Results matching “first”

News Scan

Drug Cartel Wreaking Havoc In Chicago: Police in Chicago, Illinois have been dealing with increasing rates of murder and drug use over the past few years caused by a notorious Mexican drug cartel.  Andrew O'Reilly of Fox News Latino reports that the Sinaloa Cartel, which controls nearly 50% of the U.S. drug market, has infiltrated the city and helped drive rates of drug overdose and violence through the roof.  Chicago ended 2014 with 425 murders, and police fear that number will continue to escalate as long as members of the Sinaloa cartel continue to traffic drugs and violence on the streets.   

Death Penalty For Cop Killers In Michigan?:  Democrat State Senator Virgil Smith wants criminals convicted of murdering police or corrections officers in his state to face the death penalty.  Kathleen Gray of the Detroit Free Press reports that the Senator wants Michigan, one of 18 states that has abolished the death penalty, to reinstate it for murderers in this narrow category.  There have been at least three attempts to reinstate the death penalty in Michigan since 1999.  All of these failed to gain the 2/3 majority vote of legislators needed to put a measure on the state-wide election ballot.

KS To Cut Prison Costs, Remain Tough On Crime: Kansas lawmakers are considering a variety of competing bills on crime including one that would reduce the prison population and another increasing sentencing for crimes.  The Associated Press reports that the state's Sentencing Commission has drafted legislation that would free up to 150 prison beds by keeping first and second time marijuana offenders out of state custody and would allow other inmates to be released sooner for good behavior-a plan they say will save the state $3.6 million.  The state will also consider opposing legislation that would lengthen sentences for those convicted of drunk driving, home burglary, and theft.


The United States Supreme Court today granted a stay of execution pending its resolution of a certiorari petition to Lester Leroy Bower, who was found guilty of four counts of capital murder 31 years ago in Texas.  The Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion is here.

Applicant raised four issues in the instant application: (1) actual innocence based upon newly discovered evidence; (2) Brady violations; (3) a claim that Article 37.071 operated unconstitutionally because his jury did not have a vehicle to properly consider mitigating evidence; and (4) a claim that executing him after twenty-four years on death row amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
I do not know which issue the Supreme Court thought warranted a stay, but I'm inclined to think it was the third.  The first two are largely factual determinations, and though actual innocence in a capital case would be enough to warrant the Supreme Court's attention, the unanimity in the lower courts suggests there is little there.  The fourth is the tired old claim that has never gotten more than a single vote in any Supreme Court case.

Are we really debating Penry, still, after all these years?

Hearing on Lethal Injection Suit

In November, CJLF filed suit against the Secretary of California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation demanding that he stop dragging his feet and establish an execution protocol that the state can actually use, given the constraints imposed by existing injunctions.  The suit is on behalf of two family members of murder victims, Bradley Winchell and Kermit Alexander.

The California Attorney General, representing the Secretary, filed a document called a demurrer.  That is, in essence, an attempt to get the suit thrown out at the threshold, saying that even if every fact we allege is true, we still don't have a case.  The hearing was last Friday.  The day before, Judge Shellyanne Chang issued a tentative ruling, favorable to us on all the major points.  After the hearing, she took the matter under advisement, but I saw no indication that anything in the oral argument changed her mind.

The California Attorney General is an advocate representing a client, but also a public official representing the public.  She has, at times, declined to advocate positions she considered contrary to the public good, even if legally supportable.  What I find particularly offensive here is the argument that victims of crime have no standing, as if they were complete strangers to the underlying criminal cases.  The people enacted Proposition 9 in 2008 to refute that notion, and nationwide victims of crime are gaining recognition as people with real, legitimate interests in seeing justice done.

KOVR, the local CBS affiliate on channel 13, sent a cameraman to record the hearing and to interview us on the courthouse steps afterward.  Update:  There was a brief segment on the 6:00 Friday newscast.  Some still shots of the interviews are posted after the break.

No Dice on Federal Pot Legalization

The prospects that federal law will be changed to legalize marijuana took a huge step back yesterday when AG nominee Loretta Lynch said that she does not support legalization.  The NPR report states:

During her first day of confirmation hearings for attorney general, nominee Loretta Lynch gave answers that seemed in line with President Obama. But then she was asked about marijuana, and whether she supports legalizing it.

