Crime and Consequences

Meanwhile, back on the Left Coast, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice held its third and final hearing in Santa Clara. Howard Mintz of the San Jose Mercury-News was there and has this story.

This commission was set up by former [thank God for term limits] State Senate leader John Burton, who doesn't know the meaning of the word "fair." The initial composition was blatantly stacked, but has been improved somewhat. We will reserve judgment until seeing their report on the death penalty. As the story notes, "Thus far, the commission's recommendations have received a cool reception from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed all the board's calls for reforms."

Posted by Kent Scheidegger at 08:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While a death penalty repeal proposal was defeated in the Maryland Legislature, a bill creating yet another death penalty study commission did pass. One might have thought that the same persons of sense who defeated the repeal would have insured that the commission was balanced. Apparently not, according to this editorial in the Annapolis Capital, titled "Death penalty study's results are preordained."

There's no suspense about what the 19-member commission set up by the legislation will come up with by Dec. 15. The governor will appoint the chairman and 11 of the members. Gov. Martin O'Malley opposes capital punishment, and there's no serious doubt which point of view a majority of the panel will wind up favoring.

Maybe it's better if the stacking is totally obvious. If everyone knows the fix is in from the beginning, the final propaganda piece will have little effect.

Posted by Kent Scheidegger at 07:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Spy drones for crime fighting may soon be used in Miami. Tom Brown from the Herald Tribune reports this new 14-pound drone is awaiting approval from the U. S. Federal Aviation Administration. The drones will be used as an extra pair of eyes in “tactical situations” says Detective Juan Villalba, a police department spokesman. Law enforcement across the country has shown a growing interest in the use of drones for domestic issues.

Prison Officials under Investigation. Sara Jane Olson, former Symbionese Army member, was released last week after being in prison for a 1975 murder during a bank robbery. She was freed on March 17, although she wasn't supposed to be released for another year. According to Michael Rothfeld from L.A. Times, there are five prison employees under investigation from the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla.

You Got Mail
ABC News reports that Florida residents can now sign up for e-mail alerts on the whereabouts of registered sexual offenders in their neighborhood. The alert system will notify interested residents within 24 to 48 hours of an address change. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement developed this program in compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

Kansas Supreme Court rules against ‘John Doe’ warrants
Wichita Eagle News reporter Ron Sylvester writes that seven rape cases from 1989 to 1994 will not be prosecuted against death-row inmate Doug Belt. The justices said, “The warrants in western Kansas were illegally vague.” The court focused on John Doe warrants based only on a DNA profile. In 2002, Wichita police arrested Belt for the rape and beheading of Lucille Gallegos. Belt’s DNA matched Gallegos’ murder and the other rape cases. Judges in McPherson, Saline, and Reno counties all dismissed the decade old rape cases, saying, “Too much time had expired between the crimes and Belt’s identification.”

Posted by CJLF Staff at 01:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Erin Sheley has an interesting column in the Weekly Standard on the two death penalty cases before the Court this term. As she puts it:

In Baze, two Kentucky death row inmates--one convicted of murdering two police officers, the other of wounding a two-year-old boy and shooting his parents to death in a parking lot--challenge the three-chemical formula used by 35 states to perform lethal injection. While the defendants do not challenge the practice of lethal injection itself, they argue that the particular cocktail in use is "highly vulnerable to multiple errors, any one of which will result in the infliction of agonizing pain." They argue that any death penalty procedure creating "unnecessary risk" of suffering should be deemed cruel and unusual, and urge that "an execution procedure creates unnecessary risk where, taken as a whole, it presents a significant risk of causing severe pain that could be avoided through the use of a reasonably available alternative or safeguard."

Should this claim be accepted by the Court, the ramifications for states' administration of capital punishment would be dramatic. The Baze defendants do not assert that the risk of pain need be great, only that it be unnecessary because an alternative means of execution is available. As long as medical science continued to generate arguably less painful alternatives for the anti-death penalty movement to champion, any method in use could be deemed unconstitutional. Because a legal challenge to a procedure can result in a moratorium on its use (indeed, a three-month nationwide moratorium on lethal injection has been in effect since the Court agreed to hear Baze), the proposed standard could indefinitely prevent states from enforcing the sentences of their courts.

