Judge Brenda Branch in Halifax County, N.C., was not satisfied with simply sentencing Tonie Marie King, 21, for drunk and disorderly. So Branch sentenced her to write an essay entitled “How a Lady Should Behave in Public.” As with most shaming or novel sentences, Branch was instantly a national celebrity receiving praise from people for caring enough to fashion her own brand of justice. I am not one of them. As many of you know, I have long been a critic of such sentencing where judges seem to merge law and entertainment to the thrill of citizens. Judges are not appointed or elected to instruct women on being ladies like some Miss Manners issuing advice from a criminal docket.
Category: Courts
It is often difficult to get actual charges against a police officer, but former St. Louis Officer Rory Bruce, 35, was an exception. After all, it was a police video that clearly showed him verbally abusing a teenager and then sucker punching him while handcuffed. One would think it would be an easy conviction, even without the testimony of the 16-year-old boy. That is if the judge watched the video. She did not. Judge Teresa Counts Burke showed no reason to actually watch the video before ruling and now the police union is demanding that the department rehire Bruce.
Submitted by Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that policemen are my friends
I learned that justice never ends
I learned that murderers die for their crimes
Even if we make a mistake sometimes
And that’s what I learned in school today
That’s what I learned in school.”
–Tom Paxton, “What Did You Learn in School Today?”
When Rick Scott was in the hospital business, his company specialized in billing Medicare for services that were not performed. Now he is governor of a state that specializes in sending people to death row for crimes they did not commit.
Florida conservatives love the death penalty. Since it was reactivated in 1979, 75 people have been executed. In the past two years, Florida has sentenced more persons to death than any other state. And Gov. Scott is setting records of his own, executing eight prisoners to date, the highest rate of any Florida governor in the past thirty years. But despite this carnage, the current death row population still exceeds 400 people, larger than the entire population of many small towns. This is at least partially due to the fact that Florida is one of only two death penalty states that do not require a unanimous jury recommendation of death. Alabama requires a 10-2 vote. Florida is decidedly more majoritarian; a 7-5 favorable vote is sufficient.
Florida also leads the nation in another grim statistic. Since executions have resumed, 24 death row inmates have been exonerated, far more than in any other state. This means that for every three persons executed over the past thirty years, one additional death row inmate has been found innocent and released. One would think that given this statistic, combined with Florida’s history of botched executions and chronic underfunding of agencies charged with defending those on death row, the legislature would be looking at ways to improve the system. And one would be wrong. On June 14, 2013, Gov. Scott signed the Timely Justice Act, a bill that is intended to hasten executions. Continue reading “Fast Tracking the Death Penalty”
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
A recent United State Supreme Court decision has made it almost impossible for small businesses and individuals to bring class action lawsuits against large corporations who may be in violation of antitrust laws. Not only did the case fly under the mass media radar, it also may allow corporations to use contractual language to insulate them from many other federal laws. I am talking about the American Express v. Italian Colors case that was decided by a 5-3 margin. What the Supreme Court majority did here was to allow American Express to force its small business customers to sign a contract that included language that precluded those same customers from having any viable access to judicial review of American Express’ business practices. Continue reading “The Supreme Court Versus the Common Man”
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
While I‘ve been trying to take a break from all politics and news as I bask in the glow of my family staying with me this week, I’ve nonetheless been fascinated by the fall of Egyptian President Morsi, in what must be described as a military coup. I’ve never been a fan of coups as I expect is true of most of us, yet the fall of Morsi has raises issues that I think are far more nuanced than appear on the surface. The salient facts are that after too many years the corruption of the government of Hosni Mubarak (who had been installed by the Egyptian military) led to severe economic issues and dissatisfaction with totalitarian rule. This then led to such massive protest that the military felt compelled, or justified to remove him. Mubarak’s removal was cheered, but then the clamor for free elections arose and after 18 months of martial law elections were held, as the first step towards transitioning to democracy and formulating a constitution.
The Society of Muslim Brothers, or Muslim Brotherhood was:“Founded in Egypt in 1928as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement by the Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna,” It’s stated purposes was to: “to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for …ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood In a country such as Egypt, with its’ long history of totalitarian rule, the concept of political parties was not strong. Through its 85 years history the Brotherhood became the most stable opposition faction in the Egyptian political scene and was the main focus for opposition to whoever ruled Egypt by dint of the Egyptian Military’s backing. Such has been the success of the Muslim Brotherhood that it has branched out to have a significant presence in 20 nations around the world, many without a Muslim majority, such as the Russian Federation, the Indian Subcontinent, Great Britain and the United States. Therefore when the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 took place, the now legal “Brotherhood” was in an excellent position to vie for political power and formed the “Freedom and Justice Party” as its electoral arm. It won more than 40% of the parliamentary seats and its candidate Mohamed Morsi won election as President with 51.73% of the vote. His chief opponent had been a man who served as Mubarak’s Prime Minister. The Egyptian voters were faced, I think, with a “Hobson’s Choice” of Presidential candidates and chose what they perceived to be the lesser of two evils. Sound familiar? What I will attempt to examine here is a question which is framed as: “Are Religious Fundamentalists capable participating in a pluralistic democratic society?” Continue reading “Morsi, Democracy and Problem with Fundamentalist Politics”
As discussed in the media (Washington Post and Associated Press), the plaintiffs in the World Bank case have filed their final proposed findings before the Special Master, including recommendations that D.C. Attorney General Irving Nathan and top aides be referred to the Bar for investigation. The case (Chang v. United States) has been going on for over ten years and involves the mass arrest of bystanders without probable cause during demonstrations against the World Bank and IMF. The case has been under investigation by Special Master John M. Facciola, United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who is looking into the loss or destruction of key evidence in the possession of the District of Columbia as well as false statements and filings made before the Court by District officials. Because I am co-lead counsel in the case with Dan Schwartz of Bryan Cave, I must remain circumspect in what I can say about the case. To relieve the burden on my secretary, I am posting the filing this week which is in the public record.
