Results matching “first”

A trial judge in Connecticut has allowed a claim of the type rejected by the Supreme Court in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) to go forward. This is the perennial claim that statistics show a racial or geographic "bias" in the administration of the death penalty. A long forgotten, but important, fact in the McCleskey case is that the federal district judge, after a full hearing with experts on both sides, found that the study did not prove what its authors claimed it proved. See McCleskey v. Zant, 580 F. Supp. 338 (ND Ga. 1984).

In Connecticut, the first study by the Public Defender came up with the "wrong" answer, so they suppressed it. As noted here, the claim that the study had to be suppressed because the results were not statistically significant does not pass the straight-face test. So now they have a new study that gets the "right" answer, and they can go forward. Katie Melone has this story in the Hartford Courant.

Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times' controversial Supreme Court correspondent, has accepted a buyout offer and will be leaving after 30 years on the beat, Seth Sutel reports for AP.

Officials are cracking-down on criminal immigrants. According to this Washington Post story by Ernesto Londono, strong efforts are being made by immigration officials to locate and deport illegal immigrants and monitor immigrants with criminal records, which is straining the immigration court system. After years of criticism for failing to do enough to deport illegals, federal authorities have formed partnerships with local corrections to monitor immigrants charged with crimes. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reports that over the twelve month period ending on September 30, it placed 164,000 illegals in deportation proceedings and estimated approximately 200,000 deportations this year.

Man gets life sentence for double murder. On April 4, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson will sentence Keven Lee Graff for murder, mayhem and torture. L.A. Times staff writers Tiffany Hsu & Andrew Blankstein report that in June 2004, Graff killed Dr. Morley Engelson with his own kitchen knives. Graff also decapitated Engelson’s neighbor, Robert Lee, leaving Lee’s head at Engelson’s house and the body at his own home. In a plea bargain to avoid a death sentence, Graff admitted his guilt in both murders and asked to address the court at his sentencing, where he will receive two life terms without the possibility of parole.

Britain’s DNA Database Challenged
According to this AP story, two British citizens who have been acquitted of criminal charges are asking the European Court of Human Rights to order the destruction of their DNA samples. The two Britons claim that not destroying their DNA is a breach of their right to privacy and amounts to discrimination. England's DNA database is the world’s largest holding up to 4.5 million samples.

Washington’s New Bill against Street Gangs
A story by Jennifer Sullivan in the Seattle Times reports that Washington is experiencing an increase in youth gang-related crimes. State Rep. Christopher Hurst is pushing a bill (HB 2712) that will add $2.4 million in funding for gang prevention, intervention, and suppression. The bill would create a statewide database of information on gang members available for police use only, and codify the state’s first definition of a “criminal street gang.” This legislation will provide pilot programs and activities for troubled youth. Hurst says, “It’s essentially like treating gangs like organized crime.”

Bill Targets Sex Offenders’ Property
Kentucky Post reporter Jessica Noll writes that House Bill 210 will authorize law enforcement seizure of property from convicted sex offenders. Confiscated houses, money, and personal belongings will be sold and the proceeds used to defray the cost of prosecuting sex offenders such as expert witnesses and forensics. The state's Chief public defender, Daniel T. Goyette, argues that the measure is unconstitutional because states cannot deprive a person of property without affording a prompt opportunity to reclaim items later determined to be unlawfully seized.

With its grant of certiorari in the case of Chrones v. Pulido, No. 07-544, the U.S. Supreme Court ventures once more into the questions of habeas corpus, harmless error, and deference to the state court's decision on direct appeal. The Court addressed related issues last June in Fry v. Pliler, No. 06-5247. The new case deals with the situation where a jury is given more than one path to a conviction, of which one is right and the other wrong. The Supreme Court addressed that situation in Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).

Murder Victim's Note Helps Convict Husband. A trial court in Wisconsin has convicted Mark Jensen of the 1998 murder of his wife, Julie, based, in part, on a note she left to her neighbor with instructions to give it to police only if she were to die. AP writer Carrie Antlfinger reports in the Washington Post that Julie had grown suspicious of her husband, Mark Jensen, and wanted someone to look into her death after she died. On Dec 3, 1998, Julie was found dead after being poisoned with antifreeze and suffocated. Mark was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide. The Wisconsin Supreme Court decision allowing the evidence, previously noted here, followed the decision in Crawford v. Washington.