"Senator, I do not," Lynch told Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., when he asked whether she supports making pot legal.

And that is that, for the foreseeable future.  The betting is that Lynch will be confirmed as Attorney General, and if Obama's AG does not support federal legalization, it isn't going to happen during this administration, period.  It got nowhere in the last Congress, which was more liberal than the current one, and Ms. Lynch's position is visibly more hostile to pot than Eric Holder's has been.

Still, I should add three things.  First, this is a point in Ms. Lynch's favor as far as I'm concerned.  Second, I expect that, if Ms. Lynch becomes AG, pot enforcement will remain a relatively low priority, which it has been for years (other drugs being even more hazardous).  Third, as ever, CJLF takes no position on pot legalization. 



And now, for something completely different.

The U.S. Supreme Court gets stay-of-execution requests from death row inmates all the time.  Typically they have been denied without dissent or comment, since the obstinate Justices Brennan and Marshall retired.  Denials with a dissent noted happen occasionally, and every once in a while one is granted.  What I have never seen before, though, is a stay requested by the state.

January 14, Oklahoma executed Charles Warner, even though four Justices voted for a stay of execution, as noted in this post.  January 23, the Supreme Court took up for full briefing and argument the case of the remaining three inmates on that petition, challenging the state's use of midazolam as the first drug of the three-drug protocol, as noted in this post.

Rather than wait for a stay to be granted for the remaining inmates, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt took the unusual step of asking for a stay himself, asking for it to be tailored to stay only executions with the controversial midazolam, not the conventional pentobarbital or thiopental, if the state can get any.  Today the Court issued that order.

The Parameters for Pardons

The New York Times invited my participation in its "Room for Debate," on the subject of executive clemency.  The immediate cause of the Times's interest in clemency might be the talented movie star and former teenage thug Mark Wahlberg, but there is a much larger move afoot here, signaled by the Administration's massive effort to enlist the defense bar and allied organizations in proposing literally thousands of clemency candidates  --  a thoroughly unprecedented approach to pardoning.

My take on it in the Times is much what you'd expect from a person with generally conservative principles:  The system is certain to make errors and we should try to correct them.  We need to be clear, however, about the further errors we'll make in the attempt, and understand the different, but no less real, set of costs and risks we will create.  Finally, the Constitution should be honored both in its provision of plenary power to the President in this area, and in its overriding instruction to him that he take care faithfully to execute the laws as Congress wrote them.  

Taken together, what those things mean is that the President should not fear to use clemency in cases of clear-cut injustice worked on individual defendants.  But he should take equal care that his clemencies are not undertaken simply as an expression of disagreement with existing law, or any set of such laws.  If the President ignores this latter caution, he will effectively re-write the Constitution to provide a "forever" veto-option, in which Presidents months, years or decades after duly enacted statutes take effect could issue the new, omnipresent, limitless "veto" against any not then to his liking, simply by pardoning every federal felon convicted under them.

That would be exploding  the pardon power beyond recognition, to the point of constituting a quasi-usurpation of Congress's sole  authority as the law-making body.
I noted in my last post that President Obama erred in suggesting that crime and incarceration had both decreased for the first time in forty years.  The statistics are not yet in for 2014, and if the President was meaning to refer to 2013 (or any other year of his Presidency, for that matter), he was mistaken.

Six Supreme Court Justices attended the SOTU, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  The tradition is that Justices do not react during the speech, lest they be thought to be expressing either approval or dissent from what the head of the Executive Branch is saying. (Although sometimes the temptation is too much for a truth-insistent Justice to resist).

Justice Ginsburg did a first-rate job of keeping faith with that tradition.

Fact Checking Obama on Crime and Incarceration

President Obama said in his State of the Union address:

Surely we can agree it's a good thing that for the first time in 40 years, the crime rate and the incarceration rate have come down together, and use that as a starting point for Democrats and Republicans, community leaders and law enforcement, to reform America's criminal justice system so that it protects and serves us all.

Only one problem:  If the President is talking about 2013, which he certainly seems to be (as 2014 statistics on crime and incarceration rates are not yet available), his point is misleading.  The crime rate did indeed fall in 2013 (for the first time in three years), but incarceration increased.  As Obama's own Justice Department reported four months ago:

  • U.S. state and federal correctional facilities held an estimated 1,574,700 prisoners on December 31, 2013, an increase of 4,300 prisoners from year end 2012.

