Green Mountain Barrister

Professional Limited Liability Corporations

2009-05-16T06:41:00.002-04:00

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

2009-04-16T01:38:00.009-04:00

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

2009-04-15T12:56:00.008-04:00

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.

2009-03-27T08:01:00.001-04:00

Get your own - Open publication

Green Mountain Lawyers

2009-03-15T15:58:00.002-04:00

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

Literature Group For Offenders

2009-03-02T17:50:00.017-05:00

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

2009-02-02T06:51:00.023-05:00

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.

Law Firm Closing

2008-12-18T10:59:00.017-05:00

The law firm of Weber, Perra & Munzing, P.C., in existence in Brattleboro for more than forty years, will be closing effective 1 January 2009. The economic recession of the past two years was a significant factor in our unanimous decision to close our doors.

Our attorneys: Raymond A. Perra (of counsel); Richard D. Perra; Jane C. Krochmalny; William E. Kraham; and Victoria H. Collins (associate).

We thank our colleagues on the bench and in the bar for their trust, and declare that it has been our distinct honor and pleasure to provide legal advice and counsel to our many clients over the years, and we wish them well in their future endeavors.

Richard D. Perra will continue to use the firm's mailing address and phone number.

My contact information is as follows:

William E. Kraham
P.O. Box 447
Brattleboro, Vermont 05302-0447
T: (512) 284-4244
E: will.kraham@gmail.com

William E. Kraham
P.O. Box 4365
Austin, Texas 78765-4365

I am admitted to practice in Texas, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

Will.

Speedy Trial Right ...... Enforced

2008-12-02T19:29:00.010-05:00

Rarely does a trial court dismiss a case for lack of a speedy trial, and Judge Suntag was no exception, even though the second-degree aggravated domestic assault case took 3 years to come to trial and the defendant was detained in jail during this extraordinary length of time. Cases in which the accused is detained are supposed to take priority over all other matters before the court. The defendant was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison as a habitual offender. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, in a 3-2 decision -- now the case may be on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. State v. Brillon, 2008 VT 35, 955 A.2d 1108. If the supremes had grounded their decision on the Vermont Constitution, (ie., the right to obtain justice promptly and without delay, under Chapter One, Article Four of the Vermont Constitution; and the court's duty to administer justice without unnecessary delay, under Chapter Two, Section Twenty-Eight of the Vermont Constitution), instead of the right to a speedy trial found in the 6th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the decision would not be subject to review by the nine justices in Washington. What I want to know is why, if the defendant's trial was in June of 2004, was his appeal not decided until March of 2008 -- all the while he remains in prison for a decision in his case?

Skyward Right of Privacy Recognized in Vermont

2008-11-28T06:29:00.028-05:00

Growing marijuana is a crime in Vermont -- cultivating three plants or less is a misdemeanor -- four or more plants is a felony. 18 V.S.A. § 4230.

The Vermont Supreme Court, in the case of State v. Bryant, 2008 VT 39, 950 A.2d 467 (2008) established an overhead right of privacy for Vermonters under Article Eleven of the state's constitution that the police cannot invade without a search warrant. "We hold that Vermont citizens have a constitutional right to privacy that ascends into the airspace above their homes and property." The United States Supreme Court, in three aerial-surveillance cases, has never held that the surveillance at issue was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Vermont continues its 20+ year history of finding that Article 11 provides greater protection against warrantless intrusions than that provided by the Fourth Amendment.

The police in Vermont, with the cooperation of the Army National Guard, conduct helicopter searches of the hills and valleys in the late summer, using aging Hueys, looking for the distinctive green glow of healthy marijuana plants, one of Vermont's lesser known agricultural products, complementing the state's famous maple syrup and cheese. The helicopter sweeps of the Green Mountain State are conducted by the Vermont State Police (Marijuana Eradication Resource Team - MERT).

In the case before the court, the helicopter hovered and circled only 100' above the citizen's property for almost a half-hour. MERT helicopters are supposed to stay at least 500' above the targeted property. The Court said, "Therefore, we think it is also likely that Vermonters expect-at least at a private, rural residence on posted land-that they will be free from intrusions that interrupt their use of their property, expose their intimate activities, or create undue noise, wind, or dust."

