Saturday, February 14, 2015

The Behavioral Science Unit, which was part of the Training Division, became the Behavioral Science Investigative Support Unit. �The next significant evolution was in 1994, with the creation of the Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), to integrate the F.B.I.'s crisis management, behavioral, and tactical resources within one entity.By that time the unit had changed its name again to the Investigative Support Unit. At the same time, the Director of the FBI created the Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit. So that was the first time there were multiple operational units rather than a single unit: the Profiling and Behavioral Assessment Unit and the Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit.
Once an agent is selected into one of the behavioral analysis units, Hilts says, they go through a 16-week classroom-based program, taught by both agents and outside professionals.� �"We try to start with a basic foundation of psychology," he points out, "and then go to specifics.� By the last several weeks, we get into the specialties of specific types of crimes."� The coursework involves such subjects as:
  • Basic psychology
  • Criminal psychology
  • Forensic science
  • Body recovery
  • Criminal Investigative Analysis
  • Death investigation
  • Threat assessment
  • Statement/document analysis
  • Crimes against children
  • Child abduction and homicide
  • Sexual victimization of children / Internet issues
  • Interview and interrogation procedures
  • Serial murder
In addition, a limited number of internships in research are available to both graduate and undergraduate students in law enforcement and mental health.� "They're an indispensable part of our research program," says Hilts.� He suggests that interested students contact Violent Crime Resource Specialist Cynthia J. Lent, at clent@fbiacademy.edu.
About the current status of what the agents in the BAU-2 do, Hilts states that their goal is the same as it always was: "We're simply one of the tools in the toolbox.� �In some cases, we play a bigger role than in others in the resolution of the case."� Currently, he supervises seven agents, including two retired homicide detectives from major cities, and at any given time they can have as many as one hundred fifty open cases.� "Some may be serial murder cases that we work on for months, with multiple trips, and some may involve only a consultation on interview strategy with an identified offender."� Their work includes consulting on international cases, as well as assisting other countries set up their own behavioral units.
When dealing with the media, they all realize that there are misunderstandings to resolve.��"The public's interest in profiling has been intertwined with an interest in serial murder," Hilts offers.� "With the television depiction of profiling as something mysterious and different, that has become the image of what it is.� Some people in the media--and in law enforcement as well--don't make the connection that that's not reality.� There are many different types of serial killers and many different motivations.� When I'm involved in a case, I view a portion of my job as being to educate. The public gets the impression from fictional depictions like Hannibal Lecter, who get away with multiple murders, that serial killers are smarter than the rest of us and have unlimited resources.� People are looking for that type of individual, and that's not what most serial killers are.
Former profiler Robert Ressler calls the BSU Hoovers last positive legacy, although others have noted that only with his death was the way cleared for real emphasis on psychology. When it opened in 1972, the Behavioral Science Unit was initially formed with eleven agents, and Jack Kirsch was their first official chief. DeNevi and Campbell describe the tentative early steps. (Their history is sometimes inaccurate when they discuss cases, but its the first to offer a comprehensive account of the personalities of those innovators who made the BSU what it is today.) While the BSU offered advice to local law enforcement on different types of crimes, serial murder would become their forte. Kirsch, a former police training coordinator, served for eight months, followed by John Pfaff.
Howard Teten, also a member, had already toyed with the idea of criminal profiling, and had included some of the ideas in his NA course, Applied Criminology. Upon meeting with Dr. Brussel and also having some success of his own, he made profiling a more central component of his training. Although Teten disagreed with Brussels Freudian interpretations, he accepted other tenets of the analysis. With the energetic Special Agent Patrick Mullany, who had an advanced degree in psychology, Teten designed a method for analyzing unknown offenders in unsolved cases. He would look at the behavioral manifestations at a crime scene for evidence of aberrant mental disorders and other personality traits and then use that information to make deductions. Eventually, his ideas on specific crimes were much in demand.
The initial BSU staff handpicked agents that seemed to have a knack for behavioral analysis, and as the demand on their time and the daily exposure to brutal crimes became more intense, they developed a strong camaraderie. With the pressure for greater analytic sophistication, many of them began to specialize. Hazelwood, for example, went into sadistic sexual crimes and autoerotic fatalities, while Dick Lanning focused on child abuse and investigated alleged satanic ritual abuse. As the various members went out to local jurisdictions to teach, they helped to solve many puzzling cases.
Respected FBI agent, family man and staunch Catholic conservative leads a double life spying for the Russians, hanging around strip clubs and surfing Internet porn sites. Adrian Havill, author of The Spy Who Stayed Out in the Cold: The Secret Life of Robert Hanssen, tells the inside story of the real man and how the FBI trapped him.
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

COMMENTARY

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law.

