by TChris

The Supreme Court today delivered a blow to the Bush administration’s desire for an all-powerful federal government, ruling in favor of Oregon’s right to enact and implement a physician-assisted suicide law despite the administration’s insistence that federal drug laws prohibit physicians from dispensing federally regulated drugs for that purpose. When TalkLeft wrote about the case here, the outcome looked bleak for Oregon, particularly in light of the Court’s unwillingness to let state medical marijuana laws trump the federal prohibition of marijuana use. By a vote of 6-3 (with Chief Justice Roberts joining Thomas and Scalia in dissent), however, the administration went down to defeat.

As we said earlier:

Janet Reno declined to prosecute Oregon doctors who acted in accordance with state law, but John Ashcroft quickly changed course when he became Attorney General. He issued the Ashcroft Directive, concluding that "assisting suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose."

The Court’s response delivered a nice slap to Ashcroft:

Tuesday's decision is a reprimand of sorts for Ashcroft. Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."

by TChris

The conservative judge who imposed the mandatory sentence thought it was excessive. Twenty-nine former judges and prosecutors agreed, joining a brief that asked the Tenth Circuit to reverse the sentence. Yesterday the court ruled:

A federal appeals court has upheld a 55-year prison term imposed on a Utah man with no criminal record who was convicted in 2003 of selling several hundred dollars worth of marijuana on three occasions.

Half a century for selling a few hundred dollars worth of weed, just because he had a gun hidden on his person? Weldon Angelos is the poster casualty of the failed war on drugs. (TalkLeft background on his case is here and here.)

The Tenth Circuit articulated many reasons for believing Angelos’ lengthy sentence reflected the “will of Congress,” including facts that the government never had to prove to a jury. As noted by sentencing expert Douglas Berman:

by TChris

Raymond McNealy mooned his neighbor during an argument. No, McNealy isn't 12; he's 44. He was charged with indecent exposure, a crime that, in Maryland, carries up to 3 years in prison. McNealy won't be going to prison for dropping trou, because a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge ruled that buttocks are not among the "private parts" that cannot be publicly exposed under state law.

"If exposure of half of the buttock constituted indecent exposure, any woman wearing a thong at the beach at Ocean City would be guilty," Judge John W. Debelius III said after the bench trial, reversing the ruling of a District Court judge.

The judge noted that McNealy would have been convicted if he'd been prosecuted for being a jerk. True, although there isn't enough jail space in the country to hold everyone who could be convicted of jerkiness.

by TChris

Federal prosecutors are complaining that a judge has "not seemed fair since she wrote a 2004 article for a legal publication saying it was the duty of judges to protect individual rights in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." It shocks the government, apparently, that any judge would think it important to protect individual rights. The prosecutors have gone to the court of appeals to seek the judge's removal from a perjury case.

Their basis for claiming unfairness? The judge has expressed skepticism about the evidence in the government's perjury case against Osama Awadallah, and has made some rulings the government doesn't like. At one point, the judge dismissed the case, but it was reinstated on appeal.

The Second Circuit seemed to be unimpressed with the government's request to substitute a judge who is more to its liking.

by TChris

Texas Republicans strong-armed their way to redrawn congressional districts that favored Republicans prior to the last congressional election. The Supreme Court today agreed to review that action.

In agreeing to hear two hours of argument in four different appeals dealing with the Texas redistricting plan, the high court is poised to confront to what extent the Constitution permits blatant partisanship in redistricting. In addition, the court could use the case to confront whether districts can be redrawn whenever a state legislature wants or must only be redrawn once every 10 years, when new census data is available. The court will also examine to what extent the concept of one-person, one-vote supersedes partisan considerations in redrawing election districts.

The Court has been deferential to the political process so long as the process produces districts that generally adhere to the “one person, one vote” principle. Why did the Court agree to revisit the issue in this case? Perhaps the justices were influenced by recent news reports revealing that political appointees in the Justice Department overruled career lawyers who believed the redistricting reduced minority voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Perhaps some of the justices were offended by the blatant nature of the partisan redistricting, which resulted from political will rather than new census data.

by TChris

A federal judge presiding over a criminal trial may "vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires." Northern District of New York Judge Lawrence Kahn exercised that power to assure that a second jury would review the dubious evidence of Steven Robinson's guilt.

