August 2018 Archives

Commuting Away Death Row

| 1 Comment
A few governors have issued mass commutations to clear out their state's death row on their way out the door. Will California's Gov. Brown do that?  Elizabeth Llorente has this story for Fox News.

I once drafted and testified for a state constitutional amendment to prohibit pardons and commutations during the lame duck period. The outgoing governor would be limited to reprieves, with permanent changes reserved for the incoming governor. Even if the governor is not running for reelection, an abuse of the clemency power before the election would be a political problem for his party, which most outgoing officeholders care about.

The bill was killed in committee. The argument against it was, in essence, that no horse has been stolen in this state yet (just others) so we don't need to lock the barn door.

UPDATE: CJLF was featured on the John & Ken Show at KFI in Los Angeles discussing this matter. The link to the segment is here.
Erwin Chemerinsky has this article in the ABA Journal identifying areas where Justice "Kennedy was the fifth vote for a liberal result, and where it is uncertain, or even unlikely, that Kavanaugh would decide the same way" as Justice Kennedy did.

Much of the discussion involves issues outside our scope and that CJLF takes no position on, so I won't comment on those. On the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, Dean Chemerinsky writes:

Exclusionary rule: In Hudson v. Michigan (2006), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an opinion--joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito--that called for the elimination of the exclusionary rule in Fourth Amendment cases. He argued that the costs of excluding evidence when police officers violate the Fourth Amendment outweigh the benefits of doing so. Justice Kennedy agreed to the result in that case, but declared that the continued operation of the exclusionary rule was not in doubt. But with Kennedy being replaced by Kavanaugh, there could be five votes to overrule a doctrine that conservatives have opposed for decades.
Really?  I have been arguing to limit Mapp for many years. I think I would remember if the Supreme Court came within a single vote of overruling it completely, especially in a case where my organization filed a brief.
Law enforcement contends that the new bail law is a "public safety disaster" because it is giving too many dangerous people "get out of jail free" cards.  The bail bond industry has already launched an attack to stop the implementation of the new law that poses to destroy businesses and put thousands of people out of work.  The ACLU and other civil rights groups contend that the new law does not "adequately protect against racial biases and disparities that permeate our justice system."  Law enforcement, the entire bail industry, civil rights groups, and defense attorneys all oppose SB 10 for very different reasons.  As noted in my post yesterday, all groups contend that the law goes too far, albeit in opposite directions.

Is there a compromise that can be reached that will not eviscerate the bail bond industry, will keep dangerous people locked up, ensure their appearance at trial, and take into account a person's ability to afford pretrial release so that poor defendants who pose a low risk of pretrial misconduct are not being preventatively detained at higher rates? 

Expunging DNA and Retroactive Laws

| No Comments
California collects DNA samples from people convicted of felonies or the juvenile court equivalent. Proposition 47 reclassified many felonies as misdemeanors and allowed reclassification of old convictions. If a pre-Prop. 47 felony conviction is reclassified as a misdemeanor, is the defendant entitled to expunge his DNA from the database?

No, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously today in In re C.B., No. S237801.

The decision is mostly an exercise in statutory interpretation which may not have much relevance to other states. Another interesting aspect of the case, though, is the effect of retroactively applying changes in the law when the prosecutors would likely have charged the same conduct differently if current law had been in effect then.
It is now official that White House Counsel Don McGahn will depart once the Kavanaugh nomination is wrapped up. He has been there most of two years, not an unusual length of time to hold the position.

In the WSJ, Michael Bender has this article on Mr. McGahn's departure and possible successors, and the paper has this editorial titled: "Don McGahn's Quiet Achievement: The departing White House counsel helped remake the judiciary."

Mr. Trump promised to be "the law-and-order President," and among the most important and longest-lasting steps toward fulfilling that promise is appointing judges with a sufficient appreciation of the public-safety implications of court rulings. That applies to the lower courts as well as the Supreme Court. I do not expect the President personally to be paying a lot of attention to the lower court choices, so it is vital that the White House Counsel be someone who keeps law enforcement front and center in making selections.
California's bail bond industry wasted no time launching a referendum challenge to the new bail bill reported in Kym's post earlier today, the Sacramento Bee reports.