Justice Kennedy on citing foreign precedents: In a speech Wednesday night at the Meridian International Center in Washington, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy attempted to justify his reliance on foreign precedent in his 2005 Roper v. Simmons opinion according to this story by AP writer Mark Sherman on sfgate.com. In the Court's 5-4 ruling in 2005, Kennedy relied heavily on the practice of other countries to support his interpretation of the Eighth Amendment.

A Texas Remedy for Overcrowded Jails utilizes a new state law allowing officers to give out tickets for certain non-violent misdemeanor offenses instead of booking offenders in jail. A story by Tanya Eiserer in the Dallas Morning News reports that police officials expect the program to improve response time. Texas police and prosecutors believe that giving out citations for misdemeanors will save taxpayers money by not housing inmates in jail for days.

Utah Law Targets Gang Members: A story by Elizabeth Ziegler in yesterday's Utah Policy Daily reported that the state's House of Representatives has passed SB 65, which would make it a crime for gang members to encourage juveniles to commit crimes. The punishment would be six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The bill only applies to people who have a history of gang related crimes. Although the measure passed the House with a unanimous vote some members expressed concerns about how law will be enforced.

The U.S. Supreme Court held a conference today. As expected, no grants or denials of certiorari were announced. The Court did issue an orders list of routine orders regarding briefing and argument. Announcement of the cases granted and denied today will be made in Tuesday's orders list. The Court is closed Monday for Washington's Birthday (no, not "Presidents' Day," see 5 U.S.C. § 6103).

Among the petitions considered at today's conference was Norris v. Simpson, No. 07-653, in which the Eighth Circuit held that a condemned murderer could raise his claim that he is retarded for the first time in a post-Atkins habeas petition, despite the facts that (1) the state had precluded execution of retarded murderers the whole time, and (2) he never claimed to be retarded during any of the state proceedings.

Wednesday is a likely day for decision announcements. Medellin v. Texas, discussed here, was argued October 10 and is ripe for decision.

The "top side" amicus briefs have been filed in Indiana v. Edwards, No. 07-208. The briefs to date and other pertinent documents are available here. Along with the expected amici of CJLF, other states, and the federal government, we have some unusual players.

The case involves a defendant of marginal mental competence who moved under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), to reject counsel and represent himself. When the Court first granted certiorari, it occurred to me that this was one of those unusual cases where many defense lawyers might disagree with the position of the defendant in this case.

In its decision yesterday in State v. Mata, S05-1268, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, including the death sentence, of child-killer Raymond Mata. However, as noted in yesterday's News Scan, the court declared the sole method of execution prescribed by statute in that state, electrocution, to be unconstitutional. So does that mean the death penalty is on hold unless the Legislature affirmatively restores it by enacted a new method? Would the advocates of repeal be able to achieve their goal through a combination of a court changing the rules and a legislative deadlock, as they have in New York?

Not necessarily.

As mentioned previously, the recent National Institute of Mental Health's CATIE study suggested a link between schizophrenia and violence. That conclusion generated a lot of controversy from folks who assert that there is no link between mental illness and violence, touting the frequent mantra that those with mental illness are no more likely to become violent than the general population. Indeed, we should be careful not to needlessly contribute to the enduring stigma that burdens those with mental illness. Nonetheless, we shouldn't ignore the link between mental illness and crime simply because it makes some people uncomfortable or is at odds with the vested rhetoric of political correctness. Several recent studies in the journal Psychiatric Services shed some new light on the subject and are worth a few comments.

Brooklyn Police Scandal: Four Brooklyn narcotics officers have been charged with misconduct and falsifying records. Christine Hauser of the New York Times reports that Gravesend and Bay Ridge are the two areas in Brooklyn where cases have been affected the most. Detective Sean Johnstone was heard on a tape recording saying he and his partner, Officer Julio Alvarez, recovered 28 bags of cocaine yet only turned in 17. When Internal Affairs started investigating Johnstone and Alvarez, it led to the arrest of Sgt. Michael Arenella and Officer Jerry Bowens. The Brooklyn district attorney’s office has dismissed over 183 cases because either one or more of the officers have played a significant role in them. In addition, the city’s special prosecutor Bridget G. Brennan has thrown out five indictments against eight defendants.

