<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for </title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 01:21:13 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Padilla v. Kentucky : Gift Basket or Dirty Bomb? by weekly email edition &#124; Capital Defense Weekly</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2010/03/padilla-v-kentucky-gift-basket-or-dirty-bomb/comment-page-1/#comment-7866</link>
		<dc:creator>weekly email edition &#124; Capital Defense Weekly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 01:21:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=1085#comment-7866</guid>
		<description>[...] not be given a narrow reading.  Paul Rashkind, Doug Berman, Gideon, the Legal Ethics Forum, and Mass Appeal have thought provoking analyzes of the opinion and where, like Apprendi, it may [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] not be given a narrow reading.  Paul Rashkind, Doug Berman, Gideon, the Legal Ethics Forum, and Mass Appeal have thought provoking analyzes of the opinion and where, like Apprendi, it may [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Supremes to consider whether bad immigration advice from criminal counsel is Constitutionally ineffective by &#187; Mass Appeal! &#124; Matt Cameron&#8217;s Appellate Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/03/supremes-to-consider-whether-bad-immigration-advice-from-criminal-counsel-is-constitutionally-ineffective/comment-page-1/#comment-7770</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Mass Appeal! &#124; Matt Cameron&#8217;s Appellate Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:08:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=675#comment-7770</guid>
		<description>[...] in Padilla v. Kentucky&#8211;-the facts and issues of which I&#8217;ve previously summarized here&#8212;and there&#8217;s no way I&#8217;m going to get through any kind of analysis of this thing [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in Padilla v. Kentucky&#8211;-the facts and issues of which I&#8217;ve previously summarized here&#8212;and there&#8217;s no way I&#8217;m going to get through any kind of analysis of this thing [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on  Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts = Crawford II: The Final Confrontation  by &#187; Mass Appeal! &#124; Matt Cameron&#8217;s Appellate Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/06/melendez-diaz-v-massachusetts-is-crawford-ii-the-final-confrontation/comment-page-1/#comment-4644</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Mass Appeal! &#124; Matt Cameron&#8217;s Appellate Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:34:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=899#comment-4644</guid>
		<description>[...] last term. As I&#8217;ve already discussed (more than you ever really need to know here and here) it was an elegant and, at base, nearly inarguable Scalia decision which held that introducing [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] last term. As I&#8217;ve already discussed (more than you ever really need to know here and here) it was an elegant and, at base, nearly inarguable Scalia decision which held that introducing [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Confronting  Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts  by &#187; Mass Appeal! &#124; Matt Cameron&#8217;s Appellate Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/06/confronting-melendez-diaz-v-massachusetts/comment-page-1/#comment-4643</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Mass Appeal! &#124; Matt Cameron&#8217;s Appellate Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:32:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=875#comment-4643</guid>
		<description>[...] Court&#8217;s last term. As I&#8217;ve already discussed (more than you ever really need to know here and here) it was an elegant and, at base, nearly inarguable Scalia decision which held that [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Court&#8217;s last term. As I&#8217;ve already discussed (more than you ever really need to know here and here) it was an elegant and, at base, nearly inarguable Scalia decision which held that [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on An Idle and Disorderly Statute: Part I by Transor Z</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2008/12/an-idle-and-disorderly-statute-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-1837</link>
		<dc:creator>Transor Z</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:06:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yourmassappeal.wordpress.com/?p=50#comment-1837</guid>
		<description>Nice piece. I had a random troll from out of state question my cite to &lt;i&gt;Chou&lt;/i&gt; in connection to this on my own blog. I like your take on this. A few people seem to have missed that subsection (b) of MPC 250.2 was chucked after &lt;i&gt;Alegata&lt;/i&gt; for First Amendment reasons. It&#039;s funny that this most basic of misdemeanors is still wacky and misunderstood after all these years.

Regards,

TZ</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice piece. I had a random troll from out of state question my cite to <i>Chou</i> in connection to this on my own blog. I like your take on this. A few people seem to have missed that subsection (b) of MPC 250.2 was chucked after <i>Alegata</i> for First Amendment reasons. It&#8217;s funny that this most basic of misdemeanors is still wacky and misunderstood after all these years.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>TZ</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on An Idle and Disorderly Statute: Part II by The Stupidest Law In The Nation? &#124; nFiniteEcho.com</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2008/12/an-idle-and-disorderly-statute-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1732</link>
		<dc:creator>The Stupidest Law In The Nation? &#124; nFiniteEcho.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:43:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yourmassappeal.wordpress.com/?p=70#comment-1732</guid>
		<description>[...] (An Idle And Disorderly Statute, Part II). Matthew sums it up and gets to the gravamen of the matter when he concludes, in 2008 well before the false arrest of Professor Gates, that: &#8230; this may well be one of the stupidest criminal charges in the Mass. General Laws—if not any state criminal code—now in regular active use. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] (An Idle And Disorderly Statute, Part II). Matthew sums it up and gets to the gravamen of the matter when he concludes, in 2008 well before the false arrest of Professor Gates, that: &#8230; this may well be one of the stupidest criminal charges in the Mass. General Laws—if not any state criminal code—now in regular active use. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Could Professor Gates have been convicted of disorderly conduct? by John Puma</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/07/could-professor-gates-have-been-convicted-of-disorderly-conduct/comment-page-1/#comment-1693</link>
		<dc:creator>John Puma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:54:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=958#comment-1693</guid>
		<description>Thanks so much to take the time to answer questions.&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-1690&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@Matt Cameron&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks so much to take the time to answer questions.<a href="#comment-1690" rel="nofollow">@Matt Cameron</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Could Professor Gates have been convicted of disorderly conduct? by Matt Cameron</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/07/could-professor-gates-have-been-convicted-of-disorderly-conduct/comment-page-1/#comment-1690</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Cameron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:27:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=958#comment-1690</guid>
		<description>John--

Thanks! I have been pleasantly surprised by how much traffic and attention this story has generated, but maybe that&#039;s just because I&#039;m already so familiar with the use and abuse of our disorderly conduct statute.

