[JURIST] Ohio prison officials on Tuesday conducted the first execution using a new single-drug lethal injection protocol. Death row inmate Kenneth Biros was executed after the US Supreme Court [official website] rejected [order, PDF] a last-minute stay application Tuesday morning. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had rejected [opinion, PDF] Biros's application for a stay of execution on Monday after overturning [JURIST report] a previous stay issued by the district court last month. Biros's attorneys had argued that the use of the new procedure constitutes human experimentation, but some commentators have said that the single-drug protocol is more humane than the previous three-drug method. Biros was convicted of a 1991 murder and attempted rape.

Ohio became the first state to adopt [JURIST report] the single-drug protocol last month. The state undertook a review of its lethal injection practices in September after the planed execution of inmate Romell Broom failed [JURIST reports] when a suitable vein for the drugs' administration could not be found. The new protocol consists of the intravenous injection of a single anesthetic, and provides for the intramuscular injection of two other drugs if an appropriate vein cannot be found.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Tuesday in two cases related to "honest services" fraud. In Black v. United States [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the Court heard arguments on the appeal of Canadian-born former media mogul Conrad Black [CBC profile; JURIST news archive]. The Court is considering whether the honest services clause of 18 USC § 1346 [text] applies in cases where there is no finding that the defendant or defendants "reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm" in cases of mail and wire fraud under § 1341 [text]. In 2007, Black was convicted of mail fraud and obstruction of justice and sentenced [JURIST reports] to 78 months in prison. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] Black's appeal, holding that § 1346 may be applied in a private setting regardless of whether the defendant's conduct risked any foreseeable economic harm to the victim. Counsel for the petitioners argued that § 1346 "is vague, amorphous, open-ended, and essentially, not very helpful," and that "all convictions in this case must be reversed." Counsel for the United States responded that petitioners had not previously raised the question of whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, so the Court should not rule on that issue.

In Weyhrauch v. United States [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the Court heard arguments on whether a federal honest services mail fraud prosecution under 18 USC §§ 1341 and 1346 requires proof that the conduct at issue also violated an applicable state law. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that no state law violation is required. The case involves former Alaska state representative Bruce Weyhrauch and whether he should have disclosed that he was seeking legal work from oil company Veco Corp. while he was voting on an oil tax. Counsel for the petitioner argued that § 1346 does not impose a legal duty to disclose a potential conflict of interest. Counsel for the United States argued "that when the legislator takes official action having an undisclosed conflict of interest, that's when he violates the honest services statute under the non-disclosure theory."

[JURIST] The New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-6 Monday in favor of a bill [text, PDF] that would legalize same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] in the state. This is the first time that any body in the state legislature [official website] has approved a same-sex marriage bill. The vote came after hours of debate [NYT report] with testimony from supporters and opponents of the legislation. The bill will now move before the full senate for a vote scheduled for Thursday. It is unclear whether there is enough support to approve the legislation. If passed by the full senate, the bill would then go before the state assembly, where it is more likely to pass. Outgoing Governor Jon Corzine (D) has promised to sign the bill [CNN report], but Governor-elect Chris Christie (R), who takes office next month, has vowed to veto it.

Last week, the New York Senate defeated legislation [JURIST report] to allow same-sex marriage. In November, Maine voters vetoed [JURIST report] a same-sex marriage bill passed by that state's legislature. The Maine vote came a year after California voters approved Proposition 8 [JURIST report], an amendment to the state constitution overturning the state's high court ruling [JURIST report] in favor of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is legal in four states in the US - Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont - and will be legal in New Hampshire [JURIST reports] starting January 1. New Jersey has recognized same-sex civil unions [JURIST report] since 2006.

[JURIST] Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] on Tuesday urged [press release] Philippine authorities to establish a timetable to end the martial law declared in its southern province of Maguindanao and to dismantle paramilitary groups throughout the nation. Philippines President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo [official website; BBC profile] imposed martial law [JURIST report] and suspended habeas corpus last week in response to instability in the province following a politically motivated attack that left 57 dead last month. The powerful Apmatuan clan, which has dominated the province for the better part of the last decade, was blamed for the massacre, and martial law has allowed government forces to arrest members of the clan without warrants and to force many of their armed supporters to forfeit their weapons. AI has called on the president to revoke or amend the order, stressing that, "[k]ey human rights, including the right to challenge the legality of detention, must not be violated or restricted under any circumstances." Since the institution of martial law, AI has not found any evidence of serious human rights violations, but some 70 arrests have been made without warrants and the heightened military presence has led to the displacement of more than 2,000 residents. The Congress of the Philippines [official website] is set to review [NYT report] the proclamation imposing military law on Wednesday and decide whether to support the move by a majority vote.