Under Article II § 9 of the California Constitution, opponents of the bill have 90 days to gather signatures equal to 5% of the vote in the last gubernatorial election, about 366,000.

In the battles over the earlier initiatives to reduce a swath of felonies to misdemeanors (Prop. 47) and to give the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation carte blanche to give get-out-of-prison early credit (Prop. 57), the supporters faced only weakly funded opposition. The people never really knew the implications of what they were voting on. This time, having legislated the complete destruction of an entire industry, the people who spent their careers building those businesses will dig deep both to qualify the referendum and to promote it.  The Bee reports:

David Quintana, a lobbyist for the California Bail Agents Association, said he believes the referendum will be "overwhelmingly successful," because Californians are tired of the stream of recent laws rolling back tough criminal statutes and sentencing laws to reduce the state's overcrowded prison population.

"The public is going to rise up and support stronger public safety," he said.

If they gather the signatures in time, the effective date of the bill will be postponed until November 2020, unless the Governor calls a special election.  If he does that, the Prop. 47/57 fix initiative will also get an earlier vote. (See Art. II § 8(c).)  Stay tuned.

Partial Fix to Cal. Diversion Bill

| No Comments
Last week I noted a disastrous change to California law on mental health diversion that was sneaked through the Legislature. Today the Assembly passed a bill to make the change somewhat less disastrous.  SB 215 would exclude some of the more serious offenses.  Dan Morain at CalMatters notes this bill among others. Scroll about half way down. Morain also notes the bail bill described in Kym's post.

California eliminates cash bail

| 1 Comment
California Governor Jerry Brown signed "sweeping legislation" into law yesterday that will completely eliminate all cash bail for pretrial detainees as of October 1, 2019, and replace it with "risk assessments" and non-monetary conditions of release.  

SB 10, co-authored by Senator Bob Hertzberg (D - Los Angles) and Assemblyman Rod Bonta (D - Alameda), was first introduced in the Senate in December 2016.  The Bill was co-sponsored by the ACLU and had the support of multiple civil rights groups.  Bail reform advocates argued that cash bail systems unfairly punished the poor--those with money could buy their freedom, while low income individuals could not.  They argued that the ability to pay had nothing to do with whether an arrested individual is a danger to the public or likely to flee pre-trial.  Advocates were pushing for reforms that implemented risk assessment tools to better help guide judges in making decisions as to who should be detained pre-trial.  Only those who are dangerous or flight risks should be detained.  Eliminating cash bail altogether, however, was not on the table. 

Judge Kavanaugh on National Security

| No Comments
The ACLU is among the most reliable contrarian indicators on matters related to constitutional law. On issues where the vote is likely to be close, a member of Congress could simply look at the ACLU position and vote the other way and do pretty well.

At SCOTUSblog, the review of Judge Kavanaugh's opinions on national security matters is written by Jonathan Hafetz, "a senior staff attorney in the Center for Democracy at the American Civil Liberties Union." The tone of the review is quite negative. Just as stock market commentators turning bearish is a buy signal, a negative review from the ACLU is an endorsement.

Mr. Hafetz seems to be displeased with Judge Kavanaugh's concurrence in the case of Al-Bahlul v. United States.  The per curiam opinion in that case begins, "Bahlul is a member of al Qaeda who assisted Osama bin Laden in planning the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States." That is, he was a fully participating conspirator in the murder of nearly three thousand people. Mr. Hafetz notes that "in his concurring opinion, Kavanaugh remarked that the Constitution does not 'impose international law as a limit on Congress's authority to make offenses triable by military commission.' " Yes, we decided quite some time back that the United States would be "free and independent." International law is something that Congress and the President should consider in deciding what actions to take, but it is not something that judges should invoke in striking down an Act of Congress. In a bit more context, Judge Kavanaugh wrote:

That is apparent from five sources of law: the text and original understanding of Article I, the overall structure of the Constitution, landmark Supreme Court precedent, longstanding federal statutes, and deeply rooted U.S. military commission practice.