Juvenile Crime: Katie Zezima writes in this New York Times report that cases under a Rhode Island law that allowed juveniles to be tried in adult court would be dismissed or transferred. Judge Daniel A. Procaccini from the Rhode Island Superior Court ruled that approximately 100 pending cases would be dismissed. Cases that resulted with an indictment will be sent to Family Court; only if the attorney general believes the crime is heinous, will a juvenile be tried in adult court. The judge concluded that juvenile's rights were violated because the cases were sent directly to adult court. Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch appealed the ruling and says it places the victims and their families in a “state of uncertainty.”

AG Seeks Change in Crack Sentencing Rules
According to this AP story, Attorney General Michael Mukasey wants Congress to modify the recently amended sentencing guidelines to prevent the early release of thousands of violent crack offenders. Mukasey is asking that the new law be changed to allow sentence reductions for only first-time and nonviolent offenders. Less than month ago, the U.S sentencing commission ruled that over 20,000 federal inmates would be eligible for reduction for their crack cocaine sentences. Mukasey argues that full retroactive application of the new guidelines will increase violence in communities and clog up the courts.

A "jailhouse lawyer" wrote the successful certiorari petition in the Supreme Court case of Burgess v. United States, No. 06-11429, reports Meg Kinnard for AP. The case is set for argument March 24, but petition author Michael Ray won't be arguing it. He remains a guest of Uncle Sam. The petition is here via Legal Writing Prof Blog.

First the good news. When California's Legislature convenes for its next session after the November election, the criminal-friendly persons presently running both houses won't be running them. The voters of California have once again shown that they have much better judgment when they vote directly on issues than they do in electing legislators. With 88% of precincts reporting (as of 5:09 am), Proposition 93 is losing 53.3-46.7.  That measure would have watered down the term limits and allowed present Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez to stay on for years.

Now the bad news.

An Arsonist Turns to Stalking. Today on sfgate.com Gene Johnson, from Associated Press, writes that Allen Parmelee is spending the remainder of his 24-year sentence digging up information on the judges, lawyers and police officers that put him behind bars. Under Washington’s state Public Records Act, anyone has the right to petition records that are public. However, King County Prosecutor, Dan Satterberg is not only trying to deny him access to the records, but have a judge bar him for petitioning any more records.
Parmelee was convicted at his second trial for first-degree arson. His first trial ended in a mistrial because Parmelee had personal information about the jurors. Since his conviction, Parmelee has been gathering more information such as schedules, pay, photos and even addresses about deputies and other criminal justice officials.

Death Penalty: Tom Fahey writes on unionleader.com that Senator Joseph Kenney, R-Wakefield, sponsored SB 344 to expand New Hampshire's death penalty. Current law allows a death penalty for murder during a rape or kidnapping, killing a police officer or judge, murder for hire, a murder during a drug deal or by someone already serving life without parole. Kenney wants to expand the law to apply to multiple murders and attempted multiple killings.
Michel Woodbury shot and killed three men in a robbery July 2007. Jennifer Walker Blake, sister of one of the victims, supports the bill because under current law, her brother's killer cannot be sentenced to death. She says “Victims were murdered because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time”.

No Guns for the Mentally Ill. According to the Psychiatric News, the federal government may fund the tracking of those who have been to a psychiatric hospital to prevent them from purchasing guns. The sponsor of the new law Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) has also been the victim of the mentally ill gunman who killed her husband on a commute train 14 years ago. Advocates believe that the new law could have prevented the 32 deaths last year at Virginia Tech if it was passed sooner. However, the bill will not require background checks at private sales and at gun shows. In the article, Paul Appelbaum, M.D, chair of the APA states that people with mental illness only contribute to 3-5 percent of gun crimes. Also, mental health advocates are concerned about the privacy rights of patients. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendment Act of 2007 is also related to the new gun law.

PornoCop: The Ninth Circuit today denied rehearing in the case of Dible v. City of Chandler, No. 05-16577. The court held that the city of Chandler, Arizona can decide that operating a hard-core pornographic web site is incompatible with being a police officer.