On Monday, the National Union of People's Lawyers (NUPL) [advocacy website] and other groups petitioned [JURIST report] the Philippines Supreme Court [official website] to reject the president's proclamation [text, PDF] imposing martial law. The groups claim that Arroyo exceeded her constitutional authority [Philippine Daily Inquirer report] to impose martial law by making the proclamation in the absence of either a rebellion or invasion, the two circumstances in which martial law is allowed under Article VII Section 18 [text] of the Philippine Constitution. The court has called on the government to issue a response to the petitions within five days.

[JURIST] The North Korean delegation to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] defended North Korea's human rights record Monday while presenting a report [text, PDF] in compliance with the UNHRC's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) [materials] process. Ambassador Ri Tcheul denied allegations of torture and claimed that serious malnutrition [Yonhap report] is no longer an issue in the country. Ri did acknowledge the occurrence of public executions [Daily NK report], but said they are only conducted for serious crimes at the request of the victims' families. Several UNHRC representatives urged the North Korean government to allow aid workers [AFP report] to bring food to its citizens, while others called on Pyongyang to allow access to the UN Special Rapporteur. The UNHRC, which has no binding authority, is expected to release its findings later this week.

In October, UN Special Rapporteur for North Korea Vitit Muntarbhorn [official profile] criticized [JURIST report] the country's "abysmal" and ongoing human rights violations in an independent report submitted to the UN General Assembly. Muntarbhorn, a Thai law professor who was appointed as a UN human rights expert in 2004, has not been allowed to enter North Korea to investigate. He based his report on testimonies of experts in the country and of North Korean emigrants. In March, Muntarbhorn told the UNHRC that he found egregious human rights violations [JURIST report] in North Korea. In October 2008, Muntarbhorn urged [JURIST report] North Korea to improve its treatment of prisoners and unsuccessful defectors, as well as to cooperate in locating kidnapped foreign citizens. In January 2008, Muntarbhorn made similar comments during his visit with a special UN envoy to Japan [JURIST report] to assess the impact of the North Korean rights situation on that country. North Korea has frequently been accused of human trafficking, press repression, and "actively committing crimes against humanity" [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] in Alvarez v. Smith [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that a challenge to an Illinois statute authorizing forfeiture of personal property used to facilitate drug crimes is moot because the parties resolved underlying disputes as to ownership of the property. The Court vacated the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had held [opinion, PDF] that some hearing was due, but had remanded the case to the district court in order to determine the applicable test. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the Court:

We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether Illinois law provides a sufficiently speedy opportunity for an individual, whose car or cash police have seized without a warrant, to contest the lawfulness of the seizure. At the time of oral argument, however, we learned that the underlying property disputes have all ended. The State has returned all the cars that it seized, and the individual property owners have either forfeited any relevant cash or have accepted as final the State's return of some of it. We consequently find the case moot, and we therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court with instructions to dismiss.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] in Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that the requirement that parties submit proof that they have conferred on issues before seeking arbitration under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) [text] is not jurisdictional. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the Court's unanimous opinion, affirming the decision [opinion, PDF] by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to set aside the panel's orders:

We consider in this case five nearly identical decisions of a panel of the NRAB dismissing employee claims "for lack of jurisdiction." In each case, the panel declared that a procedural rule raised by a panel member, unprompted by the parties, was "jurisdictional" in character and therefore commanded threshold dismissal.

