August 16 USA: Election winner could shift high-court direction----4 of 9 justices are more than 70 years old President Bush and John Kerry are battling for more than 4 years in the White House. With the Supreme Court sharply split on major issues and 4 justices more than 70 years old, the next president could have a rare opportunity to alter the court's direction. Not since President Reagan, who appointed three justices during the 1980s, has the chief executive potentially held such power. "This election is more important than average for the court," said Lawrence Baum, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively on the justices. "You have a very close balance on the court. One or two appointments could shift the balance." Though most voters focus on the war in Iraq and the economy, the Supreme Court is a sleeper issue that could motivate each party's core supporters. One of Al Gore's biggest applause lines at the Democratic National Convention was, "Let's make sure that the Supreme Court does not pick the next president, and that this president is not the one who picks the next Supreme Court." Bush, who has not yet filled a high-court vacancy, vows to appoint justices who view the Constitution narrowly as restraining federal authority and giving more power to state legislatures. He has repeatedly said he supports the philosophy of Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative firebrand who believes that the Constitution gives Congress limited authority and individuals only those rights expressly stated. "I am going to name judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench from which to legislate," Bush said during his 2000 campaign. "I am going to name strict constructionists to the Supreme Court." Kerry has said he would name people with a more expansive view of constitutional rights. "In recent years, we have seen a court that has split five to four on important cases," Kerry told a Des Moines audience in March. "With divisions so great, it is important that the next appointment to the Supreme Court be an individual who can bring consensus, not conflict." Abortion and affirmative action, gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance are not the only recurring hot-button legal issues at stake. The justices that Bush or Kerry might pick for lifetime appointment could influence how the court confronts new challenges to the rights of privacy and free speech presented by the war on terrorism, the Internet and information systems yet to be invented. Several names of possible Supreme Court nominees have surfaced. For Bush, lawyers and professors mention Judge J. Michael Luttig of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. Luttig, 50, of Alexandria, Va., is known for interpreting the Constitution narrowly to limit congressional authority and expand police powers. Luttig, a University of Virginia law school graduate, served from 1982 to 1983 as a law clerk for Scalia when he was a judge on the U.S. appeals court in Washington, and for then-Chief Justice Warren Burger from 1983 to 1984. Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, appointed Luttig to the 4th Circuit in 1991. Fellow 4th Circuit Judge James Harvie Wilkinson III of Charlottesville is also mentioned in academic and legal circles as a potential Bush selection. Like Luttig, Wilkinson, 59, is viewed as a strong law-and-order jurist who narrowly interprets constitutional rights. Bush, who has tried to expand Republican support from the Hispanic community, might reach out to Latino groups and name the 1st Hispanic justice. White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez, 49, and Judge Emilio Garza, 56, both from Texas, are likely choices. As governor of Texas, Bush appointed Gonzalez secretary of state and later a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. Garza, of San Antonio, sits on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Judge Edith Jones, 55, a colleague of Garza's on the 5th Circuit, might also attract Bush's attention. She keeps an office in Houston, and she supports the death penalty. Rounding out the Bush list are Judge Samuel Alito Jr., 54, of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Alito, of Newark, N.J., has been called "Scalito" for having a judicial philosophy similar to Scalia's. Kerry, if he decides to pick a Hispanic, could choose Judge Jose Cabranes, 63, whom President Clinton named to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Cabranes, who was born in Puerto Rico, keeps his office in New Haven, Conn. Kerry could also make a historic choice by selecting Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington. Tatel would be the 1st blind Supreme Court appointee. Tatel, 62, recently drew praise from Democrats and scorn from Republicans when he ruled that Vice President Cheney must reveal the names of industry officials whom he might have spoken with while developing a White House energy policy. The Supreme Court overturned that decision in June, saying that Bush has a right not to disclose his advisers to ensure that he gets candid advice. Other possible Kerry nominees include Clinton-era veterans. Judge Merrick Garland, 51, of the U.S. appeals court in Washington, served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's criminal division during the Clinton administration. Walter Dellinger III, 63, is a private attorney and Duke University law professor. He was Clinton's acting U.S. solicitor general, the president's chief advocate before the Supreme Court. Dellinger is well-respected by both Republican and Democratic senators. As the Nov. 2 election approaches, supporters of the opposing judicial philosophies are taking sides. Ralph Neas, the president of the People for the American Way Foundation, said that Bush's desire for justices who narrowly interpret the Constitution could lead to court decisions that sharply restrict privacy and voting rights and lower the wall between church and state. The foundation, which supports an expansive reading of the Constitution, has released a slightly updated version of its "Courting Disaster" report first issued during the 2000 campaign. It is highly critical of Bush's support of Scalia's strict constitutional interpretation. "The next president and Senate will hold our future in their hands," Neas said in re-releasing the report. "We want all