03 June 2003
Discussion of how someone can be accused of murder without a body and why the law of England allows such a thing. Of course, the starting point of this discussion is the fact that a man was charged with murder and there was no body because the woman was alive and well.
.
The FBI detained "almost 800 immigrants after the terrorist attacks. Under the veil of court-approved secrecy, detainees were held for long periods without charges even when they clearly had nothing to do with terrorism, were denied access to lawyers and were blocked from immigration courts."
"The Justice Department's policy was to hold detainees until they were cleared by the FBI. But the FBI, the audit says, made little effort to distinguish between terrorism suspects and immigrants found accidentally as agents followed up leads. Detentions averaged 80 days rather than the few days expected by the Justice Department, which failed to review and expedite cases."
"Now the officials who crafted the Bush administration's seize-and-hold policies are being advised to get lawyers."
Not much more I can say about that.
.
When the undercover agent who makes the case gets caught in perjury the defendants will walk away.
.
"[T]he United States has overtaken Russia and has a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any other country."
Kind of ironic that an article from "three strikes yer out" California should bemoan prison rates.
Article found courtesy of UK Criminal Justice Webllog.
.
El-Amin wants to be tried in Norfolk. And he wants his wife's lawyer disqualified. And he wants his wife's guilty plea suspended. And he wants his wife not to be able to testify against him. And . . . And . . .
I think he might be right on the motion to change jurisdiction; I'm not sure he can get a fair trial where people know him.
.
Prosecutorial abuse. What level of arrogance could lead you to believe that you can listen to priviliged communication between the Defendant and his attorney?
I've never seen a prosecutor go to that length. What is wrong out on the left coast?
What disturbs me most about this article is that the prosecutor doesn't even deny it. Maybe there will be explanation or denial forthcoming.
.
02 June 2003
The Japanese journalist who killed people by being stupid enough to carry live munitions and arming it got 24 months in a Jordanian prison.
"Officials privately expected the king to pardon the journalist, noting that Japan is one of Jordan's major financial donors."
.
The continuing Malvo saga:
Remember I predicted that the judge would find that the Virginia charges are not statutorily barred?
"[Fairfax Circuit Judge Jane Marum] Roush agreed with local prosecutors who argued that the federal charges were carefully crafted to avoid such a conflict, noting that the federal charges say nothing about the Oct. 14 shooting of FBI analyst Linda Franklin, for which Malvo is facing trial in Fairfax County."But, of course, "[t]here is no evidence that Fairfax police or prosecutors colluded with federal authorities to spirit Malvo away to Virginia without the knowledge of his Maryland attorneys with the hopes or intention of interrogating him when he was without counsel or the right to counsel." Nope, no evidence they were colluding beforehand at all. None.
And the judge is still trying to decide whether or not to move the trial location.
.
This is hilarious for everyone but the Victim and the AUSA who had to argue this with a straight face (from How Appealing):
At a United States Marshals Service ("USMS") auction held in San Diego, California on July 15, 1999, Cervantes, a 67-year-old Mexican national and resident, purchased the vehicle that would lead to his first and, according to the record before us, only experience with criminal law enforcement. Some four months earlier, the vehicle had been seized by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") in connection with its use in transporting undocumented aliens. Cervantes alleges that neither the INS nor the USMS properly searched the vehicle prior to its sale at auction and that, if they had, they would have discovered 119 pounds of marijuana secreted in its bumpers. Cervantes remained similarly unaware of the contraband until its discovery by United States Customs agents as he attempted to cross the United States border on October 22, 1999. Although Cervantes denied knowledge of the marijuana and informed the agents that he had purchased the vehicle at a USMS auction, he was arrested and incarcerated for importing illegal drugs into the United States. The United States moved to dismiss all charges, according to Cervantes, after it realized that it had failed to remove the marijuana after the vehicle's initial seizure. He was released on February 9, 2000, having spent three and onehalf months in prison.And here's the paragraph with which the opinion began:
Although rare, on occasion, we see arguments that simply fail the straight-face test. The United States' assertion that the "detention of goods" exception to the sovereign immunity waiver under the Federal Tort Claims Act applies to its negligent failure to remove 119 pounds of marijuana hidden in a car it sold to Jose Aguado Cervantes, whom it later incarcerated for "transporting" those very drugs, is one. Although we agree with the district court that Cervantes cannot recover damages for false imprisonment or false arrest because the customs agents had reasonable cause to believe his arrest was lawful, the United States' defense to his negligence claim is patently without merit. We therefore affirm the district court's order dismissing Cervantes's false imprisonment and false arrest claims, and reinstate Cervantes's negligence claim.CERVANTES v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 01-56929 (9th Cir., 02 June 2003).
I can't believe that the government didn't pay to make this one go away.
.
Remember when the Arlington police went into bars and started arresting people who were sitting peacefully drinking for drunk in public? In the bar?
This is possibly one of the dumbest abuses of police power I have seen and at least one judge agrees with me.
.
Trying the involuntary intoxication defense.
Been there, done that. My case concerned Halcion (triazolam). Doctors keep prescribing all these meds and half the time I don't think they know about the hazardous effects. In fact, I'm not sure how they could keep up with the number of drugs out there and the work done by medical companies' PR and Legal departments.
.
Exile is still out there and it's augmented by Virginia Exile. No kidding. Most of the jury trials I have are Exile cases. When you mandate that someone will spend 5 years in jail, he will take a jury.
.
Shoot a minister - lose your right to hunt. Gotta feel sorry for the guy though. The minister was walking thru the woods, during hunting season, without any orange or red on a rainy day. He didn't deserve to be shot but he sure as heck wasn't being all that smart. Still, the hunter never saw a deer, he just shot at what he assumed was a tail flash. He deserved to lose his license; he's lucky that he's not going to jail.
.
Based on one event judges and legislators are trying to abrogate the right to bond. Before they do so, I want to see statistics - I suspect that the vast majority of people bonded on this sort of offense don't harm anyone. But you don't make zealots like MADD happy by using the facts; they would abrogate the rights of all in order to stop the one.
.
Another regional jail. I hate these things. They are always so far out of the way that it is almost impossible to go see your clients.
,
The Florida Veil Case: An opinion here and another opinion here. And from day by day:
I don't know Florida's constitution but I do know that since Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith,494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (1990), her case does not have legs under the federal constitution:
"[D]ecisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)." United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263, n. 3, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 1058, n. 3, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); see Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Gobitis, supra, 310 U.S., at 595, 60 S.Ct., at 1013 (collecting cases). In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944), we held that a mother could be prosecuted under the child labor laws for using her children to dispense literature in the streets, her religious motivation notwithstanding. We found no constitutional infirmity in "excluding [these children] from doing there what no other children may do." Id., at 171, 64 S.Ct., at 444. In Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961) (plurality opinion), we upheld Sunday-closing laws against the claim that they burdened the religious practices of persons whose religions compelled them to refrain from work on other days. In Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 461, 91 S.Ct. 828, 842, 28 L.Ed.2d 168 (1971), we sustained the military Selective Service System against the claim that it violated free exercise by conscripting persons who opposed a particular war on religious grounds.If you don't believe me then go look up City of Boerne v. Flores,
Our most recent decision involving a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by an individual's religion was United States v. Lee, 455 U.S., at 258-261, 102 S.Ct., at 1055-1057. There, an Amish employer, on behalf of himself and his employees, sought exemption from collection and payment of Social Security taxes on the ground that the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs. We rejected the claim that an exemption was constitutionally required. There would be no way, we observed, to distinguish the Amish believer's objection to Social Security taxes from the religious objections that others might have to the collection or use of other taxes. "If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief." Id., at 260, 102 S.Ct., at 1056-57. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 109 S.Ct. 2136, 104 L.Ed.2d 766 (1989) (rejecting free exercise challenge to payment of income taxes alleged to make religious activities more difficult)."
521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997), wherein the federal supreme court struck down an attempt by the Congress to change this standard to one which would be more favorable to allowing a picture with the veil.
Look, the State of Florida has a valid nuetral reason for this law. Police need a way to make initial identification on the road. Is it perfect? No. But it is the least intrusive most practicable method available. The other options might include a nationwide database with everybody's fingerprint or retinal scan available to each and every officer on the street. However, on top of the frightening civil liberty aspects, this would require each State and the fedgov to do a massive (impracticable) investment in technology in each patrol vehicle. Of course, assuming the database, there is always the option of having everyone whom the officers pull over taken into custody and delivered down to the station to have him/her checked. Of course, then each and every 15 minute stop the officer makes on his shift turns into a hour long debacle and would probably turn street enforcement into a myth.
If anyone has a less intrusive, nuetral-purpose option I am open to hearing it.
.
The message here? If you boast that you "confronted the criminal justice system and won" you probably shouldn't give the feds anything else they can charge you with. And, jeepers, did this guy give them something to work with.
.
Egypt is limiting the power of its state security courts. Now, if they would just get rid of that "state of emergency" which has been in effect in Egypt since '67.
Former Manson follower Susan Atkins claims she cannot get parole because she is a political prisoner.
On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, she can't get parole because she committed a series of gruesome murders as part of the Manson "family."
.
Cockfighters in Louisiana are going to court claiming that the federal law against cockfighting is unconstitutional.
"Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president with the Humane Society of the United States, a staunch opponent of cockfighting, said Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and that he is confident the suit will fail."
Interstate commerce? What interstate commerce? Is there a booming trade between the two States where this is not outlawed? On a purely constitutional level the plaintiff's attorney starts out making a better case:
"'The suit contends that the federal government should not be imposing its judgment on Louisiana -- that's not federalism, that's moral imperialism,' Kramer said."
Of course, then he goes on to make this impressive legal argument:
"They're dissing them, and dissing is not American."
I wonder if I can use that line the next time I write a brief to the Court of Appeals?
.
Internet news:
China has an internet police force. Who knew they had the PATRIOT Act too?
In Massachsetts, sex offenders cannot be placed on a website.
.
A rant against "the war on drugs." It makes some good points as to the rights which have been whittled away because of this but then it devolves into some of the silly arguments which are always used to try and legalize marijuana: "we have lost an excellent source of paper pulp, omega-3 fatty acids and a renewable alternative to oil."
This always strikes me as silly since I see no shortage of paper, omega-3 can be found in fish and vegetable oils, and if we really were interested in alternatives to oil we've already got "corn-squeezin's."
.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)