The public expects officers to behave with a high level of propriety, and, unsurprisingly, is outraged when they do not do so. The law and their own safety demands that they be given a degree of respect, and the sleazy activities of Ronald and Megan Dible could not help but undermine that respect. Nor is this mere speculation. Almost as soon as Ronald Dible’s indecent public activities became widely known, officers in the department began suffering denigration from members of the public, and potential recruits questioned officers about the Dibles’ website.

It seems fashionable lately for many scholars to decry our criminal justice polices surrounding sex offenders. Indeed, classifying all sex offenses - from adolescents who take nude pictures of themselves to the worst sex abuse imaginable - seems unwise. Moreover, the civil commitment of sex offenders seems problematic and encompasses an ominous trend to attribute biological causes as the root problem for so many antisocial behaviors, including sexual deviancy. And it is true that the "science" surrounding much of the sex offender debate is a minefield of pitfalls and spurious links.

But those criticisms and limitations do not mean that sex offenders are a minor risk and that all of the retributive rhetoric about them is misplaced. As many forensic psychologists know, conducting a risk assessment evaluation on a convicted sex offender often entails a lengthy tread into the world of recidivism, failed treatment programs, and eternal denial on the part of the offender. A recent, albeit, extreme story regarding the tragic case of Dylan and Shasta Groene demonstrates why public sentiment is so starkly in favor of heavy penalties and restrictions against sex offenders.

In 1990, the voters of California passed Proposition 115, which among other things added a discovery chapter to the Penal Code, §§ 1054.1 et seq. (Most important criminal law is enacted by initiative in California, due to the permanent dysfunctionality of our Legislature.) Among the provisions of this law is: "This chapter shall be the only means by which the defendant may compel the disclosure or production of information from prosecuting attorneys, law enforcement agencies which investigated or prepared the case against the defendant...." (Emphasis added.) The Legislature can amend the chapter, but only by a 2/3 vote.

What part of "only" did the solons not understand? They enacted a statute, Penal Code § 1054.9, giving new postconviction discovery rights to defendants sentenced to death or life without parole, and they passed it by less than a 2/3 vote. Although on its face the statute does not seem terribly burdensome, in practice it has been used in a much more aggressive manner.

In the case of Barnett v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court was considering some issues related to the application of this statute, but CJLF asserted in an amicus brief that the whole statute was unconstitutional as an unauthorized legislative amendment of an initiative. (This theory was first advanced by the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office.) Today the court issued this order:

The above-entitled matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, with directions to establish a briefing schedule and then consider and decide the issues raised in the brief of amicus curiae, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, filed November 5, 2007, and petitioner's answer to that brief, filed December 17, 2007. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d).) Kennard, J., was recused and did not participate.

The Colorado Supreme Court holds in Hernandez v. People:

Construing the applicable statutory provisions, the supreme court holds that treatment is not mandated in every case where a sex offender subsequently commits an offense of any kind. Where the recommendations of the sex offender evaluation and the facts of the subsequent case do not support treatment, a sentencing court is not required by section 16-11.7-105 to order treatment. On the other hand, when the sex offender evaluation and the facts of the case support it, the trial court must impose sex offender treatment as a condition of probation. Here, the trial court ordered Hernandez to complete sex offender treatment.

Defendants first crime in 1984 was attempted second degree assault which resulted when he forcibly inserted his fingers in a woman's vagina in a restroom at a bar. Nineteen years later, he was charged with possession of a schedule two controlled substance and introduction of contraband into a detention facility and ultimately plead to simple possession. After initially refusing to submit to a sex offender evaluation, on the advise of counsel, defendant complied resulting in a recommendation that he receive treatment. According to the opinion, the evaluator found the defendant's denial of guilt in both crimes as well as his scores on various sexual deviancy measures as supportive of the recommendation:

The evaluator rated Hernandez as being at high risk for a repeat sexual offense based upon his: (1) denying having sexually assaulted the previous victim; (2) taking no responsibility for possessing cocaine in his most recent offense; (3) exhibiting defensiveness throughout the evaluation process; (4) lacking victim empathy; (5) lacking motivation to engage in offense specific treatment; (6) having previously used coercive force against a female adult victim and registering arousal levels to a female adult and a female teen in a coercive sexual situation, in comparison to a consensual sexual male/female adult encounter, during the assessment; and (7) having a considerable substance abuse history.