Submitted by Charlton Stanley (Otteray Scribe), Guest Blogger
Those who advocated for longer prison sentences failed to take the Law of Unintended Consequences into consideration. We all know that prisons have become warehouses. There are several areas where the US leads the world. We lead all industrialized nations in infant deaths the first day of life. We lead the world in illegal drug use. In addition, we lead the world in number of people incarcerated.
The US prison population is about 2.3 million, more than any other nation. Those numbers come from a global study of prisons by the International Centre for Prison Studies, London.
China is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison, despite a population of 1.35 billion. (NOTE: That figure does not include political prisoners in administrative detention for “reeducation.”)
The unintended consequences are an aging prison population. Perhaps the for-profit prisons did not count on that glitch in their bottom line. However, prisons at both the state and Federal level are finding themselves running geriatric nursing homes. In 2010, the last year for which we have accurate data, prisoners age 65 or over increased 94 times the rate of the total prison population in the three-year period 2007-2010. During that same three-year period, the total US prison population grew 0.7%.
At the rate we are going, by the year 2030, estimates are that almost a half-million prisoners will be elderly. Most prisons spend an absolute minimum on staffing and patient health. Private prisons find the elderly cutting into their profit margin. Problems not anticipated for younger prisoners are cropping up. What good does it do for a correctional officer to give orders to a prisoner with Alzheimer’s disease? Prisons are not designed for accommodating walkers, wheelchairs and those who may have serious age-related illnesses.
Continue reading “Greying of Prison Inmates: An Economic and Social Disaster in the Making”
By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
University of Virginia student Elizabeth Daly thought she was doing a good thing buying some La Croix bottled water and cookie dough ice cream from the Harris Teeter Supermarket to share at a charity event. It was 10:15 p.m. and the twenty-year-old, along with her female roommate were trying get to a police sponsored “Take Back The Night” event where she thought she would be listening to stories from sexual assault victims and developing strategies to combat the scourge of most college towns. Instead, as she crossed the dark parking lot and got into her vehicle, she was set upon by six people, one of whom jumped on the hood of her SUV and another who pulled a gun.
“I couldn’t put my windows down unless I started my car, and when I started my car they began yelling to not move the car, not to start the car. They began trying to break the windows. My roommates and I were … terrified,” Daly stated. Not wanting to become a victim herself, Daly heeded the words of her panic-stricken front seat passenger and took off. As she did, she grazed two of the assailants.
“They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform,” she recalled Thursday in a written account of the April 11 incident.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
President Obama has admitted that while in school he was a frequent marijuana smoker. George W. Bush also alluded to smoking marijuana and possibly to using cocaine. Bill Clinton claimed to have smoked it but not inhaled it, which is the type of ridiculous statement Clinton is capable of asserting for political gain. Thus the last three Presidents of the United States have admitted that one time or another they have broken the law and used a banned substance. While each of those Presidents presided over the continued witch hunt and prosecution of the “War On Drugs” I believe that Barack Obama has been the most hypocritical.
Had either G.W. Bush, or Bill Clinton been arrested for smoking marijuana there is no doubt in my mind that they would have neither served jail time, nor would they have had their careers stained by a criminal record. Bush, as the scion of a great political family would have had his record expunged, or possibly have had the police back off when they discovered who he was. Bill Clinton was a student at a prestigious University and while not rich, came from a politically connected family in Arkansas. What they also had in common was that they were White men. Barack Obama on the other hand would have likely been arrested, despite his status as a Harvard student and while he probably would have escaped jail time he would have been forced to take a plea which would remain on his record. If such a thing had occurred it is highly probable that Barack Obama would never have been elected Senator, much less President. There is a likelihood that he might never even have been allowed to enter the Bar as an attorney, since that entrance requires extensive background checks. Whatever you might think of him Barack Obama is a very intelligent man. Surely he must realize how fortunate he was to not get caught smoking grass and yet as President he has stepped up the War On Drugs and has allowed egregious prosecutions in States that have passed medical marijuana laws. To my mind this is blatant hypocrisy, but beyond that political position lies a destructiveness that can only rationally be seen as the continuance of the oppression of Americans of color, particularly Blacks, by our Federal Government. I will deal with our President’s hypocrisy and use it as the basis of my condemnation of the War On Drugs. Continue reading “Obama and the War on Drugs: Hypocrisy in Action”
While the rulings in Fisher and Windsor justifiably garnered the most attention this week, it is important to note an important but little discussed decision to accept a case. 
