 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, April 16, 2008 |
 |
|


Supreme Court hears child rape death penalty case
Katerina Ossenova on April 16, 2008 3:36 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Wednesday in Kennedy v. Louisiana [Duke Law case backgrounder, merit briefs], 07-343, where the Supreme Court considered whether the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment when imposed for a crime in which the victim was not killed. Patrick Kennedy was sentenced to death in Louisiana for raping a minor, one of the few remaining crimes where the death of a victim is not required for the death penalty, and the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld [opinion, PDF] the sentence. Kennedy's lawyers argued that imposing the death penalty for child rape under Louisiana law violates the Eighth Amendment [text] protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia challenged Kennedy's argument while Justice Breyer expressed concern that allowing the execution would broaden the death penalty for crimes other than murder. AP has more.
The Supreme Court also heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Wednesday in Taylor v. Sturgell [Duke Law case backgrounder, merit briefs], 07-371, where the Court is considering whether a litigant is barred under the theory of "virtual representation" from pursuing a claim if another litigant had previously pursued a similar claim. Taylor filed a lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration seeking to compel disclosure of certain FAA documents, but the suit was dismissed when the district court determined that the claim was barred because a "close associate" of Taylor's already unsuccessfully pursued a similar claim. The US Court of Appeals for the District Court affirmed the district court based on a "virtual representation" theory, noting that Taylor and the earlier litigant sought disclosure of the same documents, were represented by the same lawyer, among other factors.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Supreme Court upholds Kentucky lethal injection protocol
Jeannie Shawl on April 16, 2008 10:19 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] ruled Wednesday that lethal injection [JURIST news archive] does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling came in Baze v. Rees [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], where lawyers for Kentucky death row inmate Ralph Baze argued that the three-drug lethal injection cocktail [DPIC backgrounder] used in most states violates the US Constitution because the first drug administered can fail to make the subject fully unconscious, thereby making the subject suffer excruciating pain when the heart-stopping drug is injected. The Supreme Court rejected Baze's arguments, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing: We too agree that petitioners have not carried their burden of showing that the risk of pain from maladministration of a concededly humane lethal injection protocol, and the failure to adopt untried and untested alternatives, constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The judgment below is affirmed. The Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in the case led to an effective moratorium on the death penalty in the United States [JURIST report] as many federal courts, state courts, and state governors put executions on hold pending the high court's ruling.
Chief Justice Roberts announced the judgment, and his opinion [text] was joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito. Alito filed a separate concurring opinion [text]. Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in the judgment [text], as did Justice Scalia [opinion text], who was joined by Justice Thomas. Thomas wrote his own opinion concurring in the judgment [text] and was joined by Scalia. Justice Breyer also filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment [text]. Finally, Justice Ginsburg dissented [text], and was joined by Justice Souter.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Supreme Court rules in sentencing enhancement cases
Jeannie Shawl on April 16, 2008 10:10 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] handed down decisions in three cases Wednesday, including Burgess v. US [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], where the Court held that a defendant's federal drug sentence can be enhanced under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) [text] when the defendant has previously been convicted of a state drug offense punishable by more than one year, even if that offense is classified as a misdemeanor, not a felony. Burgess pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, and prosecutors sought to double the normal 10-year minimum sentence to 20 years based on provisions of the CSA. Burgess had previously been convicted in South Carolina of cocaine possession, a crime classified under state law as a misdemeanor. Burgess argued that because he had not been convicted of a "felony," his federal sentence should not be enhance based on the "felony drug offense" provision [21 USC 841(b)(1)(A)] of the CSA. The Supreme Court disagreed with Burgess and affirmed the Fourth Circuit's decision [PDF text] in the case, writing: Two statutory definitions figure in our decision. Section 802(13) defines the unadorned term "felony" to mean any "offense classified by applicable Federal or State law as a felony." Section 802(44) defines the compound term "felony drug offense" to mean an offense involving specified drugs that is "punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the United States or of a State or foreign country."
The term "felony drug offense" contained in §841(b)(1)(A)'s provision for a 20-year minimum sentence, we hold, is defined exclusively by §802(44) and does not incorporate §802(13)'s definition of "felony." A state drug offense punishable by more than one year therefore qualifies as a "felony drug offense," even if state law classifies the offense as a misdemeanor. Read the Court's unanimous opinion [text] per Justice Ginsburg.
In Begay v. United States [Duke Law case backgrounder], the Court ruled that convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol do not trigger enhanced sentencing for prior "violent felony" convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Begay pleaded guilty to felony possession of a firearm, and the federal judge presiding over his case imposed an enhanced 15-year sentence under the Act, which allows the longer prison term when a defendant has at least three prior convictions for certain drug crimes or "violent felonies." Begay had 12 separate convictions in New Mexico for driving under the influence. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit allowed the enhanced sentencing [opinion, PDF], but the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that "New Mexico's crime of 'driving under the influence' falls outside the scope of the Armed Career Criminal Act's clause (ii) 'violent felony' definition." Read the Court's opinion [text] per Justice Breyer, along with a concurrence [text] from Justice Scalia, and a dissent [text] from Justice Alito.
Finally, in Baze v. Rees, the Court ruled that a three-drug lethal injection protocol used in Kentucky and many other states does not violate the Constitution [JURIST report].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