One wonders how effective treatment will be for this recalcitrant offender.

The U.S. Supreme Court's Monday orders list is here. No surprises. The cases granted for briefing and argument this term were announced after the conference on Friday, including the Giles case discussed here.

Among the cases turned down today is Black v. California, the California Supreme Court's decision on remand after Cunningham. See People v. Black, 41 Cal. 4th 799, 161 P.3d 1130 (2007).

Orin Kerr has this post at VC on the oral argument in Virginia v. Moore this morning. "On the whole, the argument went extremely well for Virginia. In the first half hour, the Justices seemed to think Virginia's position was so obviously correct that they appeared rather bored." Look for a frothing denunciation of the opinion in the 2009 pocket part of LaFave's Search and Seizure.

Today, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in Giles v. California (07-6053), a case that will review whether the Confrontation Clause permits the hearsay statement of a witness who is unavailable for trial because the defendant killed her - even though he did not intend to silence her testimony when he killed her. The California Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the hearsay statement was admissible, but placed some limitations on how and when the statement would be allowed in court.

In Giles, the defendant was charged and convicted with the murder of his former girlfriend Brenda Avie. According to witnesses, Avie had arrived at the defendant's grandmother's house on the night of the murder, and had talked with defendant for about a half hour. Witnesses then heard the victim yell "Granny" several times followed by a series of gunshots. When witnesses arrived on the scene, they saw defendant standing about eleven feet from Avie with gun in his hands. Defendant then fled the scene and was arrested sixteen days later.

Avie had been shot six times in her torso. Two of the wounds were fatal. Avie had not been carrying a weapon when she was shot.

Baze argument coverage: SF Chrontrarian Debra Saunders has this column, titled "Dishonest on the death penalty." David Savage of the L.A. Times found the justices skeptical of the attacks on lethal injection, as did Tony Mauro at Legal Times. Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times says the challengers "made little headway." Jess Bravin at the Wall Street Journal writes that the Court "seemed divided" and emphasized the discussion of pancuronium.

Cal. DP Hearings: Howard Mintz of the San Jose Mercury-News has this story on Thursday's hearings of the "California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice" regarding the death penalty. We find it more than a little strange that a commission set up for the ostensible purpose of studying "fairness" would, as its first action, hire a well-known partisan for one side as its executive director.

California Chief Justice Ron George has this op-ed in the L.A. Times on proposals for reform of the capital case review process.

Stupid Crook Story: "A man who hid hunting knives in his pants to try to steal them from a western Michigan store tripped while fleeing and stabbed himself in the abdomen, police say." AP report is here.

Although the big Supreme Court news today is on the Baze argument, two per curiam decisions today in habeas cases are worth noting. First, there is Arave v. Hoffman, which the Court vacated and remanded, as expected. The Ninth Circuit had held that a defendant can make out a case for habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel at plea bargaining, even if the trial that follows is fair. Hoffman has now abandoned the claim for relief he won at the Ninth, so there is no live controversy. The citation to United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 193, 200-201 (1950) at the very end of the opinion serves the dual functions of (1) reminding everyone that the vacated Ninth Circuit decision is not precedent, and (2) enabling bad jokes about "Munsingwear briefs."

Second, on a somewhat related issue, the case of Wright v. Van Patten makes its second trip to the high court. The Seventh Circuit had held that a lawyer's appearance by speakerphone at a plea hearing was per se grounds for relief. The hearing was simply the formal acceptance of a plea deal previously worked out and thoroughly discussed between attorney and client. The state court rejected Van Patten's claim because there was no indication of any prejudice to him. The Seventh granted relief, saying no such showing was required. After the Supreme Court vacated and remanded to reconsider in light of Carey v. Musladin, 127 S.Ct. 1038 (2006), Judges Evans and Williams said, in essence, there is nothing to reconsider. Judge Coffey dissented. The high court today unanimously reversed. Application of the Strickland prejudice standard in this situation is an open question, and the Wisconsin court was reasonable to decide it the way it did.