Robinson is accused of committing a drive-by killing in connection with a dispute among drug dealers. A wounded victim, Aukland Dubery, "identified Robinson as being present on the scene, and Dubery only did so after telling police at the crime scene and two days later at the hospital that he did not know who had shot him."

by TChris

It’s rare (too rare) for a federal judge to second-guess a jury’s guilty verdict, but Judge Jeffrey Miller disagreed with a jury's decision that the government proved Michael Zucchet’s guilt on seven counts of fraud and extortion. Judge Miller yesterday acquitted the former San Diego councilman of those charges, concluding that the government failed to prove Zucchet’s guilt. Judge Miller ordered a new trial on two other charges.

Another former councilman, Ralph Inzunza, wasn’t so fortunate.

Inzunza was sentenced to 21 months for his role in the scheme to exchange money for an effort to repeal the law banning touching between dancers and patrons at strip clubs.

Lobbyist Lance Malone received a 36 month sentence, a considerable improvement on his guideline sentencing range of 51 to 63 months.

by TChris

Andrea Yates, convicted of drowning her children, earned a new trial when an appellate court ruled that an expert witness for the prosecution testified falsely.

Dr. Park Dietz ... told jurors Yates may have been influenced by a "Law & Order" epidsode, but the episode did not exist.

TalkLeft background on the decision is here.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals let that decision stand, prompting Harris County District Attorney Charles Rosenthal to complain that the case set a "frightening precedent." It would be frightening if prosecutors could get away with using lying witnesses to obtain convictions. Rosenthal's whining should be directed at his dishonest witness, not at a process that assured Yates the chance of a fair trial.

The Supreme Court heard arguments today in the case of a New Mexican religious sect that wants to be allowed to drink a hallucinogenic tea at ceremonies twice a month.

The justices were critical of the Bush administration's position that drug laws forbidding such use trumps the right of the sect to practice its religion. John Roberts and Sandra Day O'Connor seemed particularly harsh on the Government. Nancy Hollander of Albuquerque argued for the sect.

The AP notes that Justice O'Connor may be gone from the bench by the time the vote is taken in the case. How would Alito rule? That's anybody's guess. But if it comes down to a 4-4 split, it could be important.

ScotusBlog has detailed coverage of the arguments and case. The case is Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, 04-1084. TChris wrote about the case here.

by TChris

While the headline to the linked story labels Judge Ian O'Flaherty a “maverick,” it might be more accurate to call him “brave” for standing up to M.A.D.D. and all the legislators who cower before the group’s lobbying power. Judge O’Flaherty is concerned about drunk driving laws that require a court to presume a defendant guilty of impaired driving if the defendant has a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.08. The judge concluded that the presumption unconstitutionally conflicts with the presumption of innocence and with the defendant’s right to remain silent, and (to the frustration of prosecutors) has repeatedly ruled in the driver’s favor when the test result is the only significant evidence of the driver’s impairment. (Judge O’Flaherty’s first decision to that effect was reported here.)

by TChris

The Kansas Supreme Court today struck down a provision in state law that imposed a harsher sentence on sexual contact with minors of the same sex than it imposed on sexual contact with minors of the opposite sex. The state's "Romeo and Juliet" law would have allowed a maximum sentence of 15 months to be imposed on an 18 year old man who had a sexual encounter with a consenting 14 year old girl. That limitation did not apply to an 18 year old man who has a sexual encounter with a consenting 14 year old boy.

The Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling that a law that specified such harsher treatment and led to a 17-year prison sentence for an 18-year-old defendant "suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex."

"Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest," said Justice Marla Luckert, writing for the high court.

by TChris

The police want to search a house but they don't have a warrant. They ask the occupants for consent to search. One says yes but the other says no. Can the police search?

In Connecticut, the state supreme court said "no" in a decision released yesterday.

The court ruled 3-2 that opposition to a search by one resident invalidates permission granted by another, which is contrary to most case law on the issue nationwide. Defense lawyers predict the ruling will be troublesome for police, and could apply not only to attempted searches of homes but also to searches of businesses and cars with several occupants.