The Canons are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law, and in the context of all relevant circumstances. The Code is to be construed so it does not impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.

The Code is designed to provide guidance to judges and nominees for judicial office. It may also provide standards of conduct for application in proceedings under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), 351-364). Not every violation of the Code should lead to disciplinary action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline, should be determined through a reasonable application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the improper activity, the intent of the judge, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system. Many of the restrictions in the Code are necessarily cast in general terms, and judges may reasonably differ in their interpretation. Furthermore, the Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. Finally, the Code is not intended to be used for tactical advantage.
An appellate court upheld a $3.5 million verdict, as well as sanctions, against a former assistant attorney general in Michigan who became notorious for using social media to attack the University of Michigan’s first openly gay student body president.
The Detroit Free Press and The Ann Arbor News reported Monday that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld (PDF) the rulings against Andrew Shirvell for stalking and harassing then-University of Michigan undergrad Chris Armstrong.
Shirvell, who at that time was still an assistant attorney general, maintained a blog named “Chris Armstrong Watch.” In this blog and on Facebook, he said that Armstrong was a “privileged pervert” and “Satan’s representative” who was promoting a “radical homosexual agenda” at Michigan, Shirvell’s alma mater. In 2010, Shirvell went on a media blitz on national television shows, and defended his actions by invoking the First Amendment. According to the 6th Circuit opinion, Shirvell also looked up Armstrong’s off-campus address; posted fliers throughout Armstrong’s neighborhood; heckled Armstrong at campus events; showed up uninvited to private parties he knew Armstrong would be attending; and on several occasions marched in protest outside Armstrong’s house.
Shirvell stated that these were his personal opinions and that he was allowed to do what he wanted on his own time. His boss, then-Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, initially defended Shirvell’s right to free speech before firing him in 2010. Cox said Shirvell’s conduct undermined the AG office’s efforts to fight cyberbullying.
Armstrong sued Shirvell for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and stalking. Armstrong was awarded $4.5 million in August 2012 (the figure was knocked down to $3.5 million on appeal). While that lawsuit was going on, Shirvell counter-sued Armstrong’s lawyer, Deborah Gordon, accusing her of colluding with Cox to get him fired. The trial court found there was no evidence of collusion and sanctioned Shirvell for his accusations.
On Monday, the appellate court found that the rulings against Shirvell were correct, though it reversed the awarded compensatory damages for false light, bringing the judgment down to $3.5 million. The court called Shirvell’s conduct “highly reprehensible” and “an ongoing pattern of intentional misconduct.”
“This opinion should itself suffice to make clear that the type of litigation conduct in which Shirvell engaged is intolerable and serve as a deterrent to Shirvell from such conduct in the future,” wrote the court in its opinion.
Gordon, for her part, was pleased with the result. “Mr. Shirvell vilified, smeared and stalked a college student because he was gay,” Gordon wrote in an e-mail to the Free Press. “He thought all he had to do was utter the words ‘First Amendment’ and he would be protected from any consequences for his actions. He was incorrect. The fact that he was—and remains—an attorney made his conduct especially abhorrent. The jury set him straight, and the Court of Appeals now has affirmed their verdict.”
Shirvell did not respond to the Free Press’s request for comment.
This result was the second piece of bad news Shirvell has received in the last several weeks. On January 12, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned a lower court judge’s ruling that Shirvell could collect unemployment benefits as a result of his termination from the Attorney General’s office. The appellate court ruled that Shirvell was rightly fired and that his free speech rights were outweighed by the state’s interests. Shirvell told the Associated Press on Jan. 12 that he planned to appeal.

Wrongful conviction representation nationwide

Time spent in prison is something that you can never get back, but a dedicated civil rights lawyer can help you pursue justice. Put simply, no firm in the country has more experience or more success than Loevy & Loevy in litigating wrongful conviction cases.
In 2012, our firm won the single largest jury verdict ever obtained in a wrongful conviction case: $25 million for Thaddeus Jimenez, a young man who spent 16 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. That jury verdict broke the previous record, a $21 million verdict awarded to Juan Johnson, also a Loevy & Loevy client. Two more of the top ten wrongful conviction jury verdicts ever also belong to our firm: $14 million for our client Ted White in Missouri, and $13.3 million for David Ayers in Cleveland.
In fact, of the top fourteen wrongful conviction jury verdicts in the history of the United States, Loevy & Loevy has won an astonishing 35 percent of them.

