DEFINITION OF JAILHOUSE LAWYER
JAILHOUSE LAWYER - A prison or jail inmate who assists other inmates with litigation.
An inmate's First Amendment right to assist other inmates with litigation was first recognized in Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 490 ('69). But that case also made clear that the right could be restricted. '[T]he state may impose reasonable restrictions and restraints upon the acknowledged propensity of prisoners to abuse both the giving and the seeking of assistance in the preparation of applications for relief.' Id. at 490. Restrictions may limit the time and place of such activities, id., but they must be 'reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.' Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 ('87); Bradley v. Hall, No. 94-35844, slip op. 10511, 10521-2 (9th Cir.8/23/95)(finding under Turner that prison 'disrespect rule' as applied to inmate was not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests because it burdened his ability to file grievances). Limitations may not be imposed arbitrarily or without reason.
In enacting restrictions on 'jailhouse lawyers,' many courts have implicitly adopted the proposition that there is a fundamental right to provide legal assistance. Within Johnson's guarantee of the right of mutual inmate assistance is the derivative right, vested in 'jailhouse lawyers,' to provide legal assistance to others. See Adams v. James, 784 F.2d 1077, 81 (11th Cir.'86) (a properly stated First Amendment claim by an inmate does not fail simply because the activities were conducted on behalf of others); Vaughn v. Trotter, 516 F.Supp. 886, 93 (M.D.Tenn.'80) ('The clear right to receive assistance necessarily creates the concomitant right to provide it.'). 'Logic demands that if inmate mutual assistance is constitutionally required, the state, through its agents, may not harass, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with those inmates who have undertaken to provide legal assistance to other inmates.' Id. at 892-3.
Proper time, place, and manner restrictions could be adopted by the prison to curtail the First Amendment rights of 'jailhouse lawyers.' See, e.g.,Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 91 ('89) (application of time, place and manner analysis to a First Amendment claim).
The right of mutual legal assistance among inmates is ultimately to protect and aid 'the blind, illiterate, and mentally handicapped...' Vaughn, 516 F.Supp. at 892.
More here.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
I remember getting a knee to the knackers off the polis' in Glasgow.
ReplyDeleteI was parking my sisters car.
The lock was a bit difficult and I got stopped by a car that was cruising.
I gave name address etc and pointed to my house.
They decided to give me a HORT1.
I said 'No, I don't need to accept that unless blah blah blah law blah' (at that time I was not qualified in any way)
Knee to the knackers 'So, you are a Jailhouse Lawyer - you are lifted'
Got taken to the nick and held until I would sign for the HORT1.
I enjoyed it for a few hours with all these Senior guys trying to persuade me that 'it would be easier'.
Stuck it out until I got sufficiently pissed off.
Eventually, to my eternal regret, I signed and never pursued the matter.
Wouldn't happen now.
merkin,
ReplyDeleteWhat a strange co-incidence. John got 'nicked' on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation whilst a Police Inspector happened to be parked close by.
Subsequent attendance of SIX Officers arrival at John's house is equivalent to raids on suspected terrorists, drug barons, specifically the application of handcuffs.
Friends in the police confirm John's experience was, in all respects, unique - grounds for formal complaint. Cops were, I'm told, well out of order.
I should have explained that my 'problem' occurred many, many moons ago.
ReplyDeleteAs a denim clad biker type driving a split new company car, I had been getting stopped on a regular basis.
Seeing as the Insurance Document was held at company HQ down south I didn't want to put myself in the position of 'failing to show' within 5 days due to something outwith my control.
I spoke with my lawyer about it and he explained what I could do.
On one occasion, I was actually charged after telling two traffic cops that I didn't 'need to show' unless I had been involved in an accident or was being charged.
So, they concocted a story and charged me with something. I was looking forward to defending myself in Court It wasn't proceeded with.
At that time, it was just my little protest against over eager policemen thinking that they can do what they want.
That is one reason I am glad John got a good result.