I have previously testified and written about President Barack Obama’s use of recess appointments, which I viewed as flagrantly unconstitutional. Recently, the D.C. Circuit agreed with that view and found that the Obama Administration had violated the recess appointment powers. Then a second appellate court has joined that view, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I have two law review articles coming out on these appointments and more broadly the abuse of recess appointment powers in modern presidencies. See Jonathan Turley, Recess Appointments in the Age of Regulation, 93 Boston University Law Review ___ (2013) and Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Adverse Possession: Recess Appointments and the Role of Historical Practice in Constitutional Interpretation, 2103 Wisconsin Law Review ___ (2013). The case accepted for review is Noel Canning v. NLRB, No. 12-1115 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Continue reading “Supreme Court Set To Review Obama Recess Appointments”
U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee has issued a sweeping victory for the Obama Administration and its contractors in seeking to bar any recourse for people injured or killed in U.S. camps or prisons like Abu Ghraib. Lee dismissed a lawsuit detailing well-supported accounts of abuse of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison — holding that the injured parties could not use U.S. courts to seek judicial review and relief for the abuse. He closed the door to the U.S. judicial system to four Iraqi plaintiffs under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) as well as one plaintiff who was deemed as barred under Iraqi law.
We previously discussed the alarming ruling in Nelson v. James H. Knight, DDS, where the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in December that a dentist did not commit gender discrimination in firing an attractive female employee, Melissa Nelson, at the request of a jealous wife. The “irresistible attraction” rule led many of us to question the standards applied by the Court. Now, the Court has taken the exceptionally rare step of withdrawing the December 2012 decision and announcing that it will reconsider the case.
This morning I will be in front of the Supreme Court to discuss the expected rulings on same-sex marriage, voting rights, and racial diversity in college admissions. It is the last ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas Austin that brings back many personal memories for me. I will be with Jake Tapper giving legal analysis from virtually the identical place I was standing in 1977 when Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was argued before the Court. I was a 16 year old congressional page during the large protests for and against affirnative action. I remember walking out of the House of Representatives where I was a leadership page and getting swept away by the crowds. I found a spot near today’s CNN site to watch this passionate display of free speech. What is most striking is that 36 years later little has truly been resolved in how race can be considered by universities — or the struggle of the Court to find a consistent approach to the question. Update below: The Court ruled 7-1 to impose a higher standard for review under strict scrutiny.
Continue reading “A Familiar Scene And An All-Too-Familiar Question: The Supreme Court Returns To The Question Of Race [UPDATED]”
Continue reading “A Familiar Scene And An All-Too-Familiar Question: The Supreme Court Returns To The Question Of Race [UPDATED]”
A troubling conviction has now become a troubling precedent for the first amendment. A right-wing Internet radio host, Harold C. Turner, was earlier convicted of threatening three federal judges. Turner, 48, posted comments attacking the three appeals court judges who had upheld a ban of handguns in Chicago. He was charged with a single count of threatening to assault or kill the judges with the intent of impeding their official duties. The referenced judges testified against Turner. They are Judges Frank Easterbrook, William Bauer, and Richard Posner. Now the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld the conviction in decision that could expose more speech to criminal penalties.
Continue reading “Second Circuit Upholds Conviction Of Radio Host For Attacks On Judges”
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As a male who met his wife at age 36, I had many years as a single male and many relationships with women. While being experienced sexually the idea of forcing myself on a woman was not only repellant, but emotionally I was and am unable to understand why men would do something like that. Emotionally even as a fantasy, on film, or in literature I find nothing the least bit stimulating, or manly about forcing oneself upon an unwilling partner. Yet I understand it very well intellectually as a power trip having little to do with sex and much to do with an innate hostility towards women.. One of the places where it seems rape and sexual assault has run rampant has been the military. A recent AP story has related that one third of fired military commanders were canned for sexual misconduct. http://jezebel.com/5977856/nearly-a-third-of-fired-military-commanders-were-canned-because-of-their-penises Congress is discussing harsher military penalties for rape and sexual molestation. This is a disgraceful situation in my opinion and a continuance of women being treated as second class citizens.
In May, the Department of Defense released its “Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military,” which found that up to 26,000 service members may have been the victim of some form of sexual assault last year, up from an estimated 19,000 in 2010. The report also found that 62 percent of victims who reported their assault faced retaliation as a result. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel responded to the report by calling the assaults “a despicable crime” that is “a threat to the safety and the welfare of our people,” and General Martin Dempsey affirmed that sexual assaults constitute a “crisis” in the military.
I find that the figure of 26,000 service members being victims of sexual assault this past year appalling. Almost all of those victims were females. Yet as we shall see there are some who minimize this behavior and seem to excuse it as just the natural workings of the male libido. I’ll explain. Continue reading “The War on Men”