  • The 3-year decline in the prison population stopped in 2013 due to an increase of 6,300 inmates (0.5%) in the state prison population.

  • The federal prison population decreased in size for the first time since 1980, with 1,900 fewer prisoners in 2013 than in 2012.

  • The number of prisoners sentenced to more than a year in state or federal prison increased by 5,400 persons from year end 2012 to year end 2013.

  • The number of persons admitted to state or federal prison during 2013 increased by 4%, from 608,400 in 2012 to 631,200 in 2013.

Arguing One's Own Screw-Ups

One of the problems with allowing convicts to argue that their lawyers were ineffective, not just at trial but at every step of the review process, is that every time such a claim is raised we will hear an argument that a new lawyer must be appointed.  After all, we can't expect a lawyer to argue his own incompetence or dereliction of duty, can we?  But where does this end, if cases can be reopened without limit based on a claim the prior lawyer screwed it up?

Today in Christeson v. Roper, No. 14-6873, the Supreme Court holds summarily that the Federal District Court in Missouri should have appointed new lawyers to argue for relief after the first set blew the deadline.  The Court does not hold that relief should actually be granted.  Justices Alito and Thomas dissent from the Court's summary treatment, believing "plenary review would have been more appropriate in this case."

Under Coleman v. Thompson (1991), the tailspin of each lawyer asking for a new review by accusing the one before was dealt with by cutting off the right to effective assistance after the first appeal.  That protective mechanism is now going down the tubes, and we need a new one.

The 45-year-old proposal of Judge Henry Friendly is looking better and better.  Every defendant, no matter how clearly guilty, is entitled to a trial and an appeal, with a right of effective counsel for both.  After that, no more reviews unless he has a colorable claim of actual innocence.  I suppose at this point we would have to add ineligibility for the penalty.  In capital cases, one could also argue that the defendant is a minor, intellectually disabled, or a minor accomplice swept up in the felony murder rule, or that none of the circumstances that legally make a case capital are true.  That would be all.  In all other cases, i.e. most cases, we just wouldn't hear the claim.

If Judge Friendly's proposal is not politically palatable for the first habeas review, as he proposed it, surely we could at least apply it to all reviews after the first.  That would include an initial federal review following a state collateral proceeding.  In this case, the deadline missed was for federal review.  Christeson already had a full review of his claims in state court.

I've copied the facts of the case from that state supreme court opinion on direct appeal after the break.

Beards, Prisons, Religion, and Federalism

Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827, regarding a prisoner's right to have a religiously mandated beard under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).  The Court decided unanimously that a 1/2 inch beard posed no threat to an institutional need that outweighed the prisoner's right to free exercise of religion.  The state had not articulated a good reason for not allowing it.

The result in this case doesn't bother me too much.  I am more concerned about the more extravagant applications of RLUIPA, such as the worshippers of Odin and their Annual Pork Feast.  No, I'm not making this up.

Sarcasm at SCOTUS

Adam Liptak has this article at the NYT.  He reports on research on sarcasm in Supreme Court opinions by Professor Richard Hasen at UC Irvine, who concludes that Justice Scalia is the most frequently sarcastic of the justices.

When I first read the blurb on this story in my NYT alert email, my first thought was that the research would qualify for the Well, Duh Award for Research Confirming the Obvious.  After reading the article and the description of Prof. Hasen's methodology, though, I conclude that the more appropriate citation is the Even A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day Award for research with incredibly bad methodology that happens to hit the correct answer.
The two executions noted in today's News Scan have been carried out.  In the Oklahoma case, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to deny a stay on the murderer's claim regarding the use of midazolam as the first drug of the three-drug protocol.  Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent.

The only reason any state uses midazolam is that pentobarbital, the drug veterinarians use every day for euthanasia, is unavailable.   It is made in the United States but its manufacturer, Akorn, places resale restrictions on its distributors.  Akorn does that because the agreement by which it acquired the rights to the drug from Lundbeck, a European company, requires it to.  Lundbeck was pressured into restricting sale by anti-death-penalty forces in Europe.