As Sheley alludes to, somehow this mix of science and capital punishment is toxic and inane. It's toxic to our legal and scientific institutions because the death penalty was never meant to be what it de facto has become: a medical procedure. It is inane because science can never inform the law what the permissible ceiling of acceptable pain meets constitutional muster.

Posted by Steven K. Erickson at 08:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project is seeking postdocs in the area of neurolaw:

POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH POSITION
MACARTHUR LAW AND NEUROSCIENCE PROJECT
Area of Research: Law and Neuroscience

The MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project, whose Central Office is at the
University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), is inviting applications for
post-doctoral research positions (1-2 years) in the area of Law and
Neuroscience. The post-doctoral fellow will assist and support research by
others within the Project, initiate original research of their own, and
contribute to an exciting research community. For more information on the
Project and on Law and Neuroscience, see
http://www.lawandneuroscienceproject.org/. Qualified applicants should have a
post-graduate degree in law, in neuroscience, or in some related field, such as
psychology, philosophy, or criminology. Excellent writing skills are essential.

Appointments will be made in accordance with the personnel policies of the
University of California. Salary is dependent on qualifications and experience.

Interested individuals should send their CV and a list of three references (with
e-mail addresses and phone numbers) to rosenblatt@psych.ucsb.edu. Applications
will only be received through e-mail.

The UCSB is especially interested in candidates who can contribute to the
diversity and excellence of the academic community through research and service.
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer.

Position open until filled.

Hat tip: Adam Kolber

Posted by Steven K. Erickson at 08:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Third Circuit has ordered a new sentencing hearing in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981. The lengthy 118 page opinion is here and the Fox news story here. Faulkner's memorial site can me found here.

Update:

Michael C. Moynihan over at Reason's blog Hit & Run says:

Remember Mumia Abu-Jamal, the cop-killing NPR contributor who rallied legions of campus radicals during the 1990s to protest his innocence? There was a time when every demonstration —anti-globalization, anti-war, anti-whatever—featured an organized division of "Free Mumia" types. In 2002, the Paris City Council conferred honorary citizen status on Jamal, and in 2006 the city named a street after him. Quite a step down from Rue Eisenhower and Place du Général Patton. But the Mumia cause soon faded—when everyone (but Parisian politicians) realized that he was guilty. In his book Dude, Where's My Country, Michael Moore admitted that "Mumia probably killed that guy."

Perhaps that's one reason why so many folks are skeptical of the various innocence projects which seem heavy on the rhetoric and loose with the facts.

Posted by Steven K. Erickson at 09:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Supreme Court's decision in Medellin v. Texas, the holding is not all that remarkable. It has long been established that not all treaties are self-executing, and the Court held that the ones at issue here are not, based on their own language. Where adherence to a treaty is contrary to a statute, the President cannot override the statute unilaterally, but legislation is required. Far from making America a rogue nation, placement of the responsibility for treaty compliance in the political branches and not the judiciary is quite common in the world.

So the ball is squarely in Congress's court. The United States, of course, should live up to its treaty commitments. What would a congressional implementation of International Court of Justice's decision in Avena look like? It should go as far as our treaty obligations require and not a nanometer further.

First, it should be limited to the 50 or so cases at issue in Avena and not yet otherwise resolved. For all others, the holding in the Bustillo portion of Sanchez-Llamas is and should remain the law.

Second, under the Avena decision, use at trial of a statement taken within a few days of arrest, before notification of the consulate became overdue, was not obtained in violation of the Vienna Convention and is not a ground for a claim.

Third, once any American court at any time has heard the claim of prejudice and rejected it on the merits, including as an alternative to a procedural default holding, our treaty obligations are satisfied and no further proceedings are required. We have no obligation to provide review of that holding on appeal or habeas.

Fourth, the reasoning underlying the Avena court's holding on procedural default only applies to defaults occurring before the consulate had actual notice of the case. Any claims not raised in the first proceeding after such notice can continue to be treated as defaulted.