First, the text and original understanding of Article I demonstrate that international law does not impose a limit on Congress's authority to make offenses triable by military commission.

Imagine that, not only looking to the text and original understanding of the Constitution, but looking to them first. That is really the only approach to constitutional interpretation that is consistent with a respect for the people's right of self-government, i.e., democracy. The Constitution means what the people meant it to mean until the people, not the courts, change it.


Mr. Hafetz concludes:

And given that a Justice Kavanaugh would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy -- the swing vote in several key national security cases (such as Boumediene v. Bush, in which the Supreme Court held that Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus) -- his impact in this area of the law could bring significant change when such cases reach the court.
Given that Boumediene was wrongly decided (see CJLF brief), that would be a significant change in the correct direction.
Rory Little has this post at SCOTUSblog titled "Judge Kavanaugh's record in criminal cases." The post does not cover Fourth Amendment cases (much), previously covered by Orin Kerr, or the enemy combatant cases, to be covered later by Jonathan Hafetz.

As I noted previously, D.C. Circuit judges get a lot fewer criminal law cases than the judges of the numbered circuits, so there isn't a lot there. Rory characterizes what there is as "a relatively bland body of work," consistent with my own reading. He notes a number of pro-defendant opinions. There is an ineffective assistance case where trial counsel did not introduce expert testimony of battered woman syndrome in a case where duress was the defense, United States v. Nwoye. The disagreement between Judge Kavanaugh's majority opinion for the defendant and Judge Sentelle's dissent is really a fact-bound assessment of Strickland prejudice, not the admissibility of BWS evidence generally.  Rory also notes a few pro-defendant cases taking a strict view of mental state (mens rea) requirements. I agree with Rory that there is nothing exciting here.

On the Fourth Amendment, Rory links to Orin's post but also gives us a linguistic note:

But I noticed an odd repetition in my review: On more than one occasion, Kavanaugh has begun an opinion by saying: "This is a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule case." Might this portend his agreement with some Supreme Court justices, that the "exclusionary rule" adopted universally in 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio should be reconsidered?

Rory is struck by this "odd repetition" and I am struck that Rory finds it odd.

Braiding While Unlicensed

| 1 Comment
There may be no better example of overcriminalization than the 2014 arrest of Melek Ustunluk in Passaic, New Jersey for the crime of braiding hair without a license.  Taylor Tiamoyo Harris had this story at NJ.com in May on the controversy and the bipartisan legislation then going through the New Jersey Legislature to fix it.

Well, Governor Phil Murphy vetoed the bill.  The WSJ has this editorial titled A Hair-Brained Veto.
The number of cases in which the prosecution seeks the death penalty has been declining for years. Among principal reasons are a decline in the number of murders and greater selectivity on the part of prosecutors in seeking the death penalty. Among the old cases, there are some (e.g., Lockett v. Ohio) that leave one wondering what distinguishes this murder from the many in which the death penalty is not sought. That is far less common in more recent cases.

Alameda County, California is a large county including the City of Oakland and a lot of other areas as well. It voted 79% for Hillary Clinton in 2018, second only to San Francisco in lopsidedness among California counties.

District Attorney Nancy O'Malley has been DA since 2009, and just last June fended off a Soros-financed opponent.  See this post from June and this column by Dan Walters at CalMatters.

Yet even in Alameda, there are some cases that cry out for the death penalty. Angela Ruggiero reports for the East Bay Times:

In only the second time in her career, District Attorney Nancy O'Malley will pursue the death penalty for defendant Mark Estrada, accused of killing Sgt. Scott Lunger, 48, a Brentwood father of two. Lunger was fatally shot in the head and thigh shortly after he approached a white Chevrolet Silverado he had stopped for swerving in the roadway at 3:15 a.m. July 22, 2015, in Hayward.

When the Tables Were Turned

| 19 Comments
One way to evaluate an objection is to look at what happened when the tables were turned. David Harsanyi writes in the Federalist concerning the latest objection to the Kavanaugh nomination:

Then again, the idea that mere suspicion of criminality is enough to stop a president from engaging in his constitutional duty is a completely new one, designed, as most things these days, only for Trump.

