by TChris

The law, like politics, is about competing values. Defendants accused of sexual assault would often like to know what their accusers said to others about the allegations, because accusers sometimes make inconsistent statements that call their credibility into question. Mental health providers, including sexual assault counselors, want to keep those statements private for fear that the possibility of disclosure would discourage victims from seeking counseling or from giving a candid account of the sexual abuse.

The tension between those competing values -- which has caused some jurisdictions to shield statements made to counselors from disclosure -- is evident in the court martial prosecution of Lt. Joseph Harding, who is accused of sexually assaulting Jessica Brakey at the Air Force Academy. Harding's lawyers contend that they need to see the notes maintained by Brakey's counselor to assure that Harding receives a fair trial. Brakey's counselor, however, refuses to turn over her notes.

Military judge Col. David Brash sided with the defense, postponing Harding's trial indefinitely. Whether Brakey actually made statements to her counselor that would help the defense is unknown, but the judge viewed Brakey's credibility as the key issue in the case, strengthening the argument that the notes should be disclosed.

The Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling today, allowing cities to appropriate private homes:

Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans. The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights.

The more liberal members of the court, along with Justice Anthony Kennedy, voted to allow the seizures:

Scotus Blog has this early post up:

The Supreme Court, on a day on which it issued six decisions, released none of the major controversies still to be decided -- the Ten Commandments displays cases, music and movie downloading and copyright, government seizures of private property for private re-development, and access to cable companies' broadband lines for high-speed Internet connections. Eleven cases overall remain to be decided....

The Court did issue a decision in a habeas case involving the one year filing deadline under AEDPA, and I'll update when it's available.

Also, the court reversed a death penalty sentence for ineffective assistance of counsel in Rompilla v. Beard, No. 04-5462:

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a new trial for a Pennsylvania death row inmate in a 17-year-old murder case, ruling that his attorney was sloppy in failing to investigate possible evidence of mental retardation.

The Onion takes a comic look at reaction to the Supreme Court medical marijuana ruling. (Via Crim Prof Blog.)

A Canadian Justice Minister has ordered Renee Boje extradited to the U.S. to begin serving a ten year mandatory sentence for a medical marijuana growing operation in California that occurred shortly after the state of California legalized marijuana for medical purposes. Marijuana activists have been following her case for many years and are very disappointed with the decision.

American refugee Renee Boje has just been ordered to turn herself over to Canadian court officials for deportation back to the USA to stand trial. This action is the result of Renee's appeal being denied by the Canadian Justice Minister, Irwin Colter , who has also signed an extradition order for the return of Renee to the U.S.

Renee has been ordered to surrender on Friday morning, 8.30 a.m. to a Canadian court for arrest and deportation to the US to stand trial on charges of co-conspiracy to grow 4,000 plants. Her alleged co-conspirators Peter McWilliams died waiting trial and Todd McCormack is out of jail after serving five years for his part in the Bel Air grow op.

You can read the decision here. (pdf). Here is the press release from her attorney, which I hope you will all read (link fixed)(Received by e-mail):

by TChris

It is ultimately the job of the judge, not the prosecutor, to define the law for the jury. A prosecutor who describes the law incorrectly during closing arguments risks reversal of any resulting conviction. That was the case in Kentucky, where the court of appeals overturned Crystal Plank's conviction of complicity to second-degree manslaughter.

Crystal's brother broke into a garage. Realizing that he left his toolbox at the scene of the crime, he convinced Crystal to drive him back so he could retrieve it. Crystal's brother shot and killed Byron Pruitt during his return to the crime scene. Crystal was accused of complicity in that death.

However, during closing arguments, Plank's prosecutor "improperly redefined the law for the jury," Judge Wilfrid A. Schroder of Covington wrote. The prosecutor told jurors if they believed Plank took Pollini to retrieve the tool box, they must find her guilty of complicity to murder and burglary.

The court of appeals also overturned Plank's conviction of facilitating the burglary, given the lack of evidence that Plank knew about, or played any part in, her brother's burglary of the garage.

Digby weighs in.

The plaintiffs in the case say they will continue to smoke pot.

The decision seems counter-intuitive to me from a practical standpoint. Under federal law, possession of marijuana for personal use is a misdemeanor. Growing even one plant is a felony. So, what the decision does is encourage pot smokers to engage in a business transaction by buying marijuana in the marketplace, so as not to get tagged with a cultivation felony. Had the court ruled the other way, the marketplace would be diminished for these users as they could grow their own in the privacy of their own homes. Go figure.

[Note, I'm purposely avoiding hyper-technical legal issues like whether buying marijuana constitutes distribution or aiding and abetting distribution. The federal law doesn't refer to buyers or sellers - it prohibits distribution which means "to deliver." Technically, by buying marijuana, one could be said to be participating in a delivery or aiding and abetting it, and even though I disagree, that's not the point here.]

Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Rehnquist and Thomas:

There is simply no evidence that homegrown medicinal marijuana users constitute, in the aggregate, a sizable enough class to have a discernable, let alone substantial, impact on the national illicit drug market–or otherwise to threaten the CSA regime. Explicit evidence is helpful when substantial effect is not “visible to the naked eye.” See Lopez, 514 U.S., at 563. And here, in part because common sense suggests that medical marijuana users may be limited in number and that California’s Compassionate Use Act and similar state legislation may well isolate activities relating to medicinal marijuana from the illicit market, the effect of those activities on interstate drug traffic is not self-evidently substantial.

by TChris

The Justice Department today won another victory in its war against pot smokers, while advocates of states' rights -- not to mention seriously ill patients who now face federal prosecution for using a medicine many states would like them to have -- are the losers.

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws providing medical marijuana users and providers with protection against state prosecution are no shield against federal prosecution.

Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

The decision in Gonzalez v. Raich is summarized here.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Ginsberg and in which Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, sided with inmates over religious freedom in prison. The case is Cutter v. Wilkinson, 03-9877, opinion is here.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of a federal law requiring state prisons to accommodate inmate religions. Justices unanimously sided with Ohio inmates, including a witch and a Satanist, who had claimed they were denied access to religious literature, ceremonial items and time to worship.

The law requires states that receive federal money to accommodate prisoners' religious beliefs unless wardens can show that the accommodation would be disruptive.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court today reversed the conviction of accounting giant Arthur Anderson on obstruction of justice charges related to Enron. The reason was flawed jury instructions.

The ruling is a setback for the Bush administration, which made prosecution of white-collar criminals a high priority following accounting scandals at major corporations. After Enron's 2001 collapse, the Justice Department went after Andersen first.

The opinion can be read here. [link via Scotus Blog]

by TChris

As TalkLeft reported last month, federal prosecutors induced Vincent Ferrara to plead guilty to a murder he didn't commit by failing to disclose that the witness who accused Ferrara tried to recant his story before prosecutors coerced him into sticking to it. Earlier this month, Judge Mark Wolf reduced Ferrara's sentence in light of the Justice Department's "extraordinary misconduct" and ordered Ferrara's release from prison.

Federal prosecutors asked the court of appeals to keep Ferrara locked up despite Judge Wolf's order, but they didn't prevail.

In its one-page ruling, the three-judge panel said its preliminary review of the case found no basis to overturn Wolf's "exercise of discretion." The court also concluded that prosecutors failed to prove Ferrara poses a danger to society after he is released.

Ferrara had already served 16 years of a 22 year sentence.