Fifth, the required review should be conducted in the state courts, as the President tried to do in his memorandum. Many of these cases are in the notorious Ninth Circuit. Although that court is better than it used to be, it has not yet reached the point that we should trust it with these cases.

Finally, for the reasons expressed in footnote 1 of the Court's opinion, Congress should declare that Medellin himself has already received the process he is due, the United States is already in compliance with Avena in his case, and his case is specifically excluded from the reach of the statute.

Posted by Kent Scheidegger at 08:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

On remand after the U.S. Supreme Court decision last June in Panetti v. Quarterman, No. 06-6407, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has found Scott Panetti to be competent to be executed. The decision, in two parts, is here and here. The bottom line:

Panetti was mentally ill when he committed his crime and continues to be mentally ill today. However, he has both a factual and rational understanding of his crime, his impending death, and the causal retributive connection between the two. Therefore, if any mentally ill person is competent to be executed for his crimes, this record establishes it is Scott Panetti.

Coincidentally, this order comes on the same day the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Indiana v. Edwards on whether the Faretta rule really does require states to allow marginally competent defendants to represent themselves, the source of much controversy in Panetti's case, although not the issue before the Supreme Court in that case.

Posted by Kent Scheidegger at 02:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Big Sister on the Prowl. In today’s Washington Post Courtland Milloy reports on D.C. police chief, Cathy Lanier, who started her Safe Homes Initiative, primarily with women in mind. This new initiative would allow searching of homes if there were knowledge that a child or any other relative had a gun. Lanier is seeking permission from parents and grandparents. At one of the community meetings only two men were there, the rest were women, mostly grandmothers concerned with their safety. Lanier says the program is aimed at helping the city’s most violent neighborhoods where most residents are single mothers, elderly women and children in poverty.

DNA Database. The Maryland Senate joined with the House of Delegates in approving the collection of DNA samples of suspects charged with violent crimes and burglary. The Annapolis Digest reports in the Washington Post that initially the bill was said to be unfair because it targeted minorities who were arrested for a crime but never charged. The bill which passed last week, now allows a sample to be kept only if a person is charged with a crime. The sample will be destroyed if the person is exonerated. Black lawmakers had a problem with the legislation, but believe it is crucial for fighting crime.

Edwards Argument: In today’s San Francisco Chronicle, Mark Sherman reports on oral argument the case of Indiana v. Edwards. At issue is whether a mentally ill person is competent to act as his own attorney. Also, check out CJLF press release regarding this case.

Wisconsin's crackdown on drunk drivers
WKBT TV News reports that Wisconsin really gets tough on those convicted of drunk driving seven or more times. Such offenders will face a $25,000 fine and five years in prison and if they reach their 10th conviction it’s the same $25,000 fine with seven and a half years in prison. The law will take effect April 2.

Well Shut My Mouth
A story by Lawrence Buser in the Commercial Appeal reports that Criminal Court Judge Lee Coffee held burglary and rape suspect Joshua Beadle in contempt for every word he uttered after being ordered to be silent. Beadle continued to talk himself into 700 days in jail, which works out to 10 days per word. Last January Beadle attempted to spit at the judge, but instead it hit the court clerk’s computer.

Update on the Medellin v. Texas Case
Dallas Morning News reporter Diane Jennings covers the Supreme Court's ruling in yesterday's Medellin decision.

Posted by CJLF Staff at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nebraska's one-house Legislature rejected the bill to repeal the death penalty 28-20. AP story here. However, the Legislature has not provided a statutory replacement for the electric chair thrown out by the Nebraska Supreme Court, as discussed here.

Posted by Kent Scheidegger at 09:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Confrontation Clause has bestowed a freebie on an unlikely beneficiary. Sidney Blumenthal, former aide to President Clinton and present adviser to presidential candidate Clinton was charged in New Hampshire with aggravated drunken driving and doing 70 in a 30. Lucky for him, the police officer has been shipped off to Iraq, forcing the prosecution to offer a deal of only a $750 fine and 16 months license suspension. AP story here. Hat tip: James Taranto.