The Whitewater investigation went on for nearly 3,000 days. Did that mean that any court with Stephen Breyer, nominated after an independent investigation was launched, became "fundamentally illegitimate?" I mean, that investigation ended up convicting 15 friends and allies of the Clintons for over 40 crimes, including felonies like fraud, bribery and embezzlement. Talk about a "cloud of suspicion." Clinton himself was impeached, not on campaign finance charges, but on obstruction of justice and perjury. His wife was under investigation throughout most of her 2016 campaign, and not one serious person claimed that her SCOTUS nominees would be "illegitimate."

In a comment to my previous post on the subject, Ward notes the Republicans' stalling of the Merrick Garland nomination, but here the table-turning indicator points the other way. In that case the Republicans did exactly what the Democratic leaders said they were prepared to do if a vacancy had arisen in the last year of the Bush Administration, when the situation was precisely reversed.

On the supposed "illegitimacy" objection, I do not recall anyone even mentioning such a thing during the Clinton Administration. The objection is entirely novel, fabricated just for this moment.

Curiouser and Curiouser

| 3 Comments
"'Curiouser and curiouser!' Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)."  -- Lewis Carroll

So goes the Senate's nomination process for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  The Washington Times reports:

Democratic senators demanded Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation be put on hold, saying he's too tainted by President Trump's potential legal troubles.
If you reacted to that by saying, "Huh?  How can a case with no connection to Judge Kavanaugh possibly 'taint' him?" welcome to the club.

Further down the article, we get this explanation: "In one law review article, he said a sitting president shouldn't be subject to a civil or criminal investigation."  Has anyone making that argument actually read the article?

News Scan

| 10 Comments
Illegal Sentenced For Multiple Rapes:  An Illinois judge has sentenced an illegal alien to 80 years in prison for the rapes of two women.  Ted Sloik of the Chicago Tribune reports that 37-year-old Miguel Luna was ordered deported in 2012, but he was never removed.  Three years later Luna attacked a woman running on a trail, beating and raping her.  In 2016 he attacked another woman on the same trail.  After his arrest, Luna confessed to raping a third woman, who died before his trial.  Luna did not dispute the charges, but claimed that his abusive childhood mitigated his responsibility for the attacks.    
Judge Ikuta of the Ninth Circuit takes us on a detailed tour of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4 and its 2016 amendments in In re Pangang Group Co., Ltd., No. 17-72370.

News Scan

| 10 Comments
Illegal Arrested in Mollie Tibbetts Murder:  Police have arrested an illegal alien for the murder of Iowa co-ed Mollie Tibbetts, whose body was found in a cornfield today.  The Associated Press reports that 24-year-old Cristhian Bahena Rivera, an illegal alien from Mexico, has been charged with first-degree murder, after he was identified with the victim on surveillance video on the day she disappeared.  ABC News reports that, following his arrest, Rivera told detectives that he had confronted the 20-year-old student while she was jogging in her neighborhood on July 18.  He said that when she threatened to call the police if he did not leave her alone, he "blacked out," and when he awoke Tibbetts was dead.  DHS reports that Rivera has been living in the country illegally for at least 4 years.   
Chicago's top cop told reporters Monday that the failure to jail repeat offenders is to the blame for the city's out-of-control gun violence.  Chris Irvine at Fox News reports that Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, who has been calling for tougher punishment for repeat gun offenders, spoke out on Monday after the city's second bloodiest weekend of the year, with 58 shootings leaving seven dead.  The violence has continued even after the city deployed and additional 600 officers to high crime neighborhoods.  Apparently, no gathering is off limits for gang shootings, including a back-to-school peace rally at a playground Saturday night, where three people were shot.  Chicago police are under one of the most restrictive consent decrees in the country, signed off by Mayor Rahm Emanuel to quell "black lives matter" protests over police shootings of black males and Obama Justice Department claims that police used racial profiling to target minorities, as reported last year by the Los Angeles Times.     
The title is taken from this article by veteran California political commentator Dan Walters at CalMatters regarding the California Legislature's practice of putting together a hodgepodge of legislation in a single bill near the end of the session and calling it a "budget trailer" bill.  Legislative rules for the budget are different from those for other legislation, but the "trailer" bills are just items that "affect" the budget, and nearly everything does.  As noted in my post last week, this evasion of the constitutional single-subject rule was used this year to stick a horrifying stack of "get out of jail free" cards into a health funding measure.  Walters describes this debacle:

A prime example occurred two months ago when one of the trailer bills was loaded up with a massive rewrite of the state's criminal laws, allowing virtually anyone convicted of a felony, even rape or murder, to avoid prison if they are declared in need of psychiatric treatment and they receive it for two years.

