Professional Limited Liability Corporations

In Austin, my address is as follows:

William E. Kraham, PLLC
Attorney & Counselor at Law
P.O. Box 4365
Austin, Texas 78765-4365

In Brattleboro, my address is as follows:

William E. Kraham, PLC
Attorney & Counselor at Law
P.O. Box 447
Brattleboro, Vermont 05302-0447

My telephone number is (512) 284-4244

Facsimile number: (802) 257-0055

E-Mail: will.kraham@gmail.com

URL: www.GreenMountainLawyers.com

Prouty Century Ride to Benefit Norris Cotton Cancer Center

I am the Captain of team "Mellow Johnny's", riding 100 miles on July 11th to support the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. I have lost family and friends to cancer in the last year or two, and also have friends who are survivors. I will be riding in memory of Vermont State Trooper Jason Kaine, a father who died of leukemia and left behind a spouse and two young sons. You may donate to my team online here. Click on "Sponsor a Participant" and enter my name, William Kraham. You may pledge online with a credit card, or you may send me a check (payable to Friends of Norris Cotton Cancer Center) to P.O. Box 447 Brattleboro, Vermont 05302-0447 -or- to P.O. Box 4365, Austin, Texas 78765-4365.

"Through the Friends of Norris Cotton Cancer Center and the Prouty, you support Cancer Center researchers and clinicians who are working on innovative ways to prevent, diagnose, treat and hopefully, one day, cure cancer. You also support important patient services that would otherwise not be funded.

All money raised helps to support cancer research and patient services at Norris Cotton Cancer Center, one of only 40 comprehensive cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute for excellence in cancer research, care and community outreach. Research conducted here informs patient treatment around the world."
Thank you for your support!

Boston's Best Lawyers

I was recently informed that I will be listed in the newest edition of Boston's Best Lawyers. I have never seen this publication, published by the Boston Globe. I am familiar with Martindale-Hubbell, a multi-volume publication containing some basic laws of each state and a listing for every lawyer in each state in the country, sorted by State and City or Town, with corresponding peer ratings, and I achieved the highest possible rating, "AV," many years ago. Martindale-Hubbell is a publication that is purchased by lawyers to find lawyers for clients in other jurisdictions. It is expensive and I do not own a copy. I have old copies that other lawyers have given to me, and they make great doorstops. Most of my referrals come from word or mouth or by virtue of my reputation with referrals originating from former clients, other lawyers, or a listing in a publication (e.g.,the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Member Handbook). If I wanted to make use of the Boston's Best Lawyers 2009 Edition listing, I would have to spend money to purchase space. Since I do not advertise in the yellow pages, and most people use the Internet to find people, (e.g., Google©), I am spending money on my website, still under development. The address will be: www.greenmountainlawyers.com. In Vermont, I have incorporated as a professional limited liability corporation (William E. Kraham, PLC), and I am in the process of doing the same in Texas (William E. Kraham, PLLC). If you want to learn more about Boston's Best Lawyers, their website is here.

Get your own - Open publication

Green Mountain Lawyers

The Green Mountain Lawyers website should be up and running soon - still working on the design. Stay tuned.

Literature Group For Offenders

In the never ending effort to rehabilitate and prevent recidivism, there is a program through which offenders, as a condition of their probation, are ordered to attend and complete homework for six twice-monthly seminars on literature. The program is titled "Changing Lives Through Literature." It is an alternative sentencing program, started in 1991 in Massachusetts, and has been embraced by seven other states. According to the website, cltl.umassd.edu/home-flash.cfm, "[l]iterature has the power to transform men's and women's lives - this is the philosophy behind Changing Lives Through Literature (CLTL). Individuals who read about characters in literature may find a connection between themselves and those characters. If literature is a regular companion in our lives, this is not news. But, many adults and youth do not have access to literature and its transformative nature. CLTL participants, judges, probation officers, and instructors believe that bringing carefully selected works of literature to criminal offenders may help these men and women gain insight into their lives and behavior, while learning that they are not alone with their problems. The written word affects us far beyond the moment of reading."

In addition to Massachusetts, the program is available in seven other states: Texas, Arizona, Kansas, Connecticut, Maine, New York, and Rhode Island.

There is no reason why this would not work in Vermont. The University of Vermont or Middlebury College would be ideal locations for the literature seminars.