So here we are with a domestic policy choice that is ours to make and none of Europe's damn business being impacted by Europe, with the perverse result that there is some possibility that murderers may suffer more pain in execution as a result, if the concerns noted in Justice Sotomayor's opinion have any validity.

The solution is simple.  Congress can and should declare resale restrictions on pentobarbital void as restraints on trade and against public policy.

News Scan

Cop Killer's Appeal Before NH Supreme Court: New Hampshire's highest court will hear argument in the case of a man sentenced to death for the 2006 murder of a officer Michael Briggs.  Lynne Tuohy of the Associated Press reports that for the first time, the state's Supreme Court will be examining whether or not the death sentence was fair compared to similar cases around the country.   Defendant Michael Addison is black and officer Briggs was white, a factor Addison believes contributed to his death sentence.   

MI To Collect DNA Samples Of Arrested Felons: Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has signed legislation that will allow police to collect a DNA sample at the time of arrest for all felonies.  WNDU News reports that the legislation will improve public by helping to identify repeat violent criminals earlier on in the investigation process.  DNA samples will only be sent in for testing where the individual is being arraigned, 28 other states have similar legislation that allows for DNA to be taken from felony suspects upon arrest.

Mexican Drug Cartels Flood U.S. With Heroin, Meth: According to recent drug seizure statistics, Mexican drug cartels are now smuggling increased amounts of heroin and methamphetamine across the U.S. border, a problem experts believe in large part is due to states which have decriminalized marijuana.  Nick Miroff of the Washington Post reports that with many states now selling legalized marijuana, the demand for lower quality marijuana smuggled into the US has fallen. In response drug cartels are switching to smuggling cheap heroin and meth.  The Drug Enforcement Agency estimates that 90% of the meth in the U.S. today was cooked in Mexico-where the chemicals to make it are far easier to obtain.   

A:  He didn't.  It wasn't an oversight.  His absence was a deliberated decision.  Byron York in the Washington Examiner explains why, and I'll get to that, but I want to say just a word first about how the White House has handled this.

Essentially, there has been no explanation.  The press secretary said it was a mistake, and has kind-of-sort-of suggested that arranging security quickly would have been a problem.  But to say it was a mistake is not to explain why it happened, and the notion that security could not have been arranged is preposterous (which the traveling press corps knows, accounting for the fact that it isn't really being pushed).

So why did Obama stay put while the heads of state and prime ministers from 40 other countries took part?  As York writes:

The administration no-shows were not a failure of optics, or a diplomatic misstep, but were instead the logical result of the president's years-long effort to downgrade the threat of terrorism and move on to other things.

"The analogy we use around [the White House] sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant," Obama told the New Yorker magazine in a January 2014 interview. The president was referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria but was also suggesting in a broader sense that a number of post-9/11 offshoot terrorist organizations aren't worth the sort of war-footing mobilization that took place in the George W. Bush years.

******************************

Fast forward to January 2015. The attackers at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Cacher kosher market in Paris would undoubtedly qualify as JV-level terrorists under Obama's new classification. But their work was enough to shock Europe and motivate more than a million people to gather behind dozens of heads of state at the unity rally Sunday. 

News Scan

Oklahoma To Resume Executions: The state of Oklahoma has announced its plans to carry out its first execution since last April's difficult execution of convicted killer Clayton Lockett.  Parker Perry of McAlester News-Capital reports that 47-year-old Charles Warner was originally scheduled to be executed the same evening as Lockett, but his execution was postponed after Lockett's execution was deemed problematic.  Warner, who was sentenced to death in 1997 for the rape and murder of an 11-month-old girl, is scheduled to be executed Thursday evening.

Legislature to Introduce Sex Crime Bills: Montana's House Judiciary is set to discuss two bills to better protect citizens from sex offenders.  KBZK News reports that one of the bills would create a sex offender prosecution unit at the state's Department of Justice. That unit would be allowed to prosecute crimes when local authorities lack the ability or funding to do so themselves.  The other bill, House bill 88, would require judges, rather than sex offenders, to choose who evaluates them.   It would also require  that registered sex offenders disclose their email addresses and social media screen names to authorities.

Marijuana Notes

There are a couple of interesting marijuana stories in the papers.  Dan Frosch reports in the WSJ:

Before Colorado became the first state to allow marijuana for recreational purposes, supporters boasted that legalization would generate a sizable tax windfall, while opponents warned that it could have dramatic social consequences.