The National Guard regulations for counter-drug operations require a minimum altitude of 500 feet above ground level, but permit a descent to no lower than 200 feet above ground level to "verify an eradication or reconnaissance objective." However, the Vermont Supreme Court did not simply examine the altitude of the helicopter in the case, but focused upon expectations of privacy and looked at the intrusiveness of the aerial surveillance. The helicopter surveillance in the case was "so long and so low and so loud" that the Court had no problem deciding the surveillance was "extremely intrusive." The occupants of the helicopter "were law-enforcement officers, trained in the identification of marijuana, who conducted an overflight at illegal altitudes solely for the purpose of discovering evidence of crime within a private enclave into which they were constitutionally forbidden to intrude at ground level without a warrant." Such activity triggers protection under Vermont's constitution. The Court was careful to observe that as technology advances surveillance techniques, the "privacy-protection question is no longer whether police have physically invaded a constitutionally protected area. Rather, the inquiry is whether the surveillance invaded a constitutionally protected legitimate expectation of privacy."

Zachery August Davis (August 29, 1980-June 7, 2008)

2008-06-11T08:01:00.012-04:00

My client, Zachery A. Davis, whom it was my honor and privilege to represent, in both state and federal court, died tragically on Saturday, June 7, 2008. Zack was twenty-seven years old.

Zack had the moral courage to assert his civil and constitutional rights in a state criminal proceeding, knowing full well that the ultimate decision by the trial court might boil down to a credibility contest -- his credibility versus the credibility of several municipal police officers and a federal ATF agent. Zack was successful in his state criminal case, the trial court ruling that the search of the vehicle in which Zack was a passenger was unlawful, that the search of Zack's backpack located in the cab of the pickup was unlawful under the Vermont Constitution, and that Zack's rights were violated by the police officers' unlawful detention of him for almost nine hours, during which time he was subjected to an abusive and traumatic interrogation by a federal agent, an interrogation that was intentionally not recorded by the municipal police department's video equipment.

Zack was not afraid to confront his own human failings, and sucessfully slayed his personal dragons. His exemplary self-change and his motivation to remain clean and become a law abiding citizen, with a contribution to make to our community, ultimately inured to his benefit, and he avoided an incarcerative sentence in federal court after his guilty plea to a federal firearms offense. Zack never had the chance to realize his full potential -- he was just starting his life's journey when he was taken from us.

Zack had an intense interest in the Founding Fathers and the historical source of our civil and constitutional rights, and I remember with fondness the lengthy philosophical discussions we would have about civil rights and liberties. Zack was full of questions, and I was astounded at his curiosity about arcane areas of constitutional law.

More than anything, I remember Zack's smile and his wry sense of humor, which he could not suppress, even in the face of serious and potentially life altering consequences during the pendency of his state and federal criminal proceedings.

Zack completed his undergraduate education, having first matriculated at the University of Vermont, after his federal criminal case was resolved favorably. Zack's intention was to attend law school and to become a patent attorney.

Zack believed so strongly in our constitutionally protected rights that he initiated, in November of 2007, a civil action against the municipal police officers and the Dover Police Department for the violation of his rights that occurred during his arrest in Dover, Vermont in November of 2004. That case, removed by the defendants from Windham Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, is still pending. The caption for the case is Zachery A. Davis v. Christopher Lora, Robert Edwards, Randall Johnson, and the Town of Dover, Docket No. 2:07-cv-248.

Zack was not interested in the amount of monetary damages he might receive at the conclusion of his case -- his motivation was to hold the police accountable, in a public way, for their egregious violation of his constitutional rights. Zack would have wanted his federal civil rights action to go forward, even though he is no longer with us.

Zack - you were loved and you will be missed. My condolences to your family and friends.

"Begin doing what you want to do now. We have only this moment, sparking like a star in our hand -- and melting like a snowflake." ~ Marie Beyon Ray

See For Yourself

2008-04-06T06:21:00.010-04:00

The United States Supreme Court, in Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007), held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he deliberately rammed his car into that of a fleeing motorist who refused to pull over for speeding and instead attempted to evade the police in a high-speed chase. The court concluded that "no reasonable juror," after watching the video, could find the fleeing driver did not pose a deadly risk to the public. The fleeing motorist was permanently disabled as a result of the police officer's actions, and this was a civil suit against the police officer for monetary damages.

What do you think?

Watch the video and "see for yourself." Was the Court right?

The link to the video of the police chase is here(# 37: VIDEO (Real Player, 93Mb))

The link to the Court's opinion is here.

Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions

2008-02-24T07:55:00.002-05:00

Many Vermonters are unaware that a misdemeanor DWI conviction will render them ineligible to enter Canada. For more information, go here.
Below are two charts of immigration consequences for Vermonters (Vermont Convictions and Federal Convictions):