Top 14 wrongful conviction U.S. jury verdicts

1.  Jimenez v. City of Chicago – $25 million (Loevy & Loevy)
2.  Johnson v. Guevara – $21 million (Loevy & Loevy)
3.  Newton v. New York City – $18.5 million
4.  Fox v. Will County – $15.5 million
5.  Newsome v. McCabe – $15 million
6.  McGee v. City of Tulsa – $14.5 million
7.  White v. McKinley – $14 million (Loevy & Loevy)
8.  Drumgold v. Callaghan – $14 million
9.  Thompson v. Connick – $14 million
10.  Ayers v. City of Cleveland – $13.2 million (Loevy & Loevy)
11.  Sarsfield v. City of Malborough – $13 million
12.  Waters v. Town of Ayer – $10.7 million
13.  Dominguez v. Hendley – $9 million (Loevy & Loevy)
14.  Mayes v. City of Hammond – $9 million

Of all jury verdicts awarded to individuals wrongly incarcerated for multiple years, only 12 in U.S. history have ever broken the barrier of $1 million per year of wrongful imprisonment. Our firm has won almost half of these 12 cases, and we have achieved each of the top four verdicts in this group.

Top 12 wrongful conviction U.S. jury verdicts by award per year of wrongful imprisonment

Test
Our unparalleled track record of success is thanks to our extensive experience litigating wrongful conviction cases and our specialized knowledge of the wide array of legal doctrines and litigation opportunities in those cases. In addition, Loevy & Loevy invests substantial resources in every case because we know that’s what it takes to win—expert witnesses, investigations, depositions and numerous other essential expenses fall on our shoulders, not on the shoulders of our clients.
When you consider which law firm will represent you in your wrongful conviction case, it is essential that you choose attorneys with experience litigating and winning this specific type of case. You do not want your wrongful conviction case to be one of the first times that your lawyer has ever taken a wrongful conviction case to trial. Even fine lawyers who lack experience in wrongful conviction cases are at a distinct disadvantage.
Put simply, there is no law firm in the country that has anywhere near the experience with wrongful conviction cases as Loevy & Loevy. No other firm has represented as many wrongful conviction clients, or won anywhere near as many wrongful conviction cases.
Loevy & Loevy routinely spends at least $100,000 to work up a wrongful conviction case. The firm pays this expense. Loevy & Loevy invests substantial resources in every case because that is what it takes to win. If you are considering other lawyers, you should satisfy yourself that those attorneys have the ability and desire to make that kind of investment in your case.
Because of our tremendous and unprecedented success winning jury trials in wrongful conviction cases, our clients also enjoy the benefit of maximum compensation in wrongful conviction settlements. Wrongful conviction cases tend to be difficult to win, and so defendants normally are unwilling to put money on the table prior to trial, if at all. Because of our success before juries,- however, clients of Loevy & Loevy have a meaningful opportunity to explore settlement in wrongful conviction cases. Recently, for example, our client Alton Logan received the highest wrongful conviction settlement in history, a total amount in excess of $10 million. We have had multiple wrongful conviction settlements in excess of $5 million and more than a dozen of at least $1 million.
Experience matters. Results matter. No other firm even comes close to Loevy & Loevy in either respect. With 24 highly qualified lawyers, our firm has been able to help more wrongfully convicted individuals than any other. Each of our wrongful conviction clients receives all of the firm’s resources and energy. We typically spend years of effort, including thousands of attorney hours on each of these cases. Without exception, each of our wrongful conviction cases that ultimately goes to trial will be handled by a trial team led by a Loevy & Loevy lawyer with experience winning eight-figure jury awards.
Most importantly, we are extremely proud of the relationships that we have forged with our wrongful conviction clients. Wrongful conviction cases tend to be extremely emotional, given that the plaintiff has lost so much of his or her life. In preparing these cases for trial, our attorneys work very closely with the people whose lives have been affected by these miscarriages of justice. As a result, we invariably form close bonds with our clients that transcend mere legal relationships and turn into genuine friendships.
For more information on Loevy & Loevy’s experience winning wrongful conviction cases and civil rights cases, visit our Big Wins page.
To discuss your case with an experienced civil rights attorney, contact our firm today for a free consultation.
- See more at: http://www.loevy.com/police-misconduct/wrongful-convictions/#sthash.wLPrHB3S.dpuf
The vast majority of police officers serve honorably and with distinction. They deserve respect and appreciation. However, like all professions, there are some bad apples. Rogue cops can be extremely dangerous. For the most part, especially in major cities like Chicago, police officers know that they will not be disciplined or criminally charged even for the most outrageous conduct. This often leads to an abuse of power.
Police officers have guns and handcuffs, and the power to make an arrest and take away a person’s freedom. They have been given not only enormous responsibility, but also enormous trust. They should always act in a way that respects the trust the public has placed in them. So when the police make a false arrest or brutally beat people, it is a horrific breach of trust. This should never be tolerated.
The only way to hold police officers accountable is by bringing a civil lawsuit. Since 1996, Jackowiak Law Offices has fought the police and obtained justice for hundreds of victims of police brutality and other police misconduct. Our lawyers take great pride in working tirelessly for people whose civil rights have been violated. Check our record. We have obtained numerous jury verdicts for all kinds of police misconduct and civil rights violations, and obtained millions of dollars. On many occasions we have won large jury verdicts in police misconduct cases that the defense lawyers refused to settle out of court because they mistakenly thought we had no chance of winning.
Our law firm is not anti-police. We have represented several police officers who themselves have been victims of rogue cops. We are against any abuse of power. We have no complaint with the thousands of law enforcement professionals who perform their jobs honorably and within the rules. But yes, there are bad cops. There are too many who feel free to disregard the constitutional rights of those they are supposed to protect and serve. When they violate the Constitution, the only way to hold them accountable is through the civil justice system. That is what we do.
Jackowiak Law Offices - Criminal Defense
TheChicagoInjuryLawyers.com

