April 13 FLORIDA: Attorneys ask judge to supress conversation in deputy killing case Attorneys for Jason Wheeler, the Paisley man accused of killing a Lake County deputy and wounding 2 others, asked a judge today to supress comments that Wheeler made - including those saying that he was sorry - while talking to a corrections officer at Orlando Regional Medical Center days after the shooting. Assistant Public Defender William Grossenbacher argued that the corrections officer, Lake County Deputy Richard Brown, may have inappropriately interrogated Wheeler by asking him about the shooting on Feb. 9, 2005. Wheeler, 30, attended the hearing in a wheelchair and wearing a blue Seminole County Jail jumpsuit over a white T-shirt. He is paralyzed from the chest down as a result of the shootout with pursuing deputies. He faces the death penalty in the slaying of Deputy Wayne Koester. During the hearing, Wheeler glared at lawyers and media members who sat in the courtroom. He sometimes crossed his arms and listened intently to Brown's testimony or wrote notes on a legal pad. Lake Circuit Judge T. Michael Johnson said he will issue a decision on whether to supress the hospital-room conversation in about 10 to 15 days. (source: Orlando Sentinel) NEW MEXICO: Governor can ask for justice Question: Was Gov. Bill Richardson out of line when he publicly requested you seek the death penalty for Michael Paul Astorga, suspected in the killing of Bernalillo County sheriff's Deputy James McGrane? Answer: On April 4, Richardson issued a press release stating he was urging me to pursue the death penalty in the Astorga case. Attorney General Patricia Madrid made a similar statement. Neither the governor nor the attorney general can insist that any of the 14 district attorneys in the state exercise their prosecutorial discretion in a specific fashion. This is an example of the separation of powers established by our Constitution. It is the district attorneys' exclusive responsibility to decide how cases are prosecuted. However, the governor and the attorney general do represent the people of New Mexico, and they can communicate their interest and feelings regarding a specific case. Richardson has been involved in law-and-order concerns and has worked closely with our office on many criminal justice issues. The same is true for the attorney general. When a member of the law enforcement community is killed in the line of duty, the effects are felt across the state and in all our communities. The assault is not just against an individual officer or deputy, but against our entire system and all the things we are taught to value. There is a drama that ensues. The Astorga case was especially intense because the suspect was on the run, aided by those close to him. Despite the drama, it is critical the homicide investigation is conducted with expertise and objectivity. It is equally critical the prosecution is handled with integrity and professionalism. Our hearts go out to the McGrane family and those we work with in the law enforcement community who have lost a brother. The best way we can honor McGrane is by doing our job as well as we can do it. A decision regarding the death penalty will not be made until we have examined and weighed all the factors which should be considered in making such an important decision. Richardson and Madrid did not ask for anything other than justice for McGrane and the citizens of New Mexico. We will fight to see that justice is done. (source: Albuquerque Tribune) USA: Supreme Court Votes to Allow Citation to Unpublished Opinions in Federal Courts The Supreme Court on Wednesday adopted a historic rule change that will allow lawyers to cite so-called unpublished opinions in federal courts starting next year. The new rule takes effect unless Congress countermands it before Dec. 1. The justices' vote represents a major milestone in the long-running debate over unpublished opinions, the sometimes-cursory dispositions that resolve upward of 80 % of cases in federal appeals courts nationwide. In some circuits these dispositions have no precedential value and cannot be cited. "Unpublished" is a misnomer, since most of these opinions are available now on legal databases. But some federal judges have argued that if this category of opinions can be cited and used as precedent, they will take more time to decide and write, sharply increasing the backlog of cases. Many sentencing appeals, for example, are resolved by unpublished opinions. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 7th, 9th, and federal circuits ban the citation of unpublished opinions outright, while 6 other circuits discourage it. Under the new rule, circuits will still be able to give varying precedential weight to unpublished opinions, but they can no longer keep lawyers from citing them -- in the same way lawyers cite rulings from other circuits or other authorities, such as law review articles. "This change will facilitate lawyers' representation of their clients, and it will facilitate the courts' informed decision of future cases," said Mark Levy of Kilpatrick Stockton, a member of an advisory committee that recommended the change. "It will also bring national uniformity to the process." At one point in the debate, 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, the leading opponent of the rule change, said unpublished opinions were so designated for a reason: They are drafted "entirely" by law clerks and staff attorneys. He added, "When the people making the sausage tell you it's not safe for human consumption, it seems strange indeed to have a committee in Washington tell people to go ahead and eat it anyway." The committee Kozinski was referring to, the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, was chaired at the time by then-3rd Circuit Judge Samuel