US prosecutors defend al-Marri 'enemy combatant' detention conditions as humane
Brett Murphy on April 16, 2008 9:38 AM ET

[JURIST] US federal prosecutors defended the prison treatment of accused enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri [Brennan Center case materials; NYT profile] in documents filed Tuesday with the US Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit. Prosecutors say that although al-Marri is kept in solitary confinement, he has access to a library, TV, computer, and exercise equipment. Lawyers for al-Marri said last month that the conditions of his detention were having a negative affect on his health, but prosecutors say that al-Marri enjoys much more than most military detainees, including the use of a 1,000-square-foot room and nearby cells during the day.
Last week, a lawyer for al-Marri argued in a letter [PDF text; JURIST report] submitted to the Fourth Circuit that a 2003 US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memorandum [PDF text] and a 2001 memorandum cited in the 2003 document demonstrate that al-Marri's detention "lacks legal basis" as the detention was based on now-discredited legal opinions. The appeals court is currently considering al-Marri's challenge to his designation as an enemy combatant [JURIST news archive]. In October 2007, the court held an en banc rehearing [JURIST report] of its earlier ruling [PDF text; JURIST report] that the military cannot seize and imprison civilians lawfully residing in the United States and detain them indefinitely as "enemy combatants." Al-Marri was arrested at his home in Peoria, Illinois by civilian authorities in 2001, and was indicted for alleged domestic crimes. In 2003, President George W. Bush declared him an enemy combatant [CNN report] and ordered the attorney general to transfer custody of al-Marri to the defense secretary, claiming inherent authority to hold him indefinitely. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

US officials urge Senate ratification of treaties protecting civilians in wartime
Leslie Schulman on April 16, 2008 8:12 AM ET

[JURIST] Officials from the US Department of State and the Department of Defense testified Tuesday in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [official websites], calling for the Senate to ratify five long-postponed treaties that would provide increased protection for civilians during wartime. State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger III [official profile] and Pentagon Deputy General Counsel Charles A. Allen testified [Bellinger text, PDF; Allen text, PDF] that ratification of the treaties would not harm US national security, and would induce other nations to follow suit while giving the US more leverage to negotiate future treaties.
The five texts include the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and three protocols to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW): Protocol III on Incendiary Weapons; Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons; and Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War, and an amendment to the CCW.
According to Bellinger: United States ratification of the treaties before you today is in our military and security interest and would promote the rule of law and the development of international law. These treaties are widely supported and are not contentious in our view. This Administration, including the State and Defense Departments, strongly supports these treaties. They promote our cultural and humanitarian values while not interfering with legitimate military operations, as you will shortly hear from my colleagues from the Defense Department. The United States has traditionally been at the forefront of efforts to improve the legal regime dealing with the conduct of armed conflict, in order to protect our own forces, to reduce the suffering caused by armed conflicts and to provide protection to the victims of war, in a manner consistent with legitimate military requirements. Our ratification of these instruments will therefore serve our interests in these areas. Brig. Gen. Michelle D. Johnson [official profile], a deputy director at the Pentagon, also testified [PDF text] Tuesday, supporting Bellinger's contention that the treaties would not have an adverse effect on US military missions. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Haditha Marine battalion commander court-martial postponed
Leslie Schulman on April 16, 2008 7:54 AM ET

[JURIST] A military judge Tuesday postponed the scheduled April 28 court-martial for a US Marine charged in connection with the November 2005 killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha [USMC timeline; JURIST news archive], rescheduling the trial for June 17. According to lawyers for Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani [JURIST news archive], who faces court-martial [JURIST report] for dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order based on the allegations that he failed to properly investigate the Haditha shootings, the judge postponed the court-martial in order to decide whether several military officials were under "undue command influence" to charge the Marine. Chessani, the former commander of the Third Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment [official website], did not order an immediate investigation into the deaths because he said he did not suspect any wrongdoing. It has been alleged that the civilians were murdered in cold blood [JURIST report], but Chessani said that when he first learned of allegations that the civilians were killed intentionally he thought that the claims were baseless. If convicted on all counts, Chessani could serve up to three years in prison.
Eight Marines were initially charged in connection to the Haditha incident, though charges [text] have since been dropped against five others. The court-martial of Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich [defense website], leader of the squad implicated in the killings, was postponed indefinitely [JURIST report] last month from an original March 3 start date, while 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson [defense website] faces court-martial in May on charges [JURIST report] that he made false official statements and obstructed justice in connection to the killings at Haditha. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|