Latest on the :Brown Appeal

[Joey Smith]

BROWN:FOOL

[wserra]

Remember that deadline of yesterday for Elaine's brief which the First Circuit said it would be "disinclined to grant a request" to extend further? Well, it did extend it further - to January 10. This time, the Court noted that "[n]o further extension of this deadline should be expected".

Obviously a double secret deadline.

[DeanStowers]

Interesting reading these posts about me and Ed Brown...Don't worry, I have Ed's Appeal well in hand and under control along with all the other things that people have noted and inaccurately reported. If you want to read something accurate about me, go to http://www.stowerslaw.com and read away. Dean Stowers

[wserra]

Welcome to Quatloos.

What posted here is inaccurate? And, assuming it's neither a secret nor a confidence, how did you come to represent Ed Brown?

[Nikki]

Interesting reading these posts about me and Ed Brown...Don't worry, I have Ed's Appeal well in hand and under control along with all the other things that people have noted and inaccurately reported.

Given Ed's behavior and arguments at both of his prior trials and minor details such as constructing bombs, possessing firearms while being a convicted felon, etc ad infinitum, what possible grounds are there for an appeal which wouldn't warrant sanctions against you?

[jcolvin2]

Iowa Supreme Court decision upholding contempt re: Dean Stowers' use of documents:

http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court ... 8-1087.pdf

[wserra]

Given Ed's behavior and arguments at both of his prior trials and minor details such as constructing bombs, possessing firearms while being a convicted felon, etc ad infinitum, what possible grounds are there for an appeal which wouldn't warrant sanctions against you?

Whoa, whoa. Nikki, are you saying that anything other than an Anders brief is sanctionable? I don't think I agree with that. For example, as I wrote above, Stowers has an arguable point that the trial court should have gone further than it did in assessing Ed:family Wacko's competence. Maybe yes, maybe no, but hardly frivolous.

[Gregg]

Whatever trouble he's facing in Iowa pales in comparison to what he's facing when Ed:family moron turns on him, and he will. Ed has tossed everyone he's ever come into contact with under the bus eventually. He talked about killing his wife just so he could blame the government, remember?

Granted, being locked up for the rest of his life will prevent him from hanging bombs in your yard, but at the very least expect a few years of answering inane and frivolous lawsuits and filings of liens etc...

Good luck with that, I know it sucks, but your client is an idiot.

[Demosthenes]

Stowers has an arguable point that the trial court should have gone further than it did in assessing Ed:family Wacko's competence.

What more could the court have done? The month-long psych evaluation was about as thorough as it gets, no?

[bmielke]

Mr. Stowers welcome to Quatloos, I would second Wserra's question about how you became Brown's attorney, I would also ask if your brief was accepted even though it was nearly three times the limit? I am not an attorney and know nothing about Federal appeals, but it would seem to me that a limit is a limit without permission of the court.

[Nikki]

Given Ed's behavior and arguments at both of his prior trials and minor details such as constructing bombs, possessing firearms while being a convicted felon, etc ad infinitum, what possible grounds are there for an appeal which wouldn't warrant sanctions against you?

Whoa, whoa. Nikki, are you saying that anything other than an Anders brief is sanctionable? I don't think I agree with that. For example, as I wrote above, Stowers has an arguable point that the trial court should have gone further than it did in assessing Ed:family Wacko's competence. Maybe yes, maybe no, but hardly frivolous.

The court followed the letter of the law in terms of reviewing Ed:WhackJob's competence.

Just because he kept his liberty tool busy spurting out gibberish-laden documents to the court did SO not mean that he was (1) incapable of understanding the charges (although he clearly believed there was no basis for bringing the charges) or (2) participating in his defense -- which he did until he decided he needed some R&R time at home.

I have a feeling that Stowers' main basis for appeal is his personal need to add another item to his CV.

[bmielke]

Wserra or anyone who knows how is an attorney appointed to represent on an appeal in Federal court? Do they or can they volunteer on a case by case basis? Or is it like state court where your name is on a list and they go one by one until they run out of names and start over again?

I don't understand how an attorney from Iowa gets on a First Circuit case.

[fortinbras]

My own experience as a court appointed appellate counsel, was the defendant filed a motion for appeal, his need (and inability to pay) for a lawyer was established, and the judge looked for an available lawyer on the list kept by the court of lawyers who had indicated that they had time on their hands. Presumably I could have declined - if I had a good reason.

[LPC]

Don't worry, I have Ed's Appeal well in hand and under control

What makes you think anyone was worried?

along with all the other things that people have noted and inaccurately reported.

What was inaccurately reported?

If you want to read something accurate about me, go to http://www.stowerslaw.com and read away.

What makes you think that the dates you went to law school, the articles you've written, or the names of your previous employers are relevant to this thread?