Alito Jr., and one of its members was then-D.C. Circuit Judge John Roberts Jr. Both supported the change while on the committee, and now that both serve on the Supreme Court, Wednesday's vote may have been unsurprising. There was no indication in the Court's order whether any justices dissented or did not participate. The advisory committee's original recommendation was to allow the citation of all unpublished opinions, past and future, but the Judicial Conference last September added an amendment to make the rule prospective, allowing the citation only of those rulings issued on or after next Jan. 1. The high court adopted that amendment in the rule change it promulgated Wednesday. Unpublished opinions first came into vogue in the 1960s as a time-saving device for appellate judges. Though the propriety of an essentially secret judicial process has been debated for years, the catalyst for change came in 2000, when the late 8th Circuit Judge Richard Arnold ruled in a routine case that stripping unpublished opinions of precedential value was unconstitutional because it gave judges a power not authorized by Article III of the Constitution. (source: Legal Times) ************ Hurts our image Imagine being in a locked room filled with people who want you dead. These people look like typical, mild-mannered average Joes. Then, why are they trying to kill you? It's because you are in an execution chamber and are about to die. This happens to hundreds of individuals every year. The death penalty corrupts our idea of virtue. The death sentence is a disgrace to the greatest nation in the world. One reason to abolish this punishment is because it damages our nation's image. North Korea, Cuba and Colombia are all our political enemies. Yet all of them have agreed to banish this disgraceful punishment. America's image is already distorted because of the war in Iraq. The death penalty decimates all remaining thoughts that the United States is a nation concerned about moral issues. As a society where violence is accepted and corrupts the minds of our youth, we continue to stoop to the level of barbarians by having a death penalty. The United States, as the leader of the free world, is setting an abysmal example for emerging countries. By allowing the death penalty, the United States is declaring that is not concerned about its dilapidating image. What kind of message does that send to Americans? It is up to each of us to be concerned about the direction in which this country is headed since our government is not. PRANSHU GUPTA, Age 13, Mount Laurel (source: Letter to the Editor, (N.J.) Courier Post) MISSOURI: Court considers whether acquittal can be used against defendant Jurors had acquitted Calvin Clark of 4 murders in 2 separate trials before yet another jury convicted him of 1st-degree assault for critically wounding a St. Louis man in an attempted robbery. At Clark's sentencing, prosecutors used his past acquittals against him, arguing Clark had gotten away with murder and deserved a life prison sentence for the assault. Jurors gave him life, plus 45 years for related armed criminal action and attempted robbery convictions. On Wednesday, Clark's attorney urged the Missouri Supreme Court to overturn the sentences, arguing acquittals of alleged crimes should not be used against defendants at subsequent trials. "In the eyes of the law, he was innocent," argued attorney Mark Lyons, of Clayton. Lyons claimed prosecutors essentially retried the previous murder cases during the assault sentencing. Among other things, a police officer testified during Clark's sentencing that his victim, Jarvis Hardimon, of St. Louis, was wounded in March 2001 by the same gun that killed the 4 people Clark previously was acquitted of killing. Lyons argued the sentencing hearing violated constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy by trying a 2nd time to punish Clark for the alleged murders. An assistant state attorney general countered that federal court precedent allows conduct for which defendants were previously acquitted of criminal charges to nonetheless be raised as part of their character in future criminal sentencings. While a layman may equate an acquittal to a determination of innocence, "legally an acquittal simply means the state failed to meet its burden of proof - proof beyond a reasonable doubt," said Alison Brown, who argued the case for Attorney General Jay Nixon. In a sentencing hearing, the burden of proof is lower, merely a preponderance of the evidence, she said. Because of that, submitting the same facts during a sentencing did not constitute a double-jeopardy violation, she said. Supreme Court judges also seemed skeptical of the arguments raised by Clark's attorney. Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. suggested while questioning Lyons that the scenario seems similar to the acceptable practice of using a person's bad conduct - even if they are acquitted of criminal charges related to the alleged actions - as grounds to revoke the person's probation or parole. Judge Ronnie White questioned whether Missouri would be the 1st state to exclude evidence related to past acquittals from the sentencing phase of subsequent trials. Lyons said it appeared Missouri would be, but he said several other states have prohibited acquittals from being used against defendants in death penalty cases. "An acquittal means something in America," Lyons said, "and it means something more than not quite guilty enough." Case is State of Missouri v. Calvin Clark, SC87473. On the Net: Supreme Court: http://www.courts.mo.gov/sup/index.nsf (source: Associated Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----FLA., N. MEX., USA, MO.
Rick Halperin Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:56:14 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