How many times will the federal courts of appeals have to be slapped down before they understand the difference between "I disagree with that" and "That is unreasonable"?

Today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Baze v. Rees, regarding the constitutionality of Kentucky’s method for executing the death penalty. Kentucky uses a combination of three drugs originally developed in Oklahoma and presently in use in every state that has the death penalty except Nebraska. Audio (with still pictures) is on C-SPAN. Transcript is on the Court's site.

Overall, the argument appeared to go well for the state. Even Justice Stevens said the state had "a very strong case" (p. 41).

Mayo Clinic Proceedings has published some reaction to the articles previously noted here. Not content with having contemporaneously published two editorials critical of David Waisel's article on physician participation in executions, they now publish a third, plus a commentary by the anti side's favorite lethal injection expert, Mark Heath.

They also publish six letters, four of which are on the opposition side. Despite having called only for responses that address the ethics of physician participation and not capital punishment generally, they go ahead and violate their own limit by publishing two letters attacking capital punishment generally. One of them is from Margaret R. Wentz, BA, of the Mayo Clinic. (You have to wonder about a person who uses a bachelor's degree as a title.) Ms. Wentz demonstrates her lack of sophistication on the subject with this obvious non sequitur: "Additionally, the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. National crime rates vary little between states that have the death penalty and those that do not." She cites the notorious Helen Prejean and the Death Penalty Information Center for this nugget, making no mention of the large body of peer-reviewed literature finding a deterrent effect. The editors claim "the various letters and commentaries were subjected to the journal’s typical rigorous peer-review process." Excuse me if I am unimpressed with your rigor.

One item that is worthwhile is the letter from C&C blogger Steven Erickson. He calls Arthur Caplan on the carpet for making the ridiculous statement that the United States executes "children" in an article published two years after Roper v. Simmons banned execution of anyone under 18. This is on top of the fact that 16- and 17-year-olds are not "children" in the first place.

One of my pet peeves is the imbalance in the way attorneys' fees are awarded when people sue the government, asking courts to overturn policy decisions made through the democratic process. When plaintiffs win, they get attorneys' fee awards routinely, while the government almost never gets an award for the cost of defending its perfectly legitimate, constitutional decision from an unwarranted attack. These cases sometimes involve attempts enjoin enforcement of criminal laws, and so they are of concern to everyone interested in law enforcement. This article by Jon Murray in the Indianapolis Star tells about one suit where plaintiffs were required to pay for the damage they did.

As 2007 winds down, we have another welcome piece of evidence that persons of sense are reaching critical mass at the notorious U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the epitome of judicial activism, has long been infamous for the rate at which he is reversed -- sometimes unanimously -- by the Supreme Court. Today, in Smith v. Baldwin, though, he was reversed 13-2 by the Ninth Circuit itself.

The case arises from the 1989 burglary of the Oregon home of Emmett and Elma Konzelman, then aged 87 and 74. Roger Smith and Jacob Edmonds entered the house. The Konzelmans were beaten with a crowbar, and Mr. Konzelman died of his injuries.

"There was no evidence that the defendant's race was related to procedural and sentencing advancement," that is, to the likelihood that a death-eligible case would move forward to a penalty trial and from there to a death sentence.

Since 2003, the Chief Public Defender of Connecticut has had in hand a study that says this but refused to release the study until it came out in litigation yesterday. Lynne Tuohy has this article today in the Hartford Courant.

The New Jersey Assembly passed Timmendequas's Law today, as expected. Jeremy Peters reports here in the NYT.

Joe Logan has this story in the Philadelphia Inquirer of the opposition to the law by the family of Megan Kanka, who was murdered at the age of 7 by Jesse Timmendequas. That crime sparked the enactment of the first "Megan's Law," back in the days when the New Jersey Legislature cared more about victims than about criminals.

Timmendequas's Law is set for a vote tomorrow in the New Jersey Assembly, to change New Jersey's abolition of the death penalty from de facto to de jure. Tom Hester has this report for AP. Google News has comments by Robert Blecker and Richard Dieter.