The CLTL color brochure may be found here:
cltl.umassd.edu/pdf/outreachpress1a.pdf

Video clips may be found here: cltl.umassd.edu/videosort.cfm

Their Fact Sheet states as follows:

"FACT SHEET

The CLTL Program

Founded in 1991 by Professor Robert Waxler and Judge Robert Kane, Changing Lives Through Literature (CLTL) is an alternative sentencing program using literature as a way of reaching criminal offenders on probation. Literature seminars give probationers an opportunity to build self-esteem, learn social skills and behaviors, and rehabilitate through attending class discussions about literature as a condition of their probation.

Premise of CLTL

One of the major premises of CLTL is that literature has the power to transform lives. Studying literature gives students (who are criminal offenders) a chance to reflect on their own lives, gain insight into their behavior and the effects of it on those around them, and to take the first step towards self-responsibility.

Through reading and discussing literature, students look deeper at the characters and themes of literary works and relate them to the relationships in their lives. They learn to express their own opinions and acquire listening skills and tolerance.

CLTL helps probationers integrate into society and provides them with the chance to change their lives.

Scope

The program, founded in New Bedford, MA, now exists in more than twenty district courts in Massachusetts. It also operates in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Maine, Texas, Arkansas, and Kansas. A similar program exists in the United Kingdom.

Participants

Over 3,500 offenders have participated in the program. The impact on these individuals and their families has been dramatic. Some recover from addiction, some continue their educations, and others reunite with their families. All students are empowered to improve their lives.

Independent studies indicate a reduction in recidivism rates and decreased violent behavior with CLTL. Jarjoura and Krumholz's statistical study shows "a reconviction rate of 18.75in [a CLTL student] study group, compared with 45in [a] comparison group" (Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Vol. 28 (1/2), 1998).

Although CLTL began with segregated programs for both male and female participants, we increasingly offer co-educational classes. Demographically, we serve probationers from all walks of life who have been involved in a variety of criminal behaviors, both violent and non-violent.

Economic Benefits

CLTL costs less than $500 per offender for one series of seminars. By contrast, the Federal Bureau of Prisons estimates an annual incarceration cost of $21,600 per inmate.

Awards and Recognition

In 2003, CLTL was awarded an Exemplary Education Grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities in order to create a new web site.

In 2004, CLTL received a Higher Education Excellence Award for Program Achievement from the New England Board of Higher Education."

Be sure to check out their blog.

Exclusionary Rule Under Attack

The principles underlying the exclusionary rule, a judicially created remedy, Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 398 (1914), extended to the states by a decision of the Warren Court, Mapp v. Ohio, is under attack. Up until now, evidence obtained illegally by the police, by exploiting a violation a criminal suspect's constitutional rights, was excluded from evidence at his trial. A five member majority of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Herring v. United States, decided January 14, 2009, established for the first time that unlawful police misconduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. Herring was found in possession of drugs and a firearm, in a search incident to arrest, after his arrest on a warrant that turned out to have been recalled months earlier. The police relied in good faith, United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 (1984), on the warrant's validity since it was in the computer database. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the five member majority in Herring, wrote that "[t]o trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system," and that price "is, of course, letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free." "As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence." Herring will require a criminal defendant to prove not only that his constitutional rights were violated by the police and that evidence was obtained as a result of the unlawful police misconduct, but the defendant will now have the additional task of establishing that the police conduct was part of a pattern, due to systemic error, or was reckless or intentional, and not merely the result of negligence, poor training, or poor judgment. "The pertinent analysis of deterrence and culpability is objective, not an inquiry into the subjective awareness of arresting officers." In addition, if a criminal defendant can prove all this, there is one more hurdle -- to convince the trial judge that, on balance, excluding the evidence is worth the "price" of allowing the guilty to go free. Thus, the extent to which the exclusionary rule is justified by its deterrent effect varies with the degree of law enforcement culpability. The decision can be read narrowly or broadly, and for some trial judges, this balancing test, one can imagine, will rarely require the suppression of evidence. The more heinous the crime, the more counterweight must be piled upon the defendant's side of the scale for evidence to be suppressed. This decision may be a harbinger of the abolition of the exclusionary rule that protects our client's constitutional rights. As the dissent reminded us, the exclusionary rule is based on principles -- "Beyond doubt, a main objective of the rule is to deter—to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way—by removing the incentive to disregard it.” The decision may be read here.