights.

In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal expenses. The right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial. Historically, however, not all countries have always recognized the right to counsel. The right is often included in national constitutions. Of the 194 constitutions currently in force, 153 have language to this effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Israel</span> Part of the article of the series of government of Israel

The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.

Collateral consequences of criminal conviction are the additional civil state penalties, mandated by statute, that attach to a criminal conviction. They are not part of the direct consequences of criminal conviction, such as prison, fines, or probation. They are the further civil actions by the state that are triggered as a consequence of the conviction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pre-trial detention</span> Detention after arrest and charge until a trial

Pre-trial detention, also known as preventive detention, provisional detention, or remand, is the process of detaining a person until their trial after they have been arrested and charged with an offence. A person who is on remand is held in a prison or detention centre or held under house arrest. Varying terminology is used, but "remand" is generally used in common law jurisdictions and "preventive detention" elsewhere. However, in the United States, "remand" is rare except in official documents and "kept in custody until trial" is used in the media and even by judges and lawyers in addressing the public. Detention before charge is referred to as custody and continued detention after conviction is referred to as imprisonment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Chile</span>

Concerns about human rights in Chile include discrimination against indigenous populations; societal violence and discrimination against women, children, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people; child labor; and harsh prison conditions and treatment. Additional human rights concerns in the country include use of excessive force and abuse by security forces, isolated reports of government corruption, and anti-Semitism. Authorities generally maintain effective control over the security forces. However, security forces occasionally commit human rights abuses. The government generally takes steps to prosecute officials who commit abuses. Nevertheless, many human rights organizations contend that security officials accused of committing abuses have impunity.

Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court upheld a Free Exercise claim based on the allegations that the state of Texas had discriminated against a Buddhist prisoner by "denying him a reasonable opportunity to pursue his Buddhist faith comparable to that offered other prisoners adhering to conventional religious precepts."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Rosenberg</span> American criminal & convict (1937–2009)

Jerome "Jerry" Rosenberg was a New York State convict, mobster and jail house lawyer. He was incarcerated for 46 years, longer than any other prisoner in New York State history. Rosenberg was sentenced to death for his involvement in the 1962 double homicide of two New York City police officers. His sentence was commuted to life in prison in June 1965, after capital punishment was abolished in New York. Rosenberg went on to become the first New York State inmate to earn a law degree and in turn gave legal advice to several inmates, including the leaders of the Attica Prison riot. A book was written about Rosenberg and his time in prison which was adapted into a 1988, made-for-TV movie, Doing Life, starring Tony Danza.

A communications management unit (CMU) is a type of self-contained group within a facility in the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons that severely restricts, manages and monitors all outside communication of inmates in the unit.

Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, enacted by voters as Proposition 9 through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election, is an amendment to the state's constitution and certain penal code sections. The act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings, and restitution, as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole. Critics allege that the law unconstitutionally restricts defendant's rights by allowing prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances, and harms victims by restricting their rights to discovery, depositions, and interviews. Passage of this law in California led to the passage of similar laws in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio and Wisconsin, and efforts to pass similar laws in Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania. In November 2017, Marsy's Law was found to be unconstitutional and void in its entirety by the Supreme Court of Montana for violating that state's procedure for amending the Montana Constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as Montana under its own state constitution in 2021.

Shon Robert Hopwood is an American appellate lawyer and professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center. Hopwood became well-known as a jailhouse lawyer who served time in prison for bank robbery. While in prison, he started spending time in the law library, and became an accomplished United States Supreme Court practitioner by the time he left in 2009.

Loss of rights due to criminal conviction refers to the practice in some countries of reducing the rights of individuals who have been convicted of a criminal offence. The restrictions are in addition to other penalties such as incarceration or fines. In addition to restrictions imposed directly upon conviction, there can also be collateral civil consequences resulting from a criminal conviction, but which are not imposed directly by the courts as a result of the conviction.

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court tested the basic constitutional right of prison inmates’ access to legal documents prior to court. Prison authorities would consequently be required to provide legal assistance or counsel to inmates, whether it be through a trained legal professional or access to a legal library. Multiple prisoners alleged that they were denied access to the courts due to lack of an adequate legal library and assistance with court related documents.

A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual is a resource for incarcerated individuals and jailhouse lawyers. It is published and distributed by the editors of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, who are students at Columbia Law School. The JLM is designed to assist inmates in understanding their legal rights as prisoners. It contains information about how to challenge convictions and sentences, the rights of the incarcerated, and different ways to obtain an early release from prison.

Arthur William Taylor is a high-profile former prison inmate who served time in Auckland Prison at Paremoremo, Auckland, New Zealand. In 2016 he had spent 38 years in prison and had a total of 152 convictions. As a prison inmate, he achieved a public profile as a "prison lawyer" due to initiating court action on behalf of himself and prisoners' rights. In 2017, he initiated successful legal action on behalf of former prisoner David Tamihere. On 24 January 2019, Taylor's appearance before a parole board resulted in parole being granted, and he was released on 11 February 2019. He had said not long before release that he wanted to gain a law degree and continue his social work.

References

  1. Johnson v. Avery , 393 U.S. 483 (1969)
  2. "Shaw v. Murphy". Oyez. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  3. Bounds v. Smith
  4. "Columbia Human Rights Law Review".
  5. "Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual |".