1.  This was a civil trial and, unlike a criminal trial, the level of proof that Ms Pao needed to establish was lower.  Still, the defense was able to convince the jury that even that lower standard was not met.  The jury decided she was fired because of bad job performance not sex bias against her.

2.  Only 6 percent of partners at venture capitalist firms are women and 77 percent of all firms have never had a female investor.  That alone is suspicious but isn’t proof that in Ms. Pao’s case, sex bias was the reason she was fired.

3.  The hi tech industry has thrived and grown with their attitude of being outsiders.  They have purposely ignored the bureaucracy and rules that most older, larger companies follow.  As these hi tech companies mature and get bigger, maybe they should consider taking on some of the formal processes that ensure equal treatment for everyone.  Unless they can assure gender equality, they may have a difficult time attracting high level female employees.

4.  The entire computer industry has always been a “band of brothers.”  I recommended Walter Issacson’s new book, The Innovators to readers earlier.  One of the points he makes that struck me hard was the fact that 99+% of the people involved in the development of the computer industry were men.  Some of this can be explained because for years the people inventing the tools for computers were all geeks—and these, for the most part, were always men.

5.  Today, that has changed.  Many young girls are gamers and love competing with boys in video games.  Women are entering the engineering and science fields in more numbers than ever before.  If they sense unfair treatment in the hi tech industry, will they still contribute or will they take their skills somewhere else?

6.  Ellen Pao may have lost her suit, but many people think she still focused a powerful light on the hi tech industry to expose the existence of sex bias.

Photo courtesy of Marin at Freedigitalphotos.net

Do you have any experience in the industry that you feel constituted sex bias?

The post Sex Bias Trial in Hi Tech appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

The first case involved a football coach at Mankato State University who had three short videos on his phone of his young children playing in the nude.  The local prosecutor charged the coach with the felony of child pornography.  You can imagine what happened to the coach’s life:  professional work with young people, his wife, and, of course, the three kids depicted in the video.  It sounded horrible and, coming on the heels of the Penn State convictions for sexual conduct from coaches, this case probably destroyed the coach’s life in the small city of Mankato, Minnesota.

Except for the courage and common sense of a judge who dismissed the entire case.  See the article from the Star Tribune at:

http://www.startribune.com/local/182028151.html.  The judge didn’t feel the government had even enough evidence to go before a jury, so she threw-out the case.  The easy way for her would have been to let the trial occur, drag the coach and his family through the mud, and let a jury decide.  The press coverage was intense and the judge could have ducked the entire issue.  She didn’t.

The prosecution has not been willing to talk with the press, but I know from my 30+ years in the criminal law area, that cases are rarely dismissed by judges.  That tells me the prosecution’s case was so weak that it couldn’t even get to a jury trial.  Which leads to the larger question:  Why did the government pursue the case?  What about the shattered life of the coach and his family?

If it hadn’t been for the judge, the prosecution would have continued their steam roller to…what?  Can the coach ever get his life and good name back again?

On the other hand, in a tragic story from northern Minnesota, a police officer responded to an emergency call only to be ambushed and shot in the head with a shotgun.  Immediately, the man who the police were responding to was the prime suspect.  Law enforcement and the prosecutors surmised the suspect had lured the officer to his death.

As the investigation went forward, the police were unable to find the murder weapon, a .20 gauge shotgun.  After jailing the suspect and interrogating him, the authorities finally released him, saying they didn’t have enough evidence to hold him.

What a difference that county criminal justice process was from the first.  See the story in the Star Tribune at:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/182089981.html

Isn’t it amazing that, depending on the county, the prosecution of crime can be so different?  In Minnesota, every county attorney is an elected position.  We can only hope that the first county attorney, in the child porn case, will be defeated at the polls because of the sloppy and unfounded prosecution and perhaps even, abuse of power.

What do you think?   Any stories from your experience like this?

The post Prosecutors Gone Wild appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

The purpose of the hearing is for both the prosecution and the defense to present evidence about the accused and/or crime that would affect the decision on sentencing. For the defense, often the evidence comes in the form of something called character witnesses. These are people who are familiar with the defendant. Hopefully, their testimony will persuade a judge to give the defendant a less severe penalty.

When Mr. Biber’s defense lawyer called the first character witness for him, the prosecution went after the witness with a vengeance. See the article in the Star Tribune athttp://www.startribune.com/local/west/105250758.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

Just what is a character witness anyway?

The Rules of Evidence in Minnesota allow either side to offer evidence through many different paths, including a character witness. I’ve never seen the prosecutor use one, but it’s common for defendants to call character witnesses. Most people assume these witnesses will testify to how wonderful the person (defendant) is, but the Rules limit the witness’ testimony to specifics examples of the defendant’s reputation for things like honesty or reliability.

Typically, the witness would begin their testimony by detailing how they know the defendant and for how long. They’re asked eventually, “what is the defendant’s reputation for truthfulness or honesty?”

After the witness testifies, the prosecution has the opportunity to cross-examine which is what happened in the Aaron Biber trial. The prosecutor lashed into the witness by repeatedly asking him if he knew of the sordid details of the crime Mr. Biber had pled guilty to.

This is the common and proper way for the opposing counsel to proceed. For instance, if the character witness has said the defendant is truthful, the prosecutor could ask that in light of the fact the defendant lied initially about his sexual involvement with a child, would that change the opinion of the character witness? In the Biber case, the prosecutor brought up several instances and facts that cast doubt on the character of Mr. Biber.

End result called by yours truly, the “legal referee:” what the prosecutor did was proper and part of their job. Usually, the prosecution doesn’t go to the lengths this one did, but it’s still okay to do so under the court rules.

What do you think about it?

The post Character Witness in Rape Case gets "Raked" appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Mr. Bowden’s most interesting comments came when he talked about his research for the book, including hiring his own security force in Somalia.

In the meantime, he has researched and written a fascinating article for Vanity Fair about cyber-porn and sexual predators…or are they really sexual predators? Find it at www.vanityfair.com (When you get there, key in Mark Bowden in the search block)

He followed a story from Pennsylvania in which an undercover cop went cyber to entice a guy into having sex with her imaginary children. Once hooked, the guy was busted and ended up pleading guilty even though he maintained he never really wanted sex with kids–just the woman.

It interested me because of the murky area in which cops operate to catch supposed sexual predators. The article poses the question of when a cop, acting undercover, really lures an innocent person into a crime under false pretenses. In the Bowden article, the man insisted all along he wasn’t a child sex predator. But was he?

Much of the case is built on the texts between the cop and the “john.” You should read them to see how ambiguous they are. What did the cop mean and what did the “john” really mean? Was this truly a case of a child sexual predator or not?

The other thing that struck me–always has– are the jobs that cops have in this shady area of our society. Bowden points out that the female cop operated in a basement without windows and spent hours on the Internet trying to lure sexual predators out in the open to be caught. Although it’s an important job, I wonder what kind of person can do that work day in, day out. Odd…

In my own experience, I recall a campaign by the Minneapolis Police Department to crack-down on prostitution by busting the johns rather than the hookers themselves. They employed an attractive female cop to impersonate a prostitute. She dressed in short skirts, low-cut tops and cruised the streets that most johns drove on to find prostitutes. She’d wave them over and bend into the open driver’s windows. While she was miked for sound, she’d talk and try to get them to agree to sex for money, (the crime) and signal to her male back-ups to swoop in and arrest the john. She was immensely successful.

Through a friend, I met this female cop and had the opportunity to talk to her about the work. To my surprise, she loved it! Most women would feel demeaned by this kind of posing, but she reveled in the work. She liked dressing up (or down, I guess you could say) and flirting with the johns. She loved the power of busting them. She felt great about arresting men who exploited usually powerless women.

Murky, murky business, if you ask me.

Check out the article and the ambiguous world Mark Bowden reveals. What do you think? Who’s the real victim here?

The post Sexual Predators—Really?? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

I’ve worked as a criminal defense lawyer for years, representing just about everyone you can imagine. One particular serial killer stands out.

I actually represented him on a series of criminal sexual assaults, the modern way of saying “rape.” His usual pattern was to pick up bar women or young vulnerable girls who felt sorry for him. Why would they feel sorry for a serial killer?

He had all the Hollywood attributes: kind of dumpy, white, prematurely balding, little education, horrible childhood, violent home life…you know the story. He had a soft face and soft voice that lulled women into thinking he was more of a schmuck than anything else, so they trusted him. Unfortunately, they agreed to go with him.

By the time I met this Casanova, he had been charged with several rapes and was the prime suspect in three grizzly murders. One was a young waitress he lured into his car and drove into the countryside to share a campfire. There was evidence he raped her–after stabbing her to death…

Appointed to defend him, we first met in a small interview room in the county jail. He seemed to shrink into the corner of the room like a blob of pliant putty. He usually looked down when talking to me except at times when I questioned his story, he’d glare at me in silence for a moment. Occasionally, he’d burst into loud tirades about how unfair everything was toward him.

From the outside he looked like a classic loser. But as I worked with him other deeper, sinister attributes appeared.

Nothing was ever his fault which freed him from any responsibility for his criminal spree. He seemed like a blob–methodical, plodding, but I saw a sharp steel will underneath the surface fueled by hate and self-pity. Most shrinks say sexual perps are not interested in sex but rather, in power and control. This guy was interested in both. Since he couldn’t get either power or sex through the normal paths, he took it as he wanted in a perverted manner.

The scariest part for me actually occured after I left him in the interview room.

During the interview I felt like I was suffocating. This hadn’t happened with dozens of other defendants I’d talked with in the same room. I’d defended equally horrific criminals before. Why did I feel so upset with this guy?

After the meeting, I realized what scared me so much. The suffocating feeling came from a vacum in the room. I had talked with someone who looked like a human being but had absolutely no consciousness inside. I’ve rarely met anyone without a soul–except for this guy. When I looked into his dead eyes I didn’t find anything except a hollow yet violent shell.

After his convictions when asked if he wanted to say anything to the judge before sentencing, his only plea for mercy went like this: “Judge, the probation officer who done my report said I had sex with 20 women. He lied. I f…ked 2000 women.”

The post In a Room with a Serial Killer appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.