GPS Tracking provided a quick partial solution to drive-by murder of Nelly Vergara in Los Angeles Monday, Thomas Watkins reports for AP. Police cross-checked the time and place of the murder with the tracking devices worn by some parolees and arrested MS-13 gang member John Garcia. "We are not dealing with the brightest bulbs in the circuit," said Chief Bratton. "This character has to be one of the stupidest people in the city of Los Angeles." Although GPS shows Garcia's presence at the scene, witnesses are still needed.

"She wanted to save money and buy her first home and because of these people that shot at her, her dreams are not a reality any longer," Vergara's mother Mireya Robles said in Spanish through heavy tears as she asked for witnesses to come forward. "I can't even begin to tell you my pain."

The Kimbrough and Gall cases are the subjects of copious commentary, but this one by Frank Bowman at SCOTUSblog is particularly good.

Curtis Dean Anderson, a notorious sexual predator, died in prison of unspecified medical problems, Marisa Lagos reports in the SF Chron. Anderson kidnapped and raped two young girls in Vallejo, northeast of San Francisco, and murdered one of them, Xiana Fairchild.

The United States Supreme Court has stayed the execution of Mark Schwab. The order can be found here. Schwab was scheduled for execution at 6pm tonight. If the execution had gone forward Schwab would have been the first inmate executed under Florida's new lethal injection protocol.

Ron Wood's article for the Associated Press can be found here.

This stay was issued in connection with the U.S. Supreme Court's direct review of the Florida Supreme Court's decision, discussed here, not the separate federal suit that was the basis for the district court stay lifted by the Eleventh Circuit this morning. The Florida Supreme Court, unlike the Mississippi Supreme Court in the Berry case, considered the claim on the merits, so the independent state ground noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Berry is not applicable.

Arave v. Hoffman: Our post last Monday discussed this Supreme Court case involving a death-sentenced murderer claiming ineffective assistance because his lawyer did not accept a plea bargain. Today's Los Angeles Daily Journal has this OpEd by CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger expanding on the issues involved.

Second Amendment: Next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will announce whether it will hear a challenge to the DC Circuit's decision last March which overturned the district's ban on the possession of a functional firearm in a private residence. The number of participants listed on the first three pages of the decision, and Google's listing of 277 news stories covering the case, indicate strong interest in this issue. A story by Lee Ross of Fox News provides some background.

The Florida Supreme Court denied Mark Dean Schwab's and Ian Deco Lightbourne's motions for rehearing yesterday. Schwab's denial can be found here, and Lightbourne's denial can be found here.

In a 5-2 decision, the Florida Supreme Court also denied Schwab's Motion to Stay Execution. This means Schwab's execution might take place next Thursday, November 15, 2007. The Florida Supreme Court denial of stay can be found here.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Idaho murder case of Arave v. Hoffman, No. 07-110. The panel opinion is here. The denial of rehearing en banc, with dissent by Judge Bea and six others, is here. SCOTUS blog has the petition and the brief in opposition. The case involves a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea bargaining stage of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court, 7-2, summarily reversed a decision of the Eleventh Circuit in Allen v. Siebert this morning. The 11th's opinions in the case can be found at 334 F.3d 1018 and 480 F.3d 1089.

A state prisoner has one year from the completion of his direct appeal to file a federal habeas petition, but the period is tolled during the pendency of a "properly filed" state collateral review petition. Untimely petitions are not properly filed for this purpose. The Supreme Court said in Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414 (2005), "When a postconviction petition is untimely under state law, 'that [is] the end of the matter' for purposes of [28 U.S.C.] § 2244(d)(2)," quoting Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 226 (2002). The Eleventh Circuit tried to weasel its way around this unequivocal holding by distinguishing jurisdictional time limits, like the one in Pace, from nonjurisdictional ones, ignoring the facts that (1) Saffold also involved a nonjurisdictional limit, and (2) the jurisdictional nature of the limit in Pace was barely mentioned in the opinion and no part of the analysis.

Today's decision is an appropriate rebuke of this evasion of controlling precedent. It is also a vindication for the district judge, who correctly read Pace as inconsistent with the Eleventh's first opinion in this case, only to be tersely reversed by a now-discredited opinion by Judge Barkett.

CJLF filed an amicus brief in support of the State of Alabama in this case.