Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
The case of Hurrell-Harring v State of New York began on September 29, 2007 when 31-year-old Kimberly Hurrell-Harring shoved a condom containing 3/4 of an ounce of marijuana up her vagina before entering Great Meadow Prison in Comstock, New York to visit her husband. She was caught and arrested--her first arrest ever.
Hurrell-Harring was arraigned without counsel. Bail was set at $10,000, which was for Hurrell-Harring equivalent to being held without bail. Hurrell-Harring's court appointed lawyer, Public Defender Patrick Barber, (now disbarred for fabricating a family court order among other things), told her she had no choice but to plead guilty to a felony count of promoting dangerous contraband, which was not true. Another lawyer had called Barber and told him that the New York State Court of Appeals was about to rule on whether or not small amounts of marijuana constituted dangerous contraband. The ruling could potentially affect Hurrell-Harring, but Barber did not change his course of action.
Hurrell-Harring went to prison and lost her job. Meanwhile the Court of Appeals ruled that small amounts of marijuana like the amount Hurrell-Harring had smuggled into Comstock did not amount to dangerous contraband. Eventually an appellate court overturned Hurrell-Harring's conviction based on that decision.
Hurrell-Harring and nineteen other people brought suit against the State of New York, alleging they received inadequate legal representation in five counties. The lawsuit asked the Court of Appeals to declare the current system of representing the poor in New York State unconstitutional.
On May 6, 2010, the New York State Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, while not ruling on the merits of the case, ruled in a 4-3 decision that the lawsuit could go forward, overturning a lower court's decision that had dismissed the lawsuit.
On July 13, 2009, a supreme court judge in Albany County had ruled that the lawsuit could not be certified as a class action lawsuit, making it more difficult for the litigants to pursue their suit.
However yesterday the Appellate Division Third Department reversed the supreme court ruling. In their ruling the four judges stated the following:
1. "...unlike Supreme Court, we find that a class action is superior to other available methods for obtaining a fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy..."
2. "...denial of class certification gives rise to the possibility of multiple lawsuits involving claims duplicative of those asserted in this action and inconsistent rulings by various courts in this state."
3. "We also find that proceeding in the absence of class action status would subject the prosecution of this case to significant discovery challenges."
4. "Finally, and in our view not insignificantly, our research has failed to identify a single case involving claims of systemic deficiencies which seek widespread, systematic reform that has not been maintained as a class action."
NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: Examiner.com
Author: Daniel Weaver
Copyright: 2009 Clarity Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com
Contact: Contact | Examiner.com
Website: Court reverses class action denial of indigent defendants lawsuit against NY
Hurrell-Harring was arraigned without counsel. Bail was set at $10,000, which was for Hurrell-Harring equivalent to being held without bail. Hurrell-Harring's court appointed lawyer, Public Defender Patrick Barber, (now disbarred for fabricating a family court order among other things), told her she had no choice but to plead guilty to a felony count of promoting dangerous contraband, which was not true. Another lawyer had called Barber and told him that the New York State Court of Appeals was about to rule on whether or not small amounts of marijuana constituted dangerous contraband. The ruling could potentially affect Hurrell-Harring, but Barber did not change his course of action.
Hurrell-Harring went to prison and lost her job. Meanwhile the Court of Appeals ruled that small amounts of marijuana like the amount Hurrell-Harring had smuggled into Comstock did not amount to dangerous contraband. Eventually an appellate court overturned Hurrell-Harring's conviction based on that decision.
Hurrell-Harring and nineteen other people brought suit against the State of New York, alleging they received inadequate legal representation in five counties. The lawsuit asked the Court of Appeals to declare the current system of representing the poor in New York State unconstitutional.
On May 6, 2010, the New York State Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, while not ruling on the merits of the case, ruled in a 4-3 decision that the lawsuit could go forward, overturning a lower court's decision that had dismissed the lawsuit.
On July 13, 2009, a supreme court judge in Albany County had ruled that the lawsuit could not be certified as a class action lawsuit, making it more difficult for the litigants to pursue their suit.
However yesterday the Appellate Division Third Department reversed the supreme court ruling. In their ruling the four judges stated the following:
1. "...unlike Supreme Court, we find that a class action is superior to other available methods for obtaining a fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy..."
2. "...denial of class certification gives rise to the possibility of multiple lawsuits involving claims duplicative of those asserted in this action and inconsistent rulings by various courts in this state."
3. "We also find that proceeding in the absence of class action status would subject the prosecution of this case to significant discovery challenges."
4. "Finally, and in our view not insignificantly, our research has failed to identify a single case involving claims of systemic deficiencies which seek widespread, systematic reform that has not been maintained as a class action."
NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: Examiner.com
Author: Daniel Weaver
Copyright: 2009 Clarity Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com
Contact: Contact | Examiner.com
Website: Court reverses class action denial of indigent defendants lawsuit against NY