Gov. Jerry Brown, who has made softening California's criminal laws a hallmark of his final term, backed the change but prosecutors howled that it was a get-out-of-jail card for vicious criminals and complained, with good reason, about the diversion language being buried in a massive "trailer bill" relating to social services rather than being openly debated and decided.

How Low Can They Go?

| 2 Comments

With California's Legislature and Governor hell-bent on passing as much pro-criminal, anti-victim, anti-law-abiding-people, anti-law-enforcement legislation as they possibly can, I have begun to wonder if there is any bottom.  Is there any depth below which they will not sink?  Is there any depth below which the voters will wake up and vote the bums out?

Maybe.  The pro-criminal forces recently sneaked a major change in criminal law through the Legislature by tucking it in to a "budget trailer" bill having to do with funding health programs.  With the sloppy wording that has become so common in pro-criminal legislation, the bill would allow any judge to "divert" any criminal, including murderers and rapists, from prosecution merely upon a finding that the defendant has a mental health diagnosis and that it "played a significant role" in the offense.

The state's district attorneys are, naturally, up in arms.  Mental disorder is a broad category, and it gets broader with each edition of the psychiatrists' manual.  We are presently on the DSM-5; if present trends continue we will all be mentally disordered by the DSM-8.  "Significant role" is so broad and vague that it could mean just about anything.

Don't think for a minute that every judge would apply mental health standards with appropriate discretion.  Back in 2005, a federal judge in Connecticut tried to hold up the execution of a notorious serial rapist/murderer because he thought the "diagnosis" of sadism was powerfully mitigating.  See this post.

The outcry is so loud that even Governor Brown may be backing down.  A fix is reported to be in the works to ram through the Legislature in its waning hours.  We'll see.

On another front, the police unions are correctly outraged about a bill that would severely limit the use of deadly force relative to current law and greatly expand the exposure of officers to homicide prosecutions.  We will see if they can get this bill killed.  If not, it will be yet one more reason for anyone seeking a career in law enforcement to leave California and go elsewhere.  And when they are gone, "who ya gonna call?"
Every bill in Congress should have two names -- one attached by its supporters and one by its opponents.  H.R. 5682, passed by the House earlier this summer, is titled the FIRST STEP Act, but I would call it the Faux Pas Act.

The drive to put ever more criminals and more dangerous ones on the streets gathers steam, funded by Soros money on the left and Koch money on the libertarian side, leaving relatively few defenders of the strong and sensible policies that have been a major factor in the tremendous drop in crime since the peak in the early 1990s.  Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas is one of the few, and he has this op-ed in the WSJ with the above headline.

While the House bill has some flaws, the Senate can fix them on a bipartisan basis. But under no circumstances should Congress cut mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes or give judges more discretion to reduce those sentences. That foolish approach is not criminal-justice reform--it's a jailbreak that would endanger communities and undercut President Trump's campaign promise to restore law and order.
"Some flaws" is an understatement.  Here is a letter I sent Senator Cotton in July, explaining the flaws in more detail.

But wait, there's more.  Paul Mirengoff has this post at Powerline warning that an even-worse version is gaining momentum in the Senate.  I understand that version has not yet been formally introduced.  Let's hope that the misguided Senators see what they are doing before they take the whole country down California's downward path.

Rejecting Drug Company Meddling

| No Comments
A drug manufacturer, Fresenius Kabi, tried to stop today's Nebraska execution by filing suit in federal court.  The District Judge Richard Kopf rejected the attempt Friday, and a panel of the Eighth Circuit, Judges Wollman, Gruender, and Stras, affirmed yesterday.  The unpublished opinion is "per curiam," meaning none of the panel judges is designated as the author.