It is actually standard police procedure, at least here in the Commonwealth, for officers to collect as much basic information as possible (including race) regarding witnesses, suspects, and any other parties of interest on the scene in a situation like this. This is mostly just as a memory aid for the convenience of law enforcement, both as they continue to investigate a crime and if/when a case goes to trial. This kind of information can also prove helpful to the preparing a defense in many cases, especially if the defendant&#039;s race/identity is somewhat ambiguous or if the identity of the defendant rests, as so often happens, solely upon the eyewitness testimony of someone of a different race. (It has been generally proven that cross-racial identification of specific individuals is far more difficult for people who were raised in homogeneous communities.) Objectively speaking, race is a convenient and readily-available personal identifying characteristic, which is why it appears on the standard arrest report form used in summarizing the Gates incident (as well as less controversial places such as birth certificates, medical records, etc.) along with gender and age. 

As I said in the post, I have been trying to stay out of this conversation as it pertains to race, as I am simply not in a position to intelligently contribute much in this direction. However, I will add that I am personally aware through my clients that there is reason to believe that racial profiling and bias *can* be a real problem here in Massachusetts. Based on my knowledge of how and where these problems occur in the Commonwealth, I believe that they are far more likely to arise in smaller, less diverse communities (Google &quot;Jason Vassell&quot; to see a recent extreme example) than a major, highly diverse municipality like Cambridge. This is not to say it&#039;s impossible, of course, but only that it wasn&#039;t my first instinct here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John&#8211;</p>
<p>Thanks! I have been pleasantly surprised by how much traffic and attention this story has generated, but maybe that&#8217;s just because I&#8217;m already so familiar with the use and abuse of our disorderly conduct statute.</p>
<p>It is actually standard police procedure, at least here in the Commonwealth, for officers to collect as much basic information as possible (including race) regarding witnesses, suspects, and any other parties of interest on the scene in a situation like this. This is mostly just as a memory aid for the convenience of law enforcement, both as they continue to investigate a crime and if/when a case goes to trial. This kind of information can also prove helpful to the preparing a defense in many cases, especially if the defendant&#8217;s race/identity is somewhat ambiguous or if the identity of the defendant rests, as so often happens, solely upon the eyewitness testimony of someone of a different race. (It has been generally proven that cross-racial identification of specific individuals is far more difficult for people who were raised in homogeneous communities.) Objectively speaking, race is a convenient and readily-available personal identifying characteristic, which is why it appears on the standard arrest report form used in summarizing the Gates incident (as well as less controversial places such as birth certificates, medical records, etc.) along with gender and age. </p>
<p>As I said in the post, I have been trying to stay out of this conversation as it pertains to race, as I am simply not in a position to intelligently contribute much in this direction. However, I will add that I am personally aware through my clients that there is reason to believe that racial profiling and bias *can* be a real problem here in Massachusetts. Based on my knowledge of how and where these problems occur in the Commonwealth, I believe that they are far more likely to arise in smaller, less diverse communities (Google &#8220;Jason Vassell&#8221; to see a recent extreme example) than a major, highly diverse municipality like Cambridge. This is not to say it&#8217;s impossible, of course, but only that it wasn&#8217;t my first instinct here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Could Professor Gates have been convicted of disorderly conduct? by John Puma</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/07/could-professor-gates-have-been-convicted-of-disorderly-conduct/comment-page-1/#comment-1685</link>
		<dc:creator>John Puma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:31:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=958#comment-1685</guid>
		<description>Mr Cameron,

Yes, thanks for the great post.  
I found a link to it on the Turley blog, provided by poster Dredd.

I noted in the Gatesgate &quot;incident report&quot; that both Gates and the woman who called the police to the scene were identified racially.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF

As I wrote on the Turley blog this may be standard police procedure but I have yet to get an answer to two simple questions I posed there.  

Perhaps you can enlighten me, a non-lawyer:
1) What is the justification for law enforcement officers identifying suspects 
    and witnesses by race?
2) How can any department that does so claim race neutrality subsequently?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr Cameron,</p>
<p>Yes, thanks for the great post.<br />
I found a link to it on the Turley blog, provided by poster Dredd.</p>
<p>I noted in the Gatesgate &#8220;incident report&#8221; that both Gates and the woman who called the police to the scene were identified racially.<br />
<a href="http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF" rel="nofollow">http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF</a></p>
<p>As I wrote on the Turley blog this may be standard police procedure but I have yet to get an answer to two simple questions I posed there.  </p>
<p>Perhaps you can enlighten me, a non-lawyer:<br />
1) What is the justification for law enforcement officers identifying suspects<br />
    and witnesses by race?<br />
2) How can any department that does so claim race neutrality subsequently?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Could Professor Gates have been convicted of disorderly conduct? by Dredd</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/07/could-professor-gates-have-been-convicted-of-disorderly-conduct/comment-page-1/#comment-1668</link>
		<dc:creator>Dredd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=958#comment-1668</guid>
		<description>Great work Matt.

I cited your blog on Professor Turley&#039;s blog. And I had written a similar post on my blog before reading your blog.

Again, great post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great work Matt.</p>
<p>I cited your blog on Professor Turley&#8217;s blog. And I had written a similar post on my blog before reading your blog.</p>
<p>Again, great post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
