Today at the Supreme Court: At SCOTUSblog Lyle Denniston posted this summary on today's orders and opinions. First, the Court announced its decision in Altria Group Inc., et al., v. Good, et al. (07-562). The 5-4 opinion, authored by Justice Stevens, allows smokers to challenge the deceptive marketing of cigarettes as "light" and "low in tar and nicotine." Ashby Jones also has a post at Wall Street Journal blog discussing what the decision could mean for future "federal preemption" cases. Second, the Court remanded Rasul, et al., v. Myers, et al. (08-235) to the D.C. Circuit Court so that the court could reconsider its rejection of claims of torture and religious bias against Guantanamo Bay detainees. The D.C. Circuit Court had made the previous decision five months before the U.S. Supreme Court decided Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195). The D.C. Circuit must now take that opinion into consideration. Hopefully the D.C. Circuit will not take this opportunity to afford detainees constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment, as Denniston appears to suggest.
Erosion of Mens Rea Requirement?: At Sentencing Law and Policy Doug Berman posts on a Legal Opinion Letter from the Washington Legal Foundation. The article, "Mens Rea Requirement: A Critical Casualty Of Overcriminalization," argues that by passing statutes that criminalize innocent or merely negligent behavior has "significantly eroded the traditional mens rea requirement for criminal conviction." Berman posts that while he is "not as troubled" with the use of criminal law to achieve regulatory ends, he does object to serious criminal punishments without evidence of culpability. He cautions against construing these statutes to allow prosecutors a huge amount of (unregulated) discretionary authority in their charging and bargaining and sentencing practices.
A Year Without the Death Penalty In a State That Has Not Executed Since 1982: Howard Bashman at How Appealing provided the link to an article in New Jersey's Newark Star-Journal. The article, by Rudy Larini, reports that a year after New Jersey became the first state to repeal the death penalty through legislation, prosecutors and defense lawyers agree that there has been no change in the way would-be capital cases are prosecuted in New Jersey. The lack of change could be due to the fact that New Jersey had no death penalty in reality prior to the repeal of its nominal death penalty law. This does not mean that the repeal has managed to escape controversy. Larini reports that in State v. Fortin, the New Jersey Supreme Court is considering whether or not a convicted defendant can get the maximum sentence of life-without-parole if the jurors have not considered that sentence in separate deliberations. It looks as though the "penalty phase" of death penalty law is migrating over to life-without-parole cases in New Jersey.
Erosion of Mens Rea Requirement?: At Sentencing Law and Policy Doug Berman posts on a Legal Opinion Letter from the Washington Legal Foundation. The article, "Mens Rea Requirement: A Critical Casualty Of Overcriminalization," argues that by passing statutes that criminalize innocent or merely negligent behavior has "significantly eroded the traditional mens rea requirement for criminal conviction." Berman posts that while he is "not as troubled" with the use of criminal law to achieve regulatory ends, he does object to serious criminal punishments without evidence of culpability. He cautions against construing these statutes to allow prosecutors a huge amount of (unregulated) discretionary authority in their charging and bargaining and sentencing practices.
A Year Without the Death Penalty In a State That Has Not Executed Since 1982: Howard Bashman at How Appealing provided the link to an article in New Jersey's Newark Star-Journal. The article, by Rudy Larini, reports that a year after New Jersey became the first state to repeal the death penalty through legislation, prosecutors and defense lawyers agree that there has been no change in the way would-be capital cases are prosecuted in New Jersey. The lack of change could be due to the fact that New Jersey had no death penalty in reality prior to the repeal of its nominal death penalty law. This does not mean that the repeal has managed to escape controversy. Larini reports that in State v. Fortin, the New Jersey Supreme Court is considering whether or not a convicted defendant can get the maximum sentence of life-without-parole if the jurors have not considered that sentence in separate deliberations. It looks as though the "penalty phase" of death penalty law is migrating over to life-without-parole cases in New Jersey.
Leave a comment