August 17 TEXAS: Police discover more misplaced evidence----Defense lawyers in three capital murder cases may never have seen relevant items Houston police have discovered about 150 pieces of evidence - including items from three capital murder cases - that may never have been brought to the attention of defense attorneys during their clients' trials, Chief Harold Hurtt announced Tuesday. The cases, Hurtt said, include one in which the defendant already has been executed, and involve evidence that "could not be located due to being misfiled or lost." The evidence was uncovered during work to computerize all materials stored in the police property room - a process that began several years ago. The revelations are the latest in a 2 1/2 -year saga of problems that have plagued the HPD evidence analysis and storage divisions. Shoddy science, substandard facilities and poorly trained analysts led to the shutdown of the crime lab's DNA division in December 2002. Since then, two men have been released from prison because of faulty testing, and the integrity of thousands of cases has been questioned. Last August, HPD officials discovered evidence from thousands of cases that was improperly tagged and lost in its property room. The latest discovery of unaccounted-for evidence in a capital case was made last Thursday, Hurtt said during a Tuesday news conference. "The most significant" of the evidence, according to Hurtt, is a cigarette butt discovered in the property room that originally was collected during the investigation of a 1991 robbery-slaying of a Houston bank teller. Robert Campbell is awaiting execution for the murder of Alexandra Rendon, the teller. Leroy Lewis, a co-defendant, pleaded guilty in exchange for a 35-year sentence. Attorney Lonnie Knowles served as one of Campbell's trial lawyers. "Oh my God, are you serious?" Knowles asked when informed about the evidence found. He said he did not recall ever being aware of the existence of the cigarette butt. "I can't tell you 100 percent that it would have made a difference," Knowles said. "But from a defense perspective, I would have loved to have known about that. Absolutely. Even a baby lawyer would have recognized the possible importance of something like that." Police also discovered evidence from a murder investigation that led to an execution. Ponchai Wilkerson was executed on March 14, 2000, for the fatal 1990 shooting of Chung Myong Yi during the robbery of a Houston jewelry store. The crime was part of what prosecutors said was a days-long spree in which Wilkerson committed other violent crimes. Wilkerson never denied that he shot Yi, but he maintained that he fired because the jeweler's movements behind the counter alarmed him. The crux of Wilkerson's defense during his 1991 trial was that he was not involved in all of the crimes linked to him by prosecutors during the punishment phase. Attorney Troy McKinney, who represented Wilkerson, said he worried that a car seat discovered in the HPD property room may have been from one of those crimes. "What really got him the death penalty was the extraneous offenses not the primary offense," said McKinney, who speculated that prosecutors might not have sought a death sentence without those other crimes. "If that evidence eliminated one of the extraneous offenses, it makes it less likely he would have received the death penalty." McKinney said he will request access to the car seat and will try to determine whether there is any biological evidence on it. He also said he plans to review his records to see if he was aware of its existence at trial. "It might not have been listed anywhere," he said. Hurtt said he could not say if, in fact, defense attorneys had been made aware of all of the evidence in the 3 capital cases before trial, but he indicated that he intended to find out. "This is early on in the process," the chief said. "And we're going to do what's necessary to ensure that we don't have anybody in jail unfairly, especially people that are facing the death penalty." Hurtt said computerization of the property room inventory began in 1991 and that, thus far, evidence in close to 700,000 cases has been bar-coded. Hurtt said evidence in 5,000 cases remains to be processed but that HPD is "expediting the reconciliation process to determine if other cases might be affected." Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal, who was briefed by HPD on Tuesday, said a preliminary review of Wilkerson's case suggests that the car seat was not significant, but he added that he will conduct a thorough review of the case. Evidence also was located in the case of death row inmate Warren Darrell Rivers, who is awaiting execution for the 1987 killing of an 11-year-old boy. The rediscovered evidence includes some clothes, a towel and a knife. But only in the Campbell case has post-conviction DNA testing been requested by the defense, Hurtt said. Rosenthal said prosecutors will review the cases of Wilkerson, Campbell, Lewis and Rivers to determine whether any of the rediscovered evidence is relevant to their defenses. He is less concerned by the latest problems with evidence at HPD than some other revelations, he said, noting that all four cases have been through the appeals process. Also at his news conference Tuesday, Hurtt said it was imperative that special investigator Michael Bromwich continue his probe of the trouble-plagued HPD crime lab. Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general, was hired by the city to conduct a two-phase investigation of the lab, including a historical overview, which was completed June 30. A review of a sampling of cases has yet to begin because of questions about the rising cost of the investigation. "I don't think we have a choice," Hurtt said. "This is process we started and we've got to see it through. This issue is how much money (is it going to cost)?" ********************************* Man charged in baby's death caught in Georgia A man charged in the June 2004 slaying of his girlfriend's infant daughter is awaiting extradition to Texas after he was arrested last week in Georgia, Houston police said today. Augustine Eke, 49, was taken into custody Aug. 9 on a minor, unrelated offense at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. Officers discovered the Harris County capital murder warrant after processing Eke's fingerprints. 4-month-old Brianna Battle was struck by gunfire June 18, 2004 during a violent argument that erupted at a northeast Houston car wash between Eke and the child's mother, Chandra Battle, 22. The infant's body was later found in the parking lot of a snack food warehouse about a half-mile away. An argument broke out after Eke drove to a car wash at a Texas station in the 9200 block of the North Loop East at Wallisville Road, Chandra Battle later told police. The fight quickly escalated until Eke pulled out a pistol and began firing toward the rear passenger area, where Battle and her child were sitting. Brianna, strapped into a car seat, was shot in the face and neck. Battle fled, leaving the child and her older sister in the car. Eke chased her and continued firing, striking her in the thigh, police said. Jasmine Battle, 3, was later left at a friend's Pasadena residence. Battle, who could not be reached for comment Tuesday, had been the target of a Children's Protective Services investigation prior to the fatal shooting because of past drug use, officials said. CPS caseworkers placed Battle's children with her sister, with the understanding that unsupervised visits were not permitted. Police said Battle and Eke, however, picked up the 2 girls the night before the slaying. Jasmine was placed in a foster family but was returned in February to her mother, CPS officials said. "She's done everything we asked her to do to make sure her home was going to be safe," CPS spokeswoman Estella Olguin said. (source for both: Houston Chronicle) ***************************** CAPITAL MURDER DEFENDANT WARREN APPEARS FOR PRE-TRIAL HEARING----Capital murder defendant Jamarcus Warren was in court Tuesday for a brief pre-trial hearing. Attorneys took up housekeeping matters and set another hearing Monday to settle issues before jury selection starts on Aug. 25. Warren, 23, is set to go to trial Oct. 3 for his alleged involvement in the Jan. 15, 2004, killing of Shaun Pickens. Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham, First Assistant DA April Sikes and defense attorneys F.R. "Buck" Files Jr. and Richard Kennedy briefly discussed the questionnaire that will be handed to the hundreds of prospective jurors who will be summoned to the courthouse on Aug. 25. Those remaining will begin to be individually questioned by attorneys on Sept. 6 - attorneys will have 15 days to select the jury that will hear the death penalty case in 241st District Judge Jack Skeen Jr.'s court. Files and Bingham talked about the problems of listening to hundreds of hours of recorded telephone conversations Warren has had from inside the Smith County Jail. Bingham has not had time to listen to all of the tapes and Files hasn't received any of the potential evidence. Skeen told the attorneys to try and come to an agreement on how to handle the tapes, to try and avoid transcripts of every tape being made by the court reporter. Bingham said the phone conversations were 15-minute calls; Warren sometimes had eight or more calls per day. Skeen said he would set a hearing for Monday to discuss potential jurors whom attorneys can agree should be excused. Warren faces the death penalty or life in prison if convicted of capital murder. The defendant was set to go to trial when a mistrial was granted in March after his Houston attorney was taken to a Travis County detoxification center for failing to appear in court during jury selection. Seven jurors were selected for trial when Skeen granted a motion for withdrawal by Warren's hired attorney, Shawn Roberts, who was repeatedly late for hearings and was a no-show on occasion until Skeen ordered he be taken into custody and brought to court. Warren, 29, was on the lam for about seven months before he was caught in Houston by U.S. marshals. He is also linked to a 2001 bank robbery in Tyler and a 2004 ordered killing of a 2nd man in Gregg County, officials have said. Co-defendants Bryson Carey and Stefany Campos have both agreed to plead guilty and testify against their alleged gang leader, Warren, who officials believe ordered co-defendant Cornet "Pokey" Meekins to carry out the murder. Pickens was shot in the head and left inside a vehicle off