Slightly more than a year into the state's experiment with sanctioning pot sales to adults 21 and older, neither prediction is proving entirely true. Marijuana so far hasn't been the boon or bane that many expected, offering potential lessons to other states considering legalization.
Susan Shapiro had more personal and poignant article in the LA Times last week. 

I know the dark side. I'm ambivalent about legalizing marijuana because I was addicted for 27 years.
*                                           *                                     *
Back then Willie Nelson songs, Cheech and Chong routines and "Fast Times at Ridgemont High's" Jeff Spicoli made getting high seem kooky and harmless. My reality was closer to Walter White's self-destruction from meth on TV's "Breaking Bad" and the delusional nightmares in the film "Requiem for a Dream." Everyone believed you couldn't get addicted to pot.

Looking Inside the Bubble from the Outside

I've noted more than once (for example, here, here and here) that there exists in some precincts of the literati and academia such an unhinged anti-American attitude that it's hard for normal people to grasp.  Every now and again the public gets a glimpse (as when some Harvard, Columbia and Georgetown law students loudly announced they felt too infuriated by America's awfulness in the Ferguson and Staten Island cases to take their scheduled exams), but generally it remains out of public view.

One of the reasons I follow ideologically diverse legal blogs is that I like to see just how into the Twilight Zone this anti-American, anti-police attitude extends.  Doug Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy does us the favor of giving an illustration today by noting this new piece at The Nation by Willie Osterweil.  As Doug says, it "serves as a review of sorts of a book by historian Naomi Murakawa titled The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison in America."  Here is the first excerpt from the article, as quoted by Doug:

In her first book, The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison in America, historian Naomi Murakawa demonstrates how the American prison state emerged not out of race-baiting states'-rights advocates nor tough-on-crime drug warriors but rather from federal legislation written by liberals working to guarantee racial equality under the law.  The prison industry, and its associated police forces, spy agencies and kangaroo courts, is perhaps the most horrific piece of a fundamentally racist and unequal American civil society.  More people are under correctional supervision in the United States than were in the Gulag archipelago at the height of the Great Terror; there are more black men in prison, jail or parole than were enslaved in 1850. How did this happen?


And that is where I get off the ship.  America, the "prison state" (when 0.7% of the population is incarcerated, virtually all because of their own greedy or violent choices; 99.3% of the population is not).  "Race-baiting" conservatives (when essentially all of the race-baiting and its allied race-based bullying is done by Mr. Osterweil's buddies).  "Spy agencies and kangaroo courts" (when spying has next to nothing to do with criminal convictions, and the courts provide process to the point that it's overtaken substance).  "The most horrific piece of a fundamentally racist...society" (It's not just that Amerika stinks, it's that it's horrific).

I don't know if liberals/libertarians take this stuff seriously, but I thank Doug for putting it up on his blog to remind us once more of just what a bunch of unhinged so-called thinkers we have to deal with.  That it even gets noticed by people at, say, the top of the Justice Department is astonishing.  And ominous.
Only those living on Mars don't know that Colorado has legalized recreational use of pot.  The ballot measure that brought this about was sold to the electorate with several assurances  --  that use in public would remain prohibited, as would use by minors, and that tax revenue would cascade into the state.  The strong libertarian component backing the measure told us that it had little to no interest in affirmatively promoting pot use, but was instead interested simply taking a step toward states' rights and individual freedom to decide for oneself whether the risks were worth the "benefits."

So how are things working out?

As to the assurance that there would be no public toking up, this story has a bit to say:

Tens of thousands of revelers raised joints, pipes and vaporizer devices to the sky Sunday at a central Denver park in a defiant toast to the April 20 pot holiday, a once-underground celebration that stepped into the mainstream in the first state in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana.

Wow.  Tens of thousands.  Surely there was a considerable police presence to keep faith the with no-public-use ban the voters had been promised would remain. Ummmm................well.................................

The 4:20 p.m. smoke-out in the shadow of the Colorado capitol was the capstone of an Easter weekend dedicated to cannabis in states across the country. Although it is still against the law to publicly smoke marijuana in Colorado, police reported only 130 citations or arrests over the course of the two-day event, 92 for marijuana consumption.

Well that's cool.  Ninety-two pot citations with tens of thousands of smokers.  That's less than one percent who so much as get charged when they make a point of publicly getting zapped. (Not that anything is likely to happen with these charges except that they'll be quietly dismissed in the bye-and-bye).


Is there a problem with telling the voters there will be strong "safeguards," then blowing (pun intended) right past them?  Well, no, not if you're a druggie, or the PR outfit that does their campaign.



News Scan

Teen Accused of Murder While on 'Day Pass' from Juvenile Hall: Police in Stockton, CA report that a teen accused of murdering a man Sunday afternoon was on a weekend pass from juvenile hall.  News 10 Sacramento reports that the juvenile detention center allows inmates to go home for the weekend in order to work on homework and build relationships with their family. They are prohibited from hanging out with friends and are required to be accompanied by their parent or guardian at all times.  The teen, along with another juvenile accomplice, now face charges of felony robbery and murder.

Murderer Sentenced to Life Without Parole: A Michigan man convicted of raping and murdering his girlfriend's five-year-old niece has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP).  The Associated Press reports that 23-year-old Darnell Cheatham kidnapped the young girl from her home in July 2011 and raped her before strangling her and setting her body on fire in a vacant house.  LWOP is the most severe sentence available under Michigan law.  

Parolee Tied to Recent NYPD Shooting: A habitual criminal in New York, on parole for robbery, has been linked to Monday night's shooting of two NYPD officers.  The New York Daily News reports that 28-year-old Joseph Kemp and 24-year-old Jason Polanco were allegedly involved in an armed robbery of a grocery store Monday evening.  When officers arrived, Polanco fired off several rounds, wounding his accomplice and two police officers.  Both men have had several encounters with police in the past, and have been convicted of a variety of charges including robbery, weapons possession, and disorderly conduct.

Violent Crime Up In Los Angeles:  For the first time in 12 years the rate of violent crime has increased in Los Angeles, in some cases dramatically.   Joel Rubin and Ben Poston of The Los Angeles Times report that in 2014 he city suffered a 12% increase in violent crime compared to 2013, with aggravated assaults, typically attacks with a weapon resulting in serious injury, up over 24%.  These higher numbers follow an investigation last summer which found that the city had missclassified nearly 1,200 serious and violent crimes as low level offenses.  Does Realignment have anything to do with this? 

Still Guilty, After All These Years

Here's a red-hot news flash.  Sirhan Sirhan is guilty of the murder of Senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy.

In 1996, Congress clamped a one-year statute of limitations on petitions for writs of habeas corpus when used as collateral attacks on criminal judgments.  In 2013, the Supreme Court held in McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928 that actual innocence is, in effect, an exception.  (I have no quarrel with that holding as a matter of policy and did not file a brief in that case to oppose making the exception, but as a matter of statutory interpretation I don't think the opinion holds water.)  But look who crawls out of the woodwork claiming innocence.  Later in 2013, the federal magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation rejecting Sirhan's claim.  It begins,

This case may be the final chapter in an American tragedy. On June 5, 1968, moments after declaring victory in the California Democratic primary, Senator Robert F. Kennedy walked through the kitchen pantry of the Ambassador Hotel, where petitioner was waiting.  As Senator Kennedy stopped to shake hands with hotel employees, petitioner walked toward him, extending his arm. Instead of shaking Senator Kennedy's hand, petitioner shot him. Petitioner continued to fire his gun even as bystanders wrestled him onto a table. Senator Kennedy died of his wounds.

News Scan

Bill Seeks New Restrictions On DUI Offenders: Oklahoma Senator Patrick Anderson is proposing a bill aimed at preventing DUI offenders from buying or consuming alcohol for a set period of time.  Fox News reports that the bill is designed to deter drunk drivers by preventing them from buying alcohol and also punishes others who buy alcohol for them.  Those who oppose the bill question the ability of police to enforce the restrictions, citing too many flaws for it to be successful.

Record Number of Meth Seizures in 2014: Border Patrol agents on the U.S.-Mexico border report that meth seizures soared to record breaking numbers in 2014.  The Associated Press reports that the San Diego, CA field office confiscated 63% of all methamphetamine seized at land, air, and sea entry points nationwide in 2014.  The DEA estimates that 90% of all meth in the U.S. comes from Mexico.

No Change of Venue in Marathon Bombing Trial:  Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy notes the denial of change of venue by the district judge and the denial of a writ of mandate by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

The War on the Police

To read the NYT, Eric Holder's latest musings, or practically any libertarian blog (Radley Balko's coming first to mind, although most anything in Reason magazine will do), one would think that there is no "war on the police," but only concerned citizens mindful of America's stained, racist past and yearning for less thuggish law enforcement and fairer treatment for minorities, particularly young black men.

Only there is a war on police.  It doesn't look like Obama's "Ferguson meeting" at the White House.  An article in the Alaska Dispatch News shows what it looks like, as pictured on the next page.

SCOTUS As A Late Adopter

"Be the first kid on your block ... "  Long ago that sales pitch was used to sell things to children.  Today, there are still lots of people who take enormous pleasure in being among the first to have the hottest new thing.  They are called early adopters in the tech business, and those of us who aren't early adopters benefit from their willingness to pay high prices for still buggy software and for gadgets that may or may not endure.  Remember the Betamax?  Personally, I am content to let others be the lab rats research participants and wait for version X.1.

The federal courts are not early adopters, Chief Justice Roberts explains in his 2014 Year-End Report on the Judiciary, and the U.S. Supreme Court particularly is not.  Filing documents over the internet is an important advance, but development of the system has been slow in the federal district courts and courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court still doesn't have it.  Today we email PDFs of briefs on the due date, but the printed brief must still be in the mail on that day, and that is the official filing.

SCOTUS will finally come around in 2016, but the Chief wants to make sure the system is equally available to all.  Unlike the CM/ECF system for the lower federal courts, access will be free to the public.

The report begins with an amusing bit of infotech history -- pneumatic tubes carrying documents around the building.  The report is well done, not long, and worth reading.

Self-Help For Package Theft

Christin Ayers reports for KPIX, San Francisco:

A Vallejo homeowner fed up with package thefts from his front porch left a stinky surprise boxed up for the thief with a little help from his dog.

Mayor de Blasio and the NYPD

The New York Times's temper tantrum masquerading as an editorial  --  the one attacking police officers' right to dissent  --  is balanced by this more thoughtful view in Commentary.  One may see the officers' turning their backs to Mayor de Blasio as "inappropriate," as Rudy Giuliani and Commissioner William Bratton have said, and still think the First Amendment lives on, even, amazingly, for the police.  Liberals once understood that the right to speak freely is most essential when what gets said is least popular (or "appropriate").  Well, that was then.

I deconstructed the NYT editorial here.  The Commentary article elaborates a similar view, and fleshes out the context of the tension between de Blasio and his police force thusly:

After only a year in office, de Blasio finds himself in a crisis largely of his own making...Having antagonized the police by campaigning against stop and frisk policies, he went a bridge too far when he joined in the chorus of those treating law enforcement as the enemy after Ferguson and then the non-indictment of the officer accused of choking Garner. That rhetoric created the impression that de Blasio agreed with those who have come to view police officers as guilty until proven innocent when it comes to accusations of racism or violence against minorities.

The police are not perfect and can, like politicians, make terrible mistakes. But the problem with the post-Ferguson/Garner critique that was relentlessly plugged by racial inciters, the liberal media and prominent political leaders such as Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder is that it cherry picked two extraordinary and very different incidents and wove it seamlessly into a highly misleading narrative about racism that might have been applicable in Selma, Alabama in 1965 but doesn't reflect the reality of America in 2014. 


The entire article, which isn't that long, is worth the read.

 

News Scan

Execution Dates Set For Alabama Killers:  Alabama's highest court has set execution dates for two convicted killers that have been on death row for decades.  Tim Lockette of the Anniston Star reports that executions in the state had been delayed since 2013 due to a lack of execution drugs.  The executions, scheduled to take place in February and March, will be the first time the state uses a new three-drug protocol utilizing the anesthetic midazolam, to prevent the murderers from feeling any pain. 

Police Officer Shooting Deaths Jump 56 Percent: The number of police officers killed by firearms in the U.S. during 2014 jumped by 56%, sending a shockwave through law enforcement agencies around the country.  The Associated Press reports that 50 officers were shot this year, compared to 32 officers in 2013.  Fifteen of the shootings were from ambush attacks.  "With the increasing number of ambush-style attacks against our officers, I am deeply concerned that a growing anti-government sentiment in America is influencing weak-minded individuals to launch violent assaults against the men and women working to enforce our laws and keep our nation safe," said Craig Floyd, chairman and CEO of the memorial fund.  

Illegals Becoming More Aggressive At Border Crossings: Border Patrol agents in Arizona report that illegal immigrants attempting to cross the border have become increasingly more resistant and are behaving more aggressively, resulting in more officer assaults.  Fox News Latino reports that these individuals are more desperate to cross the border and are going to extreme lengths to make it.  During the 2014 fiscal year, Border Patrol reported 373 attacks on agents, the majority of which took place at the U.S. -Mexico border.


The Number One News Story of 2014

My friend John Hinderaker has a fascinating post up showing the most tweeted-about news stories of 2014.  In second place is the August 9 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO.  First place is held by the December decision of the grand jury not to indict the shooter, Officer Darren Wilson.  It's reasonably clear that the grand jury declined to bring charges because it believed Wilson acted in self-defense, an account supported by both forensic and eye-witness testimony.

What's unusual is that a crime story gets ranked first when crime is relatively low, as it is now.  Crime barely got a mention as an issue when pollsters were asking, in the run-up to the midterm elections, what the public was most concerned about. Indeed, crime, violence, drugs, law and the judicial system together barely scratched the surface, as Gallup reports

So why is a crime story Number One in a year that saw a partisan wave in the elections, the outbreak of Ebola, the (still) mysterious and spooky disappearance of a commercial airliner, the horrifying beheading of a captive journalist, Russian military aggression in Europe, and a cyberattack within the United States sponsored by a foreign country?

Dude, Where's My Car? (Update)


Nearly two years ago, we noted a disturbing statistic from half-year preliminary crime data from the FBI.  Here is an update from later and more complete data.

Of the categories of crime tracked by the standard statistics, auto theft is the category most likely to have been affected by California's prison realignment program.  Auto theft was always a felony.  Before realignment, it was therefore a crime for which a state prison sentence was always a possibility, although the judge had discretion to give a lesser sentence.  After realignment, auto theft is a crime for which a person can never go to state prison.  Not for the 97th offense.

USCA9 Flips Yet Another Death Sentence

Twenty-five years ago, in Tucson, Arizona, Eric Mann conceived a cold-blooded plan to cheat another man in a drug deal and then kill him to cover it up.  When the customer brought someone else to the transaction, Mann killed them both according to his plan.

After Mann's claims against his death sentence were heard and rejected by the Arizona Supreme Court, the trial court on collateral review, the Arizona Supreme Court again, and the federal district court, Mann appealed to the Ninth Circuit.  The panel assigned was Judges Sidney Thomas, now Chief Judge, Stephen Reinhardt, and Alex Kozinski.  Knowing nothing about the legal issues but only from the composition of the panel, can you guess the outcome?

Broken Windows Policing, Part II

About five minutes before I read Kent's post about broken windows policing, I received the following message from a Facebook friend who lived it:

Some of you may have noticed a pattern in our "national conversation about race" in which the focus of attention has shifted from racist cops to institutional racism of police departments and now, is focused squarely on the "broken windows" theory of policing, so-named for an article in the Atlantic Monthly by Harvard Prof. James Q. Wilson, based on his research of many years on the tolerance of petty crime in urban areas. There has been a blizzard of articles like this one over the last two weeks, executed on cue. Be prepared to hear [these] arguments in Derrick Jackson's piece over and over, in the media and on FB.

Having lived in Boston and later in NYC during both the late Koch years through Giuliani's first term, I saw this proactive method of policing introduced, and it produced results within one year. Most people, however, have no memory or knowledge of what it was like to live in a place where every public park, train, wall was defaced with graffiti and gang markers, where tot lots were used for drug deals in the open daylight, where muggings were a routine occurrence and the victim was blamed for "being there at that hour of night" or for "what she was wearing," etc. People don't remember putting the "NO RADIO" sign in your windshield after you'd lost several of them already and had given up replacing them.
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99  

Monthly Archives