Criminal Defense

If you have been arrested and accused of a crime, there is a lot at stake. A good criminal defense lawyer often means the difference between freedom and prison time. All lawyers are not created equal. Don’t choose just any lawyer. If you hire the wrong lawyer, the consequences could be extreme.
Jackowiak Law Offices has lawyers with extensive experience in defending criminal cases, and a history of results. Lawrence (“Larry”) Jackowiak is best known for his work in civil rights and injury cases, but when Jackowiak Law Offices first opened in 1996, the firm handled mostly criminal cases. Right from the start, Larry fought hard in all of his cases. For example, in his very first jury trial, Larry’s client was charged with armed robbery. One piece of evidence was a signed, handwritten confession the client made after he was arrested. The jury made a finding of not guilty.
Daniel Kiss is also part of our criminal defense team. Dan worked as Cook County public defender for 9 years defending people accused of every kind of serious felony crime. Dan knows the local criminal justice system. He has represented thousands of people accused of crimes in Chicago, and has regularly had juries find his clients not guilty.
Attorney Louis Meyer also has had enormous success working on criminal cases. In fact, a jury has found Louis’s client not guilty in every case he has ever taken to trial. In all of those cases, Louis then filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the client alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution.
All of our attorneys are relentless, tireless, and energetic in defending criminal cases. We investigate all cases early and thoroughly. Each case undergoes rigorous forensic analysis, and every possible legal motion is carefully considered and fought. Every move, big and little, is factored into the grand trial strategy. In court, our attorneys speak eloquently, candidly, and with passion. Our attorneys believe it is an honor to fight for freedom, and have won many cases that the prosecution thought there was no chance of losing.

Federal Criminal Defense

Federal crimes are usually the most serious for which a person may face criminal charges. In addition, the manner in which federal crimes are investigated, prosecuted and penalized is extremely harsh. Federal criminal cases often have extremely harsh minimum penalties that must be imposed under federal sentencing guidelines. To make matters even worse, federal agencies are typically better funded and have more manpower to dedicate to their investigations, and federal prosecutors often have more experience and resources to prosecute defendants in federal court. To counteract the aggressive investigation and prosecution that you will face for a federal crime, you need highly experienced criminal defense attorneys on your side. Our lawyers are here to help you fight for your rights and liberties.

Murder, Rape, Guns, Drugs

Most criminal prosecutions are in state court. The most common charges include possession of contraband, including narcotics and weapons, and violent crimes like rape and murder.
Our lawyers have extensive experience fighting all types of state charges. No matter what the charge, we passionately fight every single case as if it’s our only case. The police and prosecutors are fearful of going to trial against us because we’ve won so many cases that they mistakenly thought they could never lose. Based on our history and reputation, we have been able to plea bargain to keep our clients out of jail when the prosecution has really strong evidence. Also, our intimate knowledge of the criminal justice system allows us to negotiate with prosecutors to have cases dismissed.

Contact Us - Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you have been arrested and charged with a crime, there is a lot at stake. We can help. Start by calling us to schedule a time to come to our office to meet to discuss your case. Initial consultations are free. We will outline our strategy to fight your case, and tell you exactly what the cost will be for attorney fees and other expenses. All terms will be put in writing. You will then have the comfort of knowing that you have the very best representation for your case and it will be handled properly. We never rest on our past victories, we prove ourselves with every case. Don’t be a victim of illegal arrests, illegal charges, exaggerated charges, and false evidence. Contact us now.
> Go to Civil Rights overview