Posted by Kent Scheidegger at 01:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Supreme Court decided the case of Medellin v. Texas, 5-1-3. The case involves a decision of the International Court of Justice that the United States must reconsider the claims of about 50 Mexican nationals that their rights under the Vienna Convention were violated by the failure of police to inform them upon arrest that they could have the Mexican Consulate notified. In many of the cases, including Medellin, state courts had held that the claim was defaulted by failure to raise it in time. The ICJ held, in essence, that the default rule could not be applied at least to defaults occurring before the consulate had notice of the case. Two years ago, in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and held that the treaty does not trump state procedural default rules. However, that case did not involve any of the persons whose cases were actually before the ICJ.

Two arguments were made to distinguish the Medellin case from the earlier case. The first one was that the treaty obligations of the United States to submit Vienna Convention disputes to the ICJ and to comply with the ICJ decisions have direct legal force in domestic courts. The second was that a memorandum issued by the President to the effect that state courts would implement the ICJ decision was a proper exercise of the President's authority in foreign affairs.

Today's decision by Chief Justice Roberts rejected both arguments. The treaties are not self-executing, based on an analysis of their language. Although the United States has an obligation under international law, that obligation only becomes a domestic law binding on domestic courts if Congress enacts legislation to implement it. Second, although the President has broad powers in foreign affairs, he cannot transform a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one.

On page 25 of the slip opinion, the Court notes, "Congress is up to the task of implementing non-self-executing treaties, even those involving complex commercial disputes." We can expect the next stage of this drama to be the introduction of bills to implement the ICJ decision.

Posted by Kent Scheidegger at 09:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Elderly Killers: Victoria Kim from the L.A. Times reports on two elderly women, Helen Golay, 77 and Olga Rutterschimdt, 75, who are on trial for staging hit-and-runs to collect life insurance. The two victims, Kenneth McDavid and Paul Vados, were both homeless but were worth about $2.8 million in life insurance. The jury got to see the alleged murder weapon, a 1999 Mercury Sable station wagon, up close and personal. John Kolter, a CHP accident investigation specialist pointed out the side of the floor pan had been pushed which implies that the vehicle had ran over something.

Jail Sentence for YouTube video. Robert Echeverria will also receive three years of misdemeanor probation and is banned from the Rialto, CA Del Taco reports Steve Harvey from the L.A. Times. Echeverria’s clip shows him identifying himself as a CEO and claiming that he’d called Del Taco corporate offices. At the end of the video, the restaurant gives him and his two companions a new order. The police had no problem tracking him down: he gave his number out in the video. “It’s Taco Bell from now on,” says Echeverria.

Anti-gang group helps reach over 100,000 people in New York, Milwaukee, San Francisco and Vermont. AP writer, Ula Ilnytzky, reports that the history of the group started with Bob De Sena, who was once a gang member. His group, Council For Unity, aims at giving second chances to kids from broken homes and crime-ridden neighborhoods. One of those benefiting from the program is DaJuan Hawkins, 17, who once went to jail for assault is now heading for college and writing poetry.

Search and Seizure The Supreme Court will review the case of Pearson v. Callahan, 07-751 to decide whether police may enter a home without a search warrant when an informant is already inside and if the officers that conducted the search can be sued. More to come.

North Carolina new law on how to conduct lineups
A story by Nick Hiltunen in the Goldsboro News Argus reports that police officers must follow new procedures when conducting a lineup of suspects. The new law requires an ‘independent administrator’ with no ties to the case to conduct the lineup. Also, officers have to show one photo at a time, not in a group. In addition, law enforcement is working with a software company that will allow the witness to self-conduct the lineup by computer. Proponents say, “It’s an attempt to make eyewitness identification more scientific.” The problem is the cost of the software, which is $10,000.

New law bans sex offenders from social networks
On WISH TV News, the state of Indiana has passed a law that bans sex offenders from social networks that are popular with children like MySpace and Facebook. Reporter Jennifer McGilvray says, “Indiana is the first state to adopt this type of law.”

Posted by CJLF Staff at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)