The key portion is after the break.

Overdue Justice in Nebraska

| 6 Comments
Martha Stoddard reports in the Omaha World-Herald:

LINCOLN -- Maynard Helgeland turned to driving a taxicab because he could do the job with two prosthetic legs.

He had lost his legs as a result of an alcohol addiction that also cost him his marriage and damaged relationships with his three children

But by Aug. 27, 1979, Helgeland had gotten sober and was working to reconnect with his children until he was shot in the head after picking up a fare.

That fare, Carey Dean Moore, is scheduled to be executed Tuesday for killing Helgeland and a second cabdriver five days earlier.
*      *      *
Reuel Van Ness enjoyed the time he spent taking people around Omaha in his taxicab.

He drove the cab to supplement his other jobs. The money came in handy to help support his family of 10 children and stepchildren.

But the job cost Van Ness his life on Aug. 22, 1979, when a fare shot him three times and stole $140.

Mr. Helgeland and Mr. Van Ness were both veterans of the Korean War.  Moore was finally executed today.

The headlines are all about the use of fentanyl and the resumption of executions after a long hiatus, but I think it is good to remember the victims first.

Mad Rush

| No Comments
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee announced Friday that confirmation hearings on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court will commence September 4.  Minority Leader Charles Schumer denounced the scheduled date as a "mad rush."  Bryan Tau and Brett Kendall have this story in the WSJ.

The following table gives the number of days from nomination to the commencement of hearings for the last four Justices nominated by Democratic Party Presidents and the scheduled date for Judge Kavanaugh:


Nominee Nominated Hearing BeginsDays
Ruth Ginsburg 22-Jun-1993 20-Jul-1993 28
Stephen Breyer 17-May-1994 12-Jul-1994 56
Sonia Sotomayor 01-Jun-2009 13-Jul-2009 42
Elena Kagan 10-May-2010 28-Jun-2010 49


Average 43.75
Brett Kavanaugh 10-Jul-2018 04-Sep-2018 56

A similar calculation for the total time from nomination to confirmation shows that if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed in a "mad rush" equal to the average for the above four nominees, he will be on the Court by September 17, in time to participate in the "Long Conference" and the opening of the new term.

Strzok Fired

| 2 Comments
Del Quentin Wilber and Sadie Gurman report for the WSJ:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has fired agent Peter Strzok, whose anti-Donald Trump text messages prompted sharp criticism over his handling of two politically charged investigations.

His attorney, Aitan Goelman, said Mr. Strzok was fired Friday. The FBI didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Strzok was the lead agent on the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state. He later served as the lead agent in the early days of special counsel Robert Mueller's inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Mr. Mueller removed him from the probe a year ago, after the Justice Department inspector general uncovered Mr. Strzok's exchange of tens of thousands of text messages from 2015 through 2017 with a former FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair.

Mr. Strzok testified in July on Capitol Hill that he never permitted his views to affect his official actions, a stance Republicans contested.

News Scan

| 3 Comments
Tennessee Executes Child Killer:  For the first time since 2009, Tennessee executed a condemned murderer Thursday amid claims that the three-drug execution cocktail amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.  CBS News reports that Billy Ray Irick's execution took 14 minutes, after he coughed, took deep breaths and turned dark purple.  About 50 protesters were outside the prison during the execution.  Irick was sentenced to death for the 1985 rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl he was babysitting.  His attorneys attempted to stop the execution with claims that the use of the sedative midazolam would allow pain.  In her dissent from the SCOTUS denial of a stay, Associate Justice Sonya Sotomayor asserted the Tennessee protocol could cause "torturous pain."  I suspect that the little girl that Irick raped and killed probably suffered more pain.  Gotta love how Yahoo News covers this  execution...leading with the headline from a British newspaper (The Independent) which reads, "Tennessee executes child killer Billy Ray Irick with drug that inflicts `torturous pain.' " How does reporter Toyin Owoseje know that this is true?  She doesn't...but  she takes Justice Sotomoyer view about the possibility and Irick's attorney's arguendo and makes it an absolute.  That is fake news.   