County Road 2209. They allegedly belong to a street gang called the Chapel Hill Hoover Five Deuce Crips, allegedly headed by Warren. (source: Tyler Morning Telegraph) ************************* Jurors hear pleas from killer's parents The parents of convicted capital murderer Noah Espada begged jurors on Tuesday to spare their son's life, capping an emotional day of testimony in the punishment phase of his trial for the 2004 slayings of Luke Scott and Sandra Ramos at the Altamonte Apartments. The 21-year-old defendant was described as a devout Christian who grew up as the oldest of 3 children born to Angie and Roland Espada. The Espadas were missionaries who worked to establish churches in Puerto Rico and Mexico, defense witnesses testified. "God blessed me with a son and that's why I named him Noah," said Espada's mom, explaining that she had been told, after surviving leukemia as a teen, that she would not be able to have children. When she heard of her son's arrest, Angie Espada said weeping, "I couldn't believe it. I got mad at God. I thought, 'Why me?' "I still don't believe it, but I've gotten right with my God and I've accepted it. All I do is pray for the families, the victims' families." The pleas for Espada's life capped a day of testimony from witnesses that included 3 other members of Espada's family, another convicted murderer serving time in prison, and a newspaper reporter who interviewed the defendant in jail. Defense attorneys Jeff Scott and Richard Langlois appeared to be pulling out all the stops in an effort to persuade jurors to spare their client's life. Jurors hearing the case before 379th District Judge Bert Richardson took 40 minutes last Tuesday to decide Espada was guilty in the suffocation death of Sandra Ramos, 29, on Feb. 29, 2004, and the shooting death of Luther "Luke" Scott, 30, two days later. In 2 confessions, Espada told police he killed Scott out of revenge for having been fired 2 weeks earlier from his job at a downtown nightclub, and he killed Ramos after he broke into the wrong apartment looking for Scott. At one point, as Espada's father broke down on the witness stand, Scott's mom, Alicia Scott Abboud, left the courtroom in tears. "I try to put myself in (their) shoes and it's impossible," Roland Espada said. "Yes sir, I pray for them. I'm sorry. If you must take a life, take mine." San Antonio Express-News reporter Karisa King testified about a jailhouse interview she had with Espada. Testimony is set to resume at 8:30 a.m. today. Espada faces life in prison or execution. (source: San Antonio Express-News) USA: Leahy Lambastes Roberts' 'Radical' Stands Sen. Patrick Leahy says Supreme Court nominee John Roberts holds "radical" views and has been an "eager, aggressive advocate" for policies of the far right. While stopping short of announcing his opposition to the appointment, the Vermont Democrat's written statement Tuesday was by far the most critical he has made since President Bush nominated Roberts. Firing his broadside one day after the release of 5,000 pages of Reagan-era records, Leahy said Roberts' views were "among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, privacy and access to justice." White House spokesman Steve Schmidt said Leahy's remarks were part of a Democratic strategy - predating Roberts' nomination - of trying to depict Bush's nominees as ideologically extreme. "The ease with which Sen. Leahy distorts Judge Roberts' record is troubling and may indicate that the Democrats are not yet done trying to make that argument, although it has already been discredited," Schmidt said. Leahy and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., both expressed concern about documents that were not released on Monday, asking for investigations into a few that were reported missing. Nearly 500 were kept private in their entirety on grounds of national security or privacy, according to Allen Weinstein, head of the National Archives and Records Administration. Additionally, a folder of material relating to affirmative action was misplaced by library officials after being reviewed by administration officials, Weinstein wrote. He said he believed the material had been reconstructed without the originals and made public. Leahy's declaration came in advance of what is likely to be a string of announcements from groups going on the record opposing Roberts' confirmation. Ralph Neas, president of People For The American Way, declined to comment on his own organization's plans Tuesday, but said a "significant number of progressive organizations will soon be coming out against the Roberts nomination." Neas prodded Senate Democrats in public and private to outline the stakes involved in Roberts' appointment. In a private meeting with Senate Democratic aides, Neas said angrily that the public was being left with the impression that Roberts' confirmation proceedings were a mere formality, according to several participants. In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion" and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates. "Those papers that we have paint a picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party, then and now," Leahy said in his statement. He also pressed the Democrats' prior demand for records from Roberts' time as principal