Americans to know that many freedoms they take for granted are being eroded, or are protected by fragile one- or two-vote majorities on the Supreme Court." Neas cited the high court's 5-4 ruling in May that disabled people may sue states that fail to provide courthouse accommodations for the individuals' disabilities. Neas said that Scalia, Bush's model of a Supreme Court justice, dissented from the landmark ruling in Tennessee v. Lane. Todd Gaziano of the Heritage Foundation, which endorses a strict constitutional reading, praised Bush's call for jurists who are "faithfully trying to interpret the Constitution and laws as they were written." Gaziano opposes jurists who act as "superlegislators" by striking down laws that they say violate rights that are in fact not expressly provided for in the Constitution. An example is the court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision invalidating state laws against abortion, although the Constitution provides no express right to terminate a pregnancy, he said. (source: Winston-Salem Journal) ARIZONA: Freed man tries to get life together They released Robert Louis Armstrong from the Madison Street Jail around 11 a.m. a week ago Saturday, turning him from an accused triple murderer eligible for the death penalty into a free man. But after Armstrong took those first few steps outside, he almost wanted back in. The intense heat melted away the initial feelings of elation. "It was hotter than hell," he said. It was an old bus ticket that began the unraveling of the case against Armstrong. It backed up his alibi that he was in Oregon the day of the April 1998 shootings and earned him his release papers. He was told he could use those release papers to get a city bus. Dressed in the same shorts and T-shirt he had on when he was booked in June 2003, he walked to the downtown bus station. He wanted to get to Glendale, where a friend lived, a friend who hopefully would let him crash there. He got off the bus at 19th Avenue and Camelback Road but didn't get a transfer. Another driver wouldn't let him board a westbound bus. So he walked to Glendale in the humid 100-degree weather, finally knocking on his shocked friend's door 8 hours later. He slept until 10 a.m. the next day. "It's hard to say how I felt," Armstrong said about his inglorious release, his legs still glowing bright red from the sunburn he got on his 1st day free. Armstrong is 51 years old. He has the tan of a workingman, a mustache of salt-and-pepper whiskers and a right eye that has lazily rolled to the side since birth. His smile has gaps up top where some rotting teeth used to be. In jail they pull them out rather than fix them. Armstrong is now living in a halfway house. His boss gave him his old job back. He's trying to get his life back together. He's trying not to be bitter. "It's enough to be out right now," he said. "But I want someone to pay. Because people lied and ruined my life." Armstrong's arrest was trumpeted with a news conference. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio stood with the victims' family members and called for the death penalty. The murders of Ronald "Eddie" Hutchison, 26, Dewey Peters, 26, and Crystal "Chrissy" Allison, 21, had gone unsolved since a dirt biker discovered their bodies in a truck parked at the sandy bottom of the Agua Fria River on Easter weekend in 1998. Witnesses said the three had camped out next to a bonfire the previous night. Authorities figured the motive was robbery but had no leads. Silent Witness offered $1,000 for information leading to a conviction. A victim's family offered $10,000 more. A man called Silent Witness claiming to have overheard a guy named "Red" talking about the murder at a bar. Sheriff's detectives found Peggy Sue Brown, the ex-girlfriend of "Red." She was in jail and told them she was present during the shootings. She also told them Armstrong fired the bulk of the shots. Brown, who has a history of drug and theft convictions, is now charged with supplying false information to police. Armstrong was at work, supervising the line at a pill manufacturing plant in Glendale, when detectives first asked to speak to him at the Durango station. He figured there was no harm in talking to them since he had nothing to hide. They showed him pictures of "Red" and Brown and asked him if he recognized them. He did. "Red" was a former co-worker several years ago, and Brown was his girlfriend. Sometimes they would drink at the same bar. Then detectives told him about the shootings and that his name came up in the investigation. Armstrong was taken aback. After several minutes of thinking backward, he realized he had an alibi. "That couldn't have been me," he told them, "because I was in Oregon that day having Easter dinner with my mother." It was the last time he saw his mother before she died in 2001. The detectives told him if that was the case, it could be verified easily. One detective put a clip on his shirt and hooked him up to a machine they said was a "sensitivity test." Then he asked about his alibi. He was told the test said he was lying. He was questioned for 6 hours before detectives drove him back home. 2 days later, detectives came back to talk to Armstrong. It was noon. He willingly went again. This time, the questioning got tougher. Detectives brought Brown into the interrogation room and she repeated her version of the shooting. Armstrong told her she was lying. Detectives escorted her out. Armstrong knew sheriff's detectives had a witness. They then started telling him they found his fingerprints at the scene and had other witnesses. Neither statement was true. Even during cigarette breaks, detectives kept pressing. They told him he should show courage and honor his family by admitting what he did. "They kept on saying, 'We've got proof that you did it,'" Armstrong said. He was told witnesses saw him with "Red" and Brown, drinking at the river bottom all afternoon. Maybe he blacked out the memory. After all, Armstrong was a heavy drinker. By the 10th hour of questioning, that theory started to make some sense. The detectives painted detailed, lurid scenarios for him, describing the order of the killings. "I just said yes to what they told me I did," Armstrong said. He wasn't even aware he was confessing. He just wanted out of the room. The detective asked him if he was sorry. "I said, 'Of course, I'm sorry about this. Wouldn't anybody be sorry about this if they killed three people?'" He was arrested and booked on three counts of first-degree murder. Detention officers put Armstrong in his own holding cell. Across the way, other inmates taunted him with chants of "killer, killer." Armstrong was assigned a public defender from the county-funded Legal Advocate's Office. In every meeting, he said he was in Oregon at the time of the shooting. But he had no way of proving it. He paid cash for the trip and didn't visit anyone but his now-deceased mother. As the months passed, "I kept my faith in God up," Armstrong said. "I didn't know how long it would take, but I had to keep my faith up that the truth would come out." An investigator with the Legal Advocate's Office named Marianne Brown got Greyhound to dig through records until the bus company found the ticket with Armstrong's name on it. Confronted with that information, Brown admitted to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office that she made up the story. That office, which pressed for the death penalty almost a year ago, decided to drop the charges. Armstrong is angry with Brown, but he also blames the detectives who interrogated him. "They lied just as much as Peggy Sue did," he said. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office would not comment on its interrogation techniques. Armstrong isn't thinking about suing the Sheriff's Office or the county attorney. He said he just wants to head to Oregon soon and see his ex-wife and children. He wants to put all this behind him. Armstrong's co-workers passed a hat to collect some money and gave him some boxes of food. Other than that, Armstrong has hardly any possessions. His former roommates, seeing that he was up on 3 counts of murder, sold his van, clothes and collection of classic-rock CDs. Now, Armstrong is living in a Maryvale home for recovering alcoholics. Armstrong dried out in jail and is on a program to stay away from alcohol. A small banner hanging in the wood-paneled halfway house displays, in gold letters, the prayer that asks God for the wisdom to distinguish between what can be changed and what can't. Armstrong said alcohol would have blurred that ability. "I knew I could not get out and start drinking again," he said. "I didn't want to get in an ornery mood and start blaming the world for it. "There's nothing to be gained from that." (source: The Arizona Republic) CALIFORNIA: Jurors hear more wire taps from Peterson mistress As Scott Peterson's lies unraveled and his former mistress peppered him with questions about his wife's disappearance, Peterson was apologetic but evasive about his untruths, according to phone recordings played at his murder trial. Jurors began a 4th day Monday of listening to the recordings taped by Amber Frey at the request of police in the days after Peterson's pregnant wife, Laci, vanished. On the tapes, Frey repeatedly questioned Peterson about his wife's disappearance. He denied any involvement, sounding hurt to the point of tears when asked about it. "I'm not an evil guy ... I lied to you ... but I'm not an evil person," Peterson said in a tape played Monday. In 4 calls played for the jury last week, Frey repeatedly asked Peterson why he told her, in early December, that he'd lost his wife and was preparing to spend his first Christmas alone, if Laci Peterson didn't disappear until Christmas Eve. "There are many types of loss," Peterson replied. "Uh-huh. And what kind of loss was that?" Frey asked. "Sweetie, I can't tell you," he answered. Peterson apologized repeatedly and insisted he would tell Frey everything when his wife was found. Prosecutors allege Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home on or around Dec. 24, 2002, then drove to the San Francisco Bay and dumped her weighted body from a small boat he had purchased weeks earlier. The badly decomposed remains of Laci Peterson and the couple's fetus washed ashore from the bay in April 2003, not far from where Peterson said he launched a solo fishing trip the day she vanished. His defense attorneys claim he was framed after the real killer learned of his widely publicized alibi. Authorities hope to show jurors that Peterson's motive for killing his wife and their unborn child was to be with Frey. Frey has testified that she called police after discovering her lover was not only married, but suspected in the disappearance of his pregnant wife. At the request of the police, she began recording Peterson's calls. Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said the tapes would continue to be played Tuesday and Frey would take the stand again to answer questions Wednesday. (source: Associated Press) UTAH: Utah man charged in wife's death appears in court Mark Hacking, charged with killing his wife after she confronted him over deceptions about his education, appeared briefly in a heavily guarded courtroom Monday, guarded by armed deputies and looking puzzled. Hacking said nothing as a judge scheduled a preliminary hearing for Sept. 23. Hacking's 1st in-person court appearance came after police spent their 12th night searching a county landfill without finding Lori Hacking's body or a .22-caliber firearm they believe was the murder weapon. Hacking, 28, reported his wife missing July 19, setting off a weeklong community search by thousands of volunteers. He is accused of killing his 27-year-old wife while she slept and dumping her body in a trash bin, according to his confession to brothers who visited him at a psychiatric ward where he was kept for 13 days after his wife's disappearance. No one from his family or his wife's family was present at Monday's court appearance, and the proceeding was over in minutes. Lawyers for both sides said there had been no discussions of a plea bargain. Hacking hasn't had to enter a plea yet; that will come sometime after his preliminary hearing. Authorities believe Lori Hacking was killed after she learned her husband wasn't enrolled in medical school in North Carolina, even though they were packing to move there. Deputy district attorney Robert Stott said he was prepared to prosecute Hacking for murder even without a body or weapon. Hacking also has been charged with obstructing justice, accused of throwing Lori's body, the gun and a bloody mattress in separate trash bins. (source: Associated Press)