News Scan

| No Comments
9th Grants Right to Sue to Foreign National:  In a strikingly blunt opinion, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit announced that a Mexican mother, whose son on the Mexican side of the border was shot and killed by a U.S. border agent on the American side, can sue for damages.  Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times reports that agent Lonnie Swartz shot and killed Jose Antonio Rodriguez, who was allegedly among a group of youths throwing rocks at him from the Mexican side of the border.  A jury acquitted Swartz of murder and deadlocked on a manslaughter charge, before Rodriquez's mother filed a civil rights suit for damages.  The ruling, authored by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, conflicts with a 5th Circuit decision in a similar case which held that foreign nationals do not have a right to sue.  In a dissenting opinion, 9th Circuit Judge Milan Smith warned that the majority has taken the judiciary into "uncharted territory" which may violate the separation of powers.  CJLF filed a brief in the Supreme Court's 2017 review of the 5th Circuit decision, which the high court punted back for further review.     
Ken Ritter reports for AP:

Fifteen states are siding with Nevada in a state Supreme Court fight against drug companies suing to prevent the use of their products to execute a condemned inmate.

In what a national death penalty expert on Tuesday called a setup for a showdown, documents filed with the Nevada Supreme Court argue that drug company Alvogen's effort to block the use of its sedative midazolam in the stalled execution of Scott Raymond Dozier in Nevada is part of a "guerrilla war against the death penalty."

"The families of these victims deserve justice," Arkansas' state Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said in a statement Tuesday. Arkansas is leading the 15 states that include Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.

"If Alvogen is allowed to succeed," the Monday friend of the court filing said, "there is a substantial risk that pharmaceutical companies -- prodded by anti-death penalty activists and (defense attorneys) -- will flood the courts with similar last-minute filings every time a state attempts to see justice done."
Senator Charles Grassley has this op-ed in the WSJ with the above title.  The subtitle is "He admits his mind is made up on Kavanaugh. That means his document demands are in bad faith."

Karl Marx's variation on a theme by Georg Hegel, slightly rephrased, goes, "History repeats itself -- the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

The attack on SCOTUS nominee Robert Bork in 1987 was a tragedy.  The savage and dishonest attack on Judge Bork by Senators Ted Kennedy et al. demeaned the process and polluted the waters.  The waters cleared somewhat when Republicans treated President Clinton's nominees far better but then turned foul again in later years.

The farce appeared this year, when protest signs were printed in advance of the nomination announcement, with a blank to be filled in with the nominee's name.

Now we have Senator Schumer, who announces that he will fight all-out war against this nomination the day after it is announced and yet demands an astonishing volume of documents, detailed in the op-ed.  The reason one would need documents is to evaluate a nominee to reach a decision, but Senator Schumer has already irrevocably made his decision.

The documents demanded include records from Judge Kavanaugh's time as White House staff secretary, an unprecedented intrusion into the heart of a coordinate branch of government.  If a future Democratic President nominates an aide to Senator Schumer to the bench, will Republicans be entitled to every private document from Senator Schumer's office?  Don't bet the farm on it.

When all is said and done, I suspect, Senator Schumer will not have the votes to turn his farce into tragedy.  That will be a good result for the country, its people, and its Constitution.
The title may sound like a hodgepodge of unrelated items, but they are all involved in a case that the U.S. Supreme Court sent back to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) today, Abdirahman v. U.S., No. 17-243.

Case 17-243 was a joint petition of 165 service members convicted of various offenses.  One of them, Lt. Col. Michael Briggs, was convicted in 2014 of a rape that occurred in 2005.

The military statute of limitations, 10 U.S.C. § 843 (UCMJ Art. 43), as it read in 2005, had (and still has) a general, "except as otherwise provided," limit of five years in subdivision (b)(1).  Subdivision (a) at the time read:

A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war, or with any offense punishable by death, may be tried and punished at any time without limitation.
Was rape an "offense punishable by death" under the UCMJ in 2005?