deputy solicitor general during the administration of President George H.W. Bush. The White House has refused to make those papers available, and Leahy wrote that in doing so, "they raise the inference that there is much to hide." On the Net: Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov/ U.S. National Archives and Records Administration: http://www.archives.gov/ (source: Associated Press) ALABAMA: No defense for indigent cases What would it be worth to you to have a good lawyer if you were charged with a heinous crime and were facing the death penalty? Would any amount be too much? Probably not. But few of us can afford a money-is-no-object defense. As taxpayers, there's a limit, too, in what we can afford to spend collectively for court-appointed lawyers who represent poor people in criminal cases. Even so, what's happening in Alabama is ridiculous. Lawyers who represent poor defendants are paid the lowly sum of $40 an hour for out-of-court work and $60 an hour for in-court work. That's a fraction of what lawyers earn when defendants hire them. But until recently, the court-appointed lawyers were at least able to supplement the indigent rates by getting payments (on average, $29 an hour) to cover overhead expenses such as rent, insurance and office staff. The overhead pay ended in February when Attorney General Troy King issued an opinion saying state law banned the practice. Criminal defense lawyers warned that cut in pay would dry up the pool of those willing to take court-appointed cases, particularly complicated ones like those involving the death penalty. The warnings have been, unfortunately, borne out. Lawyers across the state have withdrawn from capital cases. Among them was William Pfeifer, who had represented one of the defendants in a robbery-murder case in Mobile that captured more attention than most; the victim was allegedly killed for being a homosexual. "Counsel is not financially able to subsidize the state of Alabama in its efforts to execute persons charged with capital offenses, nor as a matter of conscience is he willing to do so," Pfeifer wrote in his motion withdrawing from the case. Concerned, the Senate passed a measure this summer to restore the overhead pay. But the legislation didn't have enough support in the House of Representatives to come up for a vote, thanks, in part, to opposition from the Christian Coalition of Alabama. "In our view, it was not good stewardship at the time," said the coalition's president, John Giles. And here we thought the Christian Coalition was against gambling. While the group opposes gambling with money, it apparently doesn't mind gambling with the lives of poor defendants - at least not enough to let the state spend as much as $28 million over 2 years to pay indigent lawyers a decent wage. People in Alabama ought to be outraged. If they can't work up a tear for the defense lawyers or the poor defendants, Alabamians should at least be concerned for themselves and for victims' families. Paying for a second-rate defense may seem like a good idea, but it ends up costing more over the long haul, with retrials that drain more resources and place an undue strain on the families of victims and defendants alike. In addition, a shortage of lawyers in these cases will only make the wheels of justice grind more slowly. It's not only wrong for Alabama to shortchange indigent defendants; it's dumb. The overhead pay needs to be restored. The sooner, the better. (source: Opinion, Birmingham News) CALIFORNIA: Bill to limit death-penalty challenges alarms many California's colossal death row and notoriously slow capital-punishment system have become a chief inspiration for fast-moving congressional legislation that would make it tougher than ever for condemned inmates everywhere in the United States to challenge their sentences in federal court. When Congress adjourned several weeks ago, it was on the brink of slamming the door on the ability of most death-row inmates and others to present new evidence to show their original trials were tainted by police or prosecutorial misconduct, or incompetent defense lawyers. The unprecedented limits would come at a time when concerns are mounting about the fairness of the death penalty - including examples of innocent men set free around the nation. Even some strong death-penalty supporters, from California's chief justice to former U.S. attorney generals, have expressed reservations. But backers, led by former California attorney general Dan Lungren, now a Republican congressman, say the legislation is needed to keep federal judges from interfering with state efforts to carry out the death penalty and to end 20-year delays for victims' families waiting for justice. "I want to be fair to everyone involved and right now the system is not fair to the victims' families," Lungren said this week. "This is not a rush to judgment. I don't see how a 25-year wait is anything close to a rush to judgment." California, with more than 640 inmates on death row, is the main target of federal lawmakers, as is the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which frequently has overturned the state's death sentences in the past decade. California has executed just 11 murderers since restoring capital punishment in 1978, including 1 this year, San Mateo County killer Donald Beardslee. Congress is expected to take up the issue when it returns next month. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, whose office now defends the state's death sentences, has not taken a position. But the proposed legislation has generated a groundswell of opposition from some unlikely corners, including strong death-penalty supporters such as former U.S. Attorney General William Barr. The most significant opposition came earlier this month from a national organization of state supreme court justices. That opposition from the states' top judges is particularly noteworthy because supporters of restricting federal court review are accusing federal judges of trampling on the work of the state courts. "This is being rushed through with all sorts of disturbing ramifications," said California Chief Justice Ronald George, whose court consistently has upheld a higher percentage of death sentences than other state high courts around the country. "My fellow chief justices and I are all in favor of efficiency and speed, but the overall concern is with fairness. There are instances where injustices have occurred." The changes, called the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, would dramatically change what is known as habeas corpus review, protections against violations of constitutional rights that date back to the Civil War. In most instances, the legislation would prevent habeas review by federal judges unless there is firm proof of innocence, particularly difficult because in many cases such evidence isn't even unearthed until appeals reach federal court. The legislation would eliminate many of the federal appeals that have resulted in overturned death sentences in California. Since 1993, 46 California death sentences have been set aside by federal district court judges or the 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other Western states, Sam Jose Mercury News research shows. In 33 of those cases, the federal courts reversed just the death sentence but left the murder conviction intact, finding that the penalty phase of a trial was marred by problems such as poor legal representation. Federal judges found all sorts of problems in the cases, from defense lawyers who did nothing, to prosecutors who concealed evidence. But innocence was not a central feature in the decisions. Death-penalty supporters say the legislation is needed to keep courts like the 9th Circuit from upsetting juries' death sentences, usually decades after trial. Beardslee was executed this year after 20 years and 10 months on death row, the longest wait between conviction and execution in the state's history. While reversing 4 death sentences this year, the 9th Circuit has let 2 stand and refused to intercede in Beardslee's final appeals. The 9th Circuit is usually a California death-row inmate's last chance to avoid execution. "This legislation is for cases where there is no question the guy did it," said Michael Rushford, executive director of Sacramento's Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which backs swifter death-penalty appeals. Critics of the proposed change say it would result in innocent convicts staying behind bars or being executed, and allow crucial errors in capital trials to go uncorrected. Among other cases, the reforms might have derailed the federal appeal of Glen "Buddy" Nickerson, who was found likely to be innocent by a federal judge and freed from prison after nearly 20 years for a Santa Clara County murder conviction. In addition, opponents of the reforms say Congress already has made it tougher for death-penalty appeals when a law was passed in 1996 that limited the ability of federal judges to tamper with state convictions. These critics say the 1996 law should be allowed to work because only in recent years have death sentences come up for review under its provisions. "Given the public opinion polls, the spate of DNA exonerations, the increasing public recognition of problems with providing adequate counsel, I'd think we'd be going in the opposite direction," said Michael Laurence, director of California's Habeas Corpus Resource Center, a leading agency for death-row inmates. REVERSED ON APPEAL Since 1993, federal courts have overturned 46 death sentences in California on various grounds, most of which no longer would qualify for federal review under sweeping new rules now being considered by Congress that would prohibit most federal appeals unless there is firm proof of innocence. Here is a breakdown of reasons federal courts reversed those 46 California sentences (note that some cases involved multiple grounds): Incompetent legal defense: 26 Errors by trial judge: 17 Police or prosecutor misconduct: 9 Jury misconduct: 3 (Source: Mercury News research) (source: Knight Ridder Newspapers) ************************ Convict Can Sue LAPD, Court Rules----The man, who says he was framed as part of the Rampart scandal, could receive triple damages under provisions of the federal racketeering law. A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Los Angeles Police Department can be sued under the federal racketeering law by a man who claims he was framed by officers as part of the Rampart scandal. By a vote of 7 to 4, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that David Diaz is entitled to pursue claims against a host of former Los Angeles officials, including former Police Chief Bernard C. Parks, now a city councilman. Diaz alleges that Los Angeles police officers fabricated evidence, tampered with witnesses and conspired to obtain a false conviction against him for assault with a deadly weapon and other charges. As a result, Diaz says, he lost his job, chances of other jobs and money he would have earned. Diaz's attorney, Stephen Yagman of Venice, hailed the decision as "fantastic." "I've been pushing this theory. Now I truly can say, and make it stick, that the LAPD is the mob," Yagman said. But even some of the judges who ruled in his favor noted that Diaz is a long way from winning his case. To win, Diaz will have to convince a jury that it is more likely than not that he was framed. The biggest hurdle he is likely to face, the judges noted, is that a jury found him guilty in November 1999 of attempted murder, aggravated mayhem, assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and assault with a semiautomatic weapon. He was sentenced to 37 years to life in prison. Diaz, who is challenging his conviction in separate legal proceedings, has lost in a California appeals court and the California Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case. And earlier this year, a federal district judge in Los Angeles rejected Diaz's motion to examine the case anew. "Because of his attempted murder and assault convictions, Diaz will likely face an uphill battle" in his case against the city, wrote one of the members of the 9th Circuit majority, Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld. 1 of the 4 dissenters, Judge Ronald M. Gould, wrote that Diaz's assertion that he is wrongfully imprisoned is "highly questionable." When Diaz asked the federal courts to review his conviction, Gould noted, "he argued only that his right to a fair trial and due process were violated by the removal of a juror; he did not contest the sufficiency of evidence to support his conviction." The issue before the 9th Circuit was not whether Diaz was guilty, but whether he had the right to pursue his case against the LAPD under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Diaz initially lost that fight under a ruling by U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess, who has been assigned to preside over the Rampart civil cases. The RICO statute was enacted in 1970, with the goal of giving federal prosecutors another tool against organized crime. Under the law, racketeering is defined as a criminal enterprise that affects interstate commerce and uses illegal means to further its ends. Over the last 30 years, the law has been used against a variety of wrongdoers, including drug traffickers, slumlords and perpetrators of healthcare fraud. A plaintiff who prevails in a RICO case can get triple damages. Legal experts said they were unaware of any instance to date where a police department had been found liable under RICO. Feess ruled that the law allows suits alleging economic harm or damage to property, but not the sort of personal injuries claimed in the Rampart cases. A 9th Circuit panel initially voted 2-1 to agree with Feess' interpretation of the law. Then the full 9th Circuit agreed that a larger, 11-judge panel should reconsider the case. The larger panel ruled that causing a person to lose a job and "interference with prospective business relations" were the sort of harms that could be alleged in a RICO case. The majority consisted of Kleinfeld, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush; Sidney R. Thomas, Kim M. Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher and Martha S. Berzon, appointed by President Clinton; Stephen Reinhardt, appointed by President Carter; and Alex Kozinski, appointed by President Reagan. Reinhardt wrote separately that the majority's interpretation of the law was required by Supreme Court precedents that had "stretched" the RICO law "far beyond that which Congress originally intended." RICO "has become through judicial construction a wide ranging act that provides treble damages for all kinds of conduct unrelated to racketeering activity," Reinhardt wrote. The four dissenters said the majority decision would allow almost any case to become a RICO matter. The ruling "opens the door to any plaintiff's lawyer savvy enough to include an allegation that other wrongs led to any degree of lost employment," wrote Gould, a Clinton appointee. His dissent was joined by Mary M. Schroder, the 9th Circuit's Chief Judge and a Carter appointee; and Jay S. Bybee and Consuelo M. Callahan, both appointees of President George W. Bush. Gould also noted that the ruling put the 9th Circuit at odds with decisions from federal appeals courts in Chicago and Atlanta. That sort of conflict among the appellate courts could lead the Supreme Court to decide to examine the case. Jonathan Diamond, a spokesman for the Los Angeles city attorney's office, said lawyers there were disappointed in the ruling and were thinking of asking the Supreme Court to review it. "We believe that if this case ends up going to trial, we will prevail on the merits of the underlying case," Diamond added. (source: Los Angeles Times)
