Josh Marquis the justice system politics the media |
site contents (c)2009 Josh Marquis
site designed & maintained by Cynthia Price
hosted by Yahoo!, powered by Blogger
| I contributed a chapter to this thoughtful & well-balanced book: |
| search this site |
| ChrisRock.com Obey The Law (full-size viedo here) |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Justice Dept. to Review Bush Policy on DNA Test Waivers
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 11, 2009
"Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has ordered a review of a little-known Bush administration
policy requiring some defendants to waive their right to DNA testing even though that right is
guaranteed in a landmark federal law, officials said. <. . . snipped . . . >
The waivers run counter to the national movement toward post-conviction DNA testing as the
forensic tool has revolutionized criminal justice. Nearly all 50 states have passed laws giving
inmates the right to seek testing in state courts, and most allow for petitions after guilty pleas.
Oregon prosecutor Joshua Marquis, who sits on the executive committee of the National District
Attorneys Association, said he's never heard of DNA waivers in state court and that the
organization opposes the concept. 'I think it's important to always leave the door open for actual
proof of innocence,' he said." < . . . > read the rest of Markon's article and add your comments
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Justice Dept. to Review Bush Policy on DNA Test Waivers
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 11, 2009
"Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has ordered a review of a little-known Bush administration
policy requiring some defendants to waive their right to DNA testing even though that right is
guaranteed in a landmark federal law, officials said. <. . . snipped . . . >
The waivers run counter to the national movement toward post-conviction DNA testing as the
forensic tool has revolutionized criminal justice. Nearly all 50 states have passed laws giving
inmates the right to seek testing in state courts, and most allow for petitions after guilty pleas.
Oregon prosecutor Joshua Marquis, who sits on the executive committee of the National District
Attorneys Association, said he's never heard of DNA waivers in state court and that the
organization opposes the concept. 'I think it's important to always leave the door open for actual
proof of innocence,' he said." < . . . > read the rest of Markon's article and add your comments
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Josh Marquis
SUPER SURFER???
SUPER SURFER???
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The truth about tough-on-crime Josh Marquis
By Doug Bates, The Oregonian
November 14, 2009, 10:37AM
All three finalists for Oregon's U.S. attorney have impressive resumés, and I'm sure that whoever
among them is appointed by President Barack Obama will do an excellent job.
Personally, however, I'm pulling for Josh Marquis, the outspoken and sometimes controversial
Clatsop County district attorney.
Let me confess right up front that I've never met the other two finalists who were recently named
by a 13-member screening committee. They are Amanda Marshall, an Oregon Department of
Justice attorney, and Kent Robinson, the acting U.S. attorney for Oregon. Both have strong
credentials and both will be formidable competitors for the appointment against Marquis, in part
because neither has been out there with him on the rough-and-tumble front lines of Oregon
politics.
For Marquis, who has exceedingly strong credentials of his own, that creates a disadvantage. His
long career as an elected DA and advocate for prosecutors has given him a reputation as a "law
and order Democrat," something that's perversely resented by some on the political left. Now
certain liberal bloggers in Oregon are suggesting that Marquis shouldn't get the appointment
because he isn't "progressive enough" to be a good ideological fit with the Obama administration.
That's pretty silly. I've known Marquis and have worked with him off and on for nearly 30 years,
since he was an exuberant young deputy DA in Lane County, and the man I know is a true-blue
Oregon Democrat who happens to be tough as hell on crime. . . . read the rest and add your
comments . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The truth about tough-on-crime Josh Marquis
By Doug Bates, The Oregonian
November 14, 2009, 10:37AM
All three finalists for Oregon's U.S. attorney have impressive resumés, and I'm sure that whoever
among them is appointed by President Barack Obama will do an excellent job.
Personally, however, I'm pulling for Josh Marquis, the outspoken and sometimes controversial
Clatsop County district attorney.
Let me confess right up front that I've never met the other two finalists who were recently named
by a 13-member screening committee. They are Amanda Marshall, an Oregon Department of
Justice attorney, and Kent Robinson, the acting U.S. attorney for Oregon. Both have strong
credentials and both will be formidable competitors for the appointment against Marquis, in part
because neither has been out there with him on the rough-and-tumble front lines of Oregon
politics.
For Marquis, who has exceedingly strong credentials of his own, that creates a disadvantage. His
long career as an elected DA and advocate for prosecutors has given him a reputation as a "law
and order Democrat," something that's perversely resented by some on the political left. Now
certain liberal bloggers in Oregon are suggesting that Marquis shouldn't get the appointment
because he isn't "progressive enough" to be a good ideological fit with the Obama administration.
That's pretty silly. I've known Marquis and have worked with him off and on for nearly 30 years,
since he was an exuberant young deputy DA in Lane County, and the man I know is a true-blue
Oregon Democrat who happens to be tough as hell on crime. . . . read the rest and add your
comments . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Vanderbilt Law School debate
On my way home last week from my first meeting as a member of the American Bar Association's
Criminal Justice Section, I stopped off at Vanderbilt Law School. Students there had invited me to
an "Oxford-style" debate in which the audience "votes" on who "won" the argument by walking
out a particular door.
Over the last ten years I have been asked many times to speak about issues surrounding capital
punishment. Part of the reason is that I was once a journalist and I enjoy writing, and as a
litigator I enjoy a good debate. All too often my willingness to talk and debate is misinterpreted
as excessive zeal for the death penalty. The truth is I think capital punishment should rarely be
used and that we -- defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges, everyone in criminal justice -- can do
better. Justice is a work in progress.
Above all else I value civility in discussion of such important and often emotional issues, and have
been fortunate to have been matched up (almost always) with opponents of capital punishment
whom I greatly respect and with whom I've found much common ground. That was certainly true
of Prof. Ken Haas, my eloquent and personable debate opponent from the University of Delaware.
Vanderbilt posted the debate online at YouTube, if you want to know from the horse's mouth why
I support capital punishment:
Vanderbilt Law School debate
On my way home last week from my first meeting as a member of the American Bar Association's
Criminal Justice Section, I stopped off at Vanderbilt Law School. Students there had invited me to
an "Oxford-style" debate in which the audience "votes" on who "won" the argument by walking
out a particular door.
Over the last ten years I have been asked many times to speak about issues surrounding capital
punishment. Part of the reason is that I was once a journalist and I enjoy writing, and as a
litigator I enjoy a good debate. All too often my willingness to talk and debate is misinterpreted
as excessive zeal for the death penalty. The truth is I think capital punishment should rarely be
used and that we -- defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges, everyone in criminal justice -- can do
better. Justice is a work in progress.
Above all else I value civility in discussion of such important and often emotional issues, and have
been fortunate to have been matched up (almost always) with opponents of capital punishment
whom I greatly respect and with whom I've found much common ground. That was certainly true
of Prof. Ken Haas, my eloquent and personable debate opponent from the University of Delaware.
Vanderbilt posted the debate online at YouTube, if you want to know from the horse's mouth why
I support capital punishment: