|
|
|
Court gives green light to death penalty fast-tracking
U.S. Legal News |
2016/03/23 15:59
|
A federal appeals court Wednesday cleared the way for the Department of Justice to allow states to have their inmates' death penalty appeals expedited through federal court.
Legal organizations that challenged the DOJ's criteria for certifying states for the fast-track program lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. The court also noted that the DOJ had not yet granted any certifications, and those certifications would be reviewed by a separate appeals court.
The decision threw out a lower court ruling that blocked the certification process.
The fast-track program would require inmates to file petitions in federal court within six months of a final ruling on their appeal in state court. They normally have a year. It would also require federal courts to act faster on the inmates' petitions.
At least one state, Arizona, has asked the DOJ to certify it for the fast-track program.
Opponents say it would force attorneys representing death penalty inmates to scramble to file appeals, possibly leading some cases to be neglected. Supporters say the program could take years off the death penalty appeals process, giving crime victims faster justice.
"This decision is important not only for the families of murder victims, but also for everyone in the United States who depends upon the rule of law and relies upon the courts to follow it," Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said in a statement. The Sacramento-based nonprofit organization advocates for swift punishment for guilty defendants and filed arguments in the case.
Marc Shapiro, an attorney for the legal organizations that sued — the San Francisco-based Habeas Corpus Resource Center and the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Arizona — said he will ask a larger 9th Circuit panel to review the ruling.
"We're living in a time where our system of capital punishment is being exposed for its critical flaws," he said. "There's a heightened need for assuring we're not sending innocent or otherwise undeserving people to the execution chamber."
To qualify for the fast-track program, a state has to require a court to appoint an attorney to represent an indigent capital inmate unless the inmate rejects the attorney or is not |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rejects states' challenge to Colorado pot law
U.S. Legal News |
2016/03/21 05:12
|
The Supreme Court has rejected an effort by Nebraska and Oklahoma to have Colorado's pot legalization declared unconstitutional.
The justices are not commenting Monday in dismissing the lawsuit the states filed directly at the Supreme Court against their neighbor.
They argued that Colorado's law allowing recreational marijuana use by adults runs afoul of federal anti-drug laws. The states also said that legalized pot in Colorado is spilling across the borders into Nebraska and Oklahoma, complicating their anti-drug efforts and draining state resources.
The Obama administration had sided with Colorado, despite the administration's opposition to making marijuana use legal.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have heard the states' lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teen changes plea to guilty in deaths of mother, stepfather
U.S. Legal News |
2016/03/16 05:14
|
A northern Wisconsin woman changed her plea to guilty Friday in the slaying of her mother and stepfather in a deal that has prosecutors recommending a 40-year prison sentence.
Ashlee Martinson, who was 17 at the time of the March 2015 killings, faces two counts of second-degree homicide, USA Today Network-Wisconsin reported. She had earlier pleaded innocent by reason of insanity in the killings at the family's home near Three Lakes.
According to court records filed Friday, Martinson told police she shot her stepfather, 37-year-old Thomas Ayers, in the neck and head. She then went to her mother, 40-year-old Jennifer Ayers, for solace, but her mother first tried to aid her husband, then armed herself with a knife to confront Martinson.
Martinson wrestled the knife from her mother and stabbed her more than 30 times. She then went downstairs and turned the family TV to show cartoons to her three sisters, ages 2 to 9. After showering, Martinson confined the younger girls in a room before fleeing to Indiana with her boyfriend, documents show.
Court documents say the Ayerses were killed the same day they warned Martinson's 22-year-old boyfriend to stay away from her because she was a minor.
Martinson told authorities she had been mentally and verbally abused by her stepfather and had seen him physically abuse her mother and siblings, according to court records.
The assessment also said Martinson had suffered from depression on and off since age 8, gaining in intensity at age 15. Martinson's sentencing is set for June 17.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court declines stay in redistricting; Congress elections off
U.S. Legal News |
2016/02/20 22:52
|
The U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday night to stop a lower-court order demanding North Carolina legislators draw a new congressional map, meaning House primary elections won't occur next month as scheduled and are shifted to June.
The denial of the request by state of North Carolina attorneys for the justices to intervene came just hours after Republican lawmakers meeting in Raleigh voted for redrawn boundaries as a safeguard to comply with a federal court ruling that called two majority black districts racial gerrymanders. A new congressional elections calendar also was approved.
The General Assembly reconvened and passed a new map because a three-judge panel had ordered a replacement by Friday.
State attorneys argued that absentee ballots already were being requested for the March 15 primary election, and blocking districts used since 2011 would create electoral chaos and a costly separate House primary later in the year. But voters who sued over the boundaries said they shouldn't have to vote in illegal districts for another election cycle, like in 2012 and 2014.
The refusal — a one-sentence decision that said Chief Justice John Roberts had referred the request to the entire court — means the congressional primary elections will now occur June 7 under new boundaries that put two incumbents in the same district and seriously jeopardize the re-election of Democratic Rep. Alma Adams, who is now living in a strong Republican district.
Mollie Young, a spokeswoman for GOP House Speaker Tim Moore, said the legislative leaders' attorneys would review the decision before making a comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court scuffle triggers constitutional clash
U.S. Legal News |
2016/02/18 22:52
|
It only took one man's death to give Congress an opening to permeate its dysfunction throughout the rest of government.
Republican opposition to letting President Barack Obama replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia quickly sparked a constitutional clash over the president's right to fill Supreme Court vacancies. Democrats, who have their own history of boxing out Republicans over court nominees, are up in arms, but begrudgingly concede that Obama's pick is unlikely to be confirmed.
So as both parties prepare for political brawling, the eight remaining justices could spend the next year hearing critical cases alongside an empty seat, unable to break a tie in the event of a 4-4 split.
The standoff raises a scenario that Washington long has dreaded: that bitter partisanship in Congress, mixed with the tactics of obstruction such as the filibuster, would eventually jeopardize another branch's basic ability to function.
"If Republicans do what they suggest, I think we're headed not only for a constitutional crisis but also for big problems for the legislative process," said Jim Manley, a former aide to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "This is the natural reaction to the continued Senate breakdown we've seen for years."
Supreme Court nominees have been rejected before. Yet Democrats accuse Republicans of taking obstructionism to a new level by insisting Obama not even name a nominee with 11 months left in his term — and refusing to hold a confirmation vote if he does. Though the Constitution is clear that it is the president who nominates, Republicans say the Founding Fathers never required the Senate to give a vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rejects AG Kane's request to reinstate law license
U.S. Legal News |
2016/02/08 20:54
|
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane's law license will remain suspended after the state's highest court on Friday denied her request to have it reinstated while she fights criminal charges of leaking secret grand jury material and lying about it.
The court's unanimous rejection could pave the way to an unprecedented vote in the state Senate on whether to remove her from office.
A Kane spokesman said the first-term Democrat was disappointed, but not surprised.
A Senate vote could happen in the coming weeks after a special committee spent about three months exploring the question of whether Kane could run the 800-employee law enforcement office without a law license. Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman, R-Centre, said senators will discuss the matter when they reconvene in the Capitol next week.
"It's an important issue," Corman said. "It's really unprecedented, so I think it deserves to be addressed."
In seeking to have her license reinstated, Kane argued that Justice Michael Eakin should not have participated in the suspension vote because of his involvement in a salacious email scandal.
In its one-page order, the Democrat-controlled court said Kane did not seek the recusal of Eakin "at the earliest possible time." As a result, the justices said, Kane gave up her ability to object on that basis to the court's unanimous decision in September to suspend her license.
Kane has released hundreds of emails, including some that Eakin sent and received through a private email account in the name of John Smith. Eakin, a Republican, has been suspended with pay by his fellow justices while he awaits trial before an ethics court that could result in his being kicked off the bench.
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|