NEWS SCAN

| No Comments
Chicago Weekend; 74 shot, 11 dead:   The first weekend in August has added another 74 shootings to the estimated 1,700 which have occurred in Chicago so far this year.  Madeline Buckley of the Chicago Tribune reports that eleven people died and 63  were wounded in shootings mostly on the South and West sides of the city.   The victim's ages ranged from 11 to 62.  A police official told reporters that most of the violence was by gang members who shoot into summer crowds at night.   Two 17-year-olds, shot in separate incidents, were the youngest homicide victims.  Tribune data indicates that at least 300 people have died in Chicago shootings this year.   Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald has this take on the reasons for this violence in today's City Journal.
Victor Joecks reports for the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Aaron Ford's future would look a lot brighter if he'd been more honest in the past.

Last Friday, Ford -- the state Senate majority leader and the Democratic candidate for attorney general -- sat down with Steve Sebelius of KLAS-TV, Channel 8, to reveal he had been arrested numerous times in the 1990s. The reasons for his run-ins with the police included stealing, public intoxication and failing to appear in court.

"These things are not at all indicative of who I am," said Ford. "I would hope that people are able to look at the body of work over the last 25 years of my life and be able to judge me on that and not judge me on bad decisions I made as a college kid."

Ford then went further, asserting it was "illegitimate" to discuss his arrest record as he seeks to become Nevada's chief law enforcement officer. That's some chutzpah.

But Ford's larger contention -- that he's moved past the mistakes of his youth -- is undone by his recent and repeated dishonesty.

The Chief Takes the Ninth

| 2 Comments
The U.S. Supreme Court is officially one justice short today, and the Court has issued a new order assigning circuit justices to the various federal circuits.  Chief Justice Roberts has taken on the Ninth Circuit, formerly assigned to Justice Kennedy (Ret.), on top of his D.C., Fourth, and Federal Circuit assignments.

The circuit justice alone typically decides on certain extension requests, and their strictness or laxity varies.  The late Justice Scalia was the strictest.

Requests to stay a lower court decision are formally addressed to the circuit justice, although absent an emergency the circuit justice generally refers the application to the full court.  Justice Thomas, assigned to the Eleventh Circuit, grants short-term, single-justice stays in capital cases more often than the others, to give the Court time to consider the petition without an execution clock ticking.
You know a court opinion is deeply dishonest when its very first sentence invokes a blatant fallacy of logic.  Here is the first sentence of today's majority opinion from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit in the "sanctuary cities" case, San Francisco v. Trump:

This appeal presents the question of whether, in the absence of congressional authorization, the Executive Branch may withhold all federal grants from so-called "sanctuary" cities and counties.
That is false.  The defendants in this case do not claim any such power, and therefore that question is not presented.  Their position, fully expressed in the briefing (and supported by CJLF in its amicus brief) is that the Executive Order's limitation to means "consistent with law" limits the withholding of grants to those where Congress has authorized withholding.  These include, consistent with the interpretation by the Obama Administration DoJ, the Byrne grants for local law enforcement.

It is one thing to interpret the Executive Order differently, as the majority does.  It is quite another to flatly misstate what the controversy is in the opening sentence of the opinion.  The question presented is whether the Executive Order requires withholding all grants, not whether it may constitutionally do so.  This is the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.  The majority begins by assuming one side's interpretation of the Executive Order, dodging the real question for most of the opinion only to brush it off in a few paragraphs deep within.  The majority also commits the straw man fallacy, attacking an argument the defendants did not make, thus being doubly fallacious.

Judge Fernandez in dissent gets it right.  The order is addressed not to the cities but to two cabinet officers.  Those officers have interpreted the order to limit the defunding to grants statutorily conditioned on compliance.  There is, therefore, no "ripe" controversy as to other grants.

The majority does get one thing partially right.  The district judge was not justified in making his decision effective nationwide, at least on this record.

The panel opinion in the court of appeals is usually the last full consideration in a typical case, but of course this is not the typical case.  This case is headed for rehearing by a larger 11-judge panel, at least, and probably to the Supreme Court.

The Summary of Argument from CJLF's brief follows the break:

Monthly Archives