The panel's characterization, we hold, was misconceived. Congress authorized the Board to prescribe rules for the presentation and processing of claims, but Congress alone controls the Board's jurisdiction. By presuming authority to declare procedural rules "jurisdictional," the panel failed "to conform, or confine itself, to matters [Congress placed] within the scope of [NRAB] jurisdiction." Because the panel was not "without authority to assume jurisdiction over the [employees'] claim[s]," its dismissals lacked tenable grounding.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] in Beard v. Kindler [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that a state procedural rule is not automatically "inadequate" to bar federal habeas review under the adequate state ground doctrine. The case arose when the Pennsylvania courts applied the state's fugitive forfeiture rule and concluded that defendant Joseph Kindler waived his right to seek appellate review, dismissing his appeal without reaching the merits of his claims. The Court vacated the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which had affirmed [opinion, PDF] the district court's grant of federal habeas relief. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the Court:

We hold that a discretionary state procedural rule can serve as an adequate ground to bar federal habeas review. Nothing inherent in such a rule renders it inadequate for purposes of the adequate state ground doctrine. To the contrary, a discretionary rule can be "firmly established" and "regularly followed" — even if the appropriate exercise of discretion may permit consideration of a federal claim in some cases but not others.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. The Court affirmed the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which ruled [opinion, PDF] that there is no such right to an immediate appeal. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court, writing:

The question before us is whether disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, we hold that they do not. Postjudgment appeals, together with other review mechanisms, suffice to protect the rights of litigants and preserve the vitality of the attorney-client privilege.

[JURIST] A legally-binding treaty on climate change [JURIST new archives] should be ready in 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon [official website] announced [statement] Monday during the 13th Session [materials] of the General Conference of the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) [official website]. Ban's comments come as the UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) [official website] is taking place in Copenhagen, Denmark. The 192-nation conference was originally designed to produce a global climate change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol [text, PDF; JURIST news archive], which expires in 2012. In his remarks to the 13th Session of the General Conference of the UNIDO, Ban said:

From all corners of the globe, we are seeing unprecedented momentum for governments to act quickly and decisively. Our shared goal is a fair and effective agreement that will reduce emissions while helping vulnerable communities adapt. Copenhagen can and must generate practical results right away while providing a firm foundation for a legally binding climate treaty as early as possible in 2010. Science demands that we act. So does economic common sense.

[JURIST] A Chilean judge ruled [judgment, DOC; in Spanish] Monday that former president Eduardo Frei Montalva was assassinated, charging six in connection with his death. Judge Alejandro Madrid of the Chilean Court of Appeals found that Frei Montalva, who was president of Chile from 1964-1970, had been poisoned [La Nacion report, in Spanish] with mustard gas and other chemicals before his 1982 death. Three men were charged with murder, including a doctor, an intelligence agent, and Frei Montalva's driver. Two other doctors were charged with covering up the murder by allegedly falsifying autopsy reports, and a third was charged as an accomplice. The ruling comes less than week before the presidential election in which Frei Montalva's son, Eduardo Frei, is the candidate of the ruling center-left coalition. Eduardo Frei previously served as president from 1994-2000.

Frei Montalva was a vocal critic of late former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and the policies of his 1973-1990 military regime. An investigation into Frei Montalva's death was initiated in January 2007 when his body was exhumed and traces of mustard gas were found. Pinochet himself was under posthumous investigation [JURIST report] for possibly ordering Frei Montalva's death. Frei Montalva's family had long maintained that his death, which was originally ruled the result of a bacterial infection from treatment of a hernia, was a homicide.

[JURIST] The National Union of People's Lawyers (NUPL) [advocacy website] and other groups on Monday petitioned the Philippines Supreme Court [official website] to reject a proclamation [text, PDF] by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo [official website; BBC profile] imposing martial law [JURIST report] and suspending habeas corpus in the province of Maguindanao. The groups claim that Arroyo exceeded her constitutional authority [Philippine Daily Inquirer report] to impose martial law by making the proclamation in the absence of either a rebellion or invasion, the two circumstances in which martial law is allowed under Article VII Section 18 [text] of the Philippine Constitution. As mandated by the constitution, the Congress of the Philippines [official website] will review [press release] the proclamation on Tuesday and decided whether to support the move by a majority vote.

The proclamation was announced [press release] on Saturday, and is a result of instability in the province following a politically motivated attack that left 57 dead last month. Government authorities on Friday arrested several suspects [BBC report] in connection with the attack, including Maguindanao Governor Andal Ampatuan Sr., and subsequently discovered an "arsenal of weapons" buried nearby. Military officials believed that rebels loyal to the Ampatuan family intended to launch a rebellion. The family is suspected of ordering the November 23 attack [AFP report] against political rival Esmael Mangudadatu, who was traveling with family, aides, and journalists to file as a candidate in an upcoming gubernatorial election.