This thread is not about competence or credentials, but about crazy. Ed's crazy and his trial was in New Hampshire, while you're in Iowa and you've got a contempt (and possible divorce and battery) problem. Some of us are curious about the connection.

[LPC]

My own experience as a court appointed appellate counsel, was the defendant filed a motion for appeal, his need (and inability to pay) for a lawyer was established, and the judge looked for an available lawyer on the list kept by the court of lawyers who had indicated that they had time on their hands.

Stowers appears to be admitted to practice in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, although PACER does not show any previous cases under his name.

[wserra]

What more could the court have done? The month-long psych evaluation was about as thorough as it gets, no?

After the trial, right? Before the trial, Singal's order finding Ed competent found no need for one. Needless to say, one can be competent at one moment and not at another.

Look, guys, I'm hardly saying that this argument is a winner. I think it's a clear longshot. But it's not frivolous or sanctionable - especially since courts dislike Anders briefs. They would much rather see a brief with weak arguments that they can affirm on the merits, rather than having to search the record themselves to be sure no such arguments exist.

[wserra]

Wserra or anyone who knows how is an attorney appointed to represent on an appeal in Federal court?

I can only write about the Second Circuit, the only one in which I have represented appointed clients (although I believe the practice to be similar elsewhere). The default setting is that, if counsel is appointed at trial, the same counsel continues on appeal. This makes sense, since that counsel is most familiar with the record. However, the Circuit maintains a list of appellate counsel available for appointments, should trial counsel be unavailable for one reason or another. I never applied for the appellate panel, since I had all the court-appointed work I wanted at the trial level anyway (and preferred it). I suppose it's possible that a lawyer from Iowa is on the First Circuit appellate panel, although that seems strange. At the trial level, there were twenty applicants for every open position (all from New York), but that may be different at the appeals level and in other locales.

[DeanStowers]

A number of questions not pertinent to much of anything, but here is my best for those of you following--

1. I was appointed by the First Circuit to represent Ed Brown in his appeal. Ed is indigent and needed appellate counsel. The First Circuit has a list of lawyers known as a panel who have been selected by a Committee based upon written application and recommendations of Judges and lawyers. A few years ago, I was asked to apply to be on the panel. Appeals often are done on the written record at the trial court level and submitted briefs alone and may require a single trip for oral argument of the appeal wherever the First Circuit holds court. I have done several appeals for the First Circuit over the past few years, including a couple from Puerto Rico of all places. The first appeal I argued in Boston resulted in the defendant's conviction being reversed and a new trial granted. I also handle appeals before the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. You can look at my web site stowerslaw.com to see some of the appellate opinions described.

2. The appeal brief was accepted by the First Circuit and did in fact comply with the rules in terms of length, etc.

3. There are some interesting articles that have been published concerning unrelated personal travails of mine that have nothing to do with Ed's case and contain some significant inaccuracies both in terms of what is asserted and what is not said. I wish not to derail this blog into a discussion of my own difficulties, which at this point will soon be fully resolved.

4. Mr. Brown's appeal is largely premised upon the issue of the failure to conduct a competency hearing when we believe the record discloses it reasonably appeared that Ed's behavior and conduct were such that the court should have reasonably questioned his competency. That issue is real and has plenty of factual merit in the record. Due process requires a halt to proceedings and a competency hearing when it reasonably appears the defendant's competency is in doubt. If a hearing was required, then a new trial must be ordered because subsequent proceedings would be a nullity. That is not a novel legal argument, but an argument based upon long-standing law and precedent, as well as the record of the proceedings in Ed's case.

[Nikki]

Let's assume you manage to convince the appellate court that Ed is a total nut case, should have had a formal competency hearing, and most likely would have been found to not be competent to represent himself.

So what? Other than scoring another notch on your belt, what have you gained?

Ed will be granted another trial facing the same evidence and the same witnesses -- except with some form of legal representation this time. The likelihood that he will not be convicted on enough of the charges to keep him in prison for the rest of his life is somewhere below slim to none.

All that will be accomplished is (for you) publicity and some number of billable hours -- for Ed, possibly a few hours outside of prison to attend a new trial.

[.]

Of course, if the conviction is tipped over because of the lack of a timely competency hearing, and ignoring the .000000001% chance of an acquittal upon any retrial, Ed will 1) be retried and convicted, having been found competent at his post-conviction hearing, or 2) be subjected to a new competency hearing, be found competent and be retried and convicted, or 3) be subjected to a new competency hearing, be found incompetent and locked up in a psych facility until he is at some point found competent whereupon he will be retried and convicted, or 4) remain incompetent and locked up in a psych facility until he expires.

Any way you slice it, crazy ol' Ed ain't going anywhere, ever.