#the other one is for the public defender’s office for the habeas unit | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

khalilhumam · 3 years

Text

Trinidad & Tobago deports Venezuelan women and children as matter of ‘national security’

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/trinidad-tobago-deports-venezuelan-women-and-children-as-matter-of-national-security/

Trinidad & Tobago deports Venezuelan women and children as matter of ‘national security’

‘It's not up to anyone to just change the law’

A group of Venezuelan asylum-seekers including 16 children arrive for the second time on Trinidad soil, on November 24, 2020, due to a court order requiring them to appear at a habeas corpus hearing. Screenshot taken from a Trinidad and Tobago Newsday video of the landing, which was posted to the newspaper's YouTube channel.

The Trinidad and Tobago blogosphere has been in a heated discussion over the country's deportation of 16 Venezuelan minors and 11 adults — including nine women — who were reportedly sent away shortly before the group was supposed to have a habeas corpus hearing carded for 2 p.m. on November 22. It's a move that Minister of National Security Stuart Young has defended as part of his remit to protect the country. After concerns that the vessels carrying them back to Venezuela could not be located and Venezuela's self-declared interim president Juan Guaidó describing Trinidad and Tobago's actions as “cruel, painful and inhumane,” not only has the group been found, but a Trinidadian judge, Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams, has ordered that the state return them to Trinidad for their court hearing. The asylum-seekers returned to Trinidad shores on November 24, where they were greeted by relatives who reside on the island:

No words. None. https://t.co/8TiIW2hGBq — Wesley Gibbings (@wgibbings) November 24, 2020

The issue was first brought to public attention by attorney Nafeesa Mohammed, who resigned as deputy political leader of the governing People's National Movement (PNM) mere weeks before Trinidad and Tobago's general election on August 10. Mohammed says the group was initially arrested on November 17 in south Trinidad, which lies about 11 kilometres north of Venezuela. The South American country's continuing political and socioeconomic crisis has forced thousands of asylum-seekers into Trinidad and Tobago. In this particular case, however, there were concerns for the well-being of the children especially, which prompted Mohammed to send correspondence to the chief immigration officer asking for dialogue. Although birth certificates and other relevant documentation were reportedly submitted to the country's immigration division, they were not accepted. Upon learning that deportation was imminent, Mohammed succeeded in having the court hearing moved up, but to no avail. She has since suggested that the state's actions in this regard were in breach of its international obligations and wants an investigation to be launched into the matter. Stuart Young, Trinidad and Tobago's minister of national security, held a press conference on November 24, to address the situation and “send some very strong signals” regarding the nation's safety and the laws that have been put in place to ensure it. Framing his comments against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, Young noted that Trinidad and Tobago's borders are closed to both nationals and non-nationals, and have been since March 17, soon after the country recorded its index case of the virus. Anyone who wishes to enter the country while the border closure remains in effect must get clearance from the minister himself. Given these parameters, Young continued, the Venezuelans in question were in breach of Trinidad and Tobago's immigration laws, health regulations, and government policy. Mohammed insists, however, that members of the group who were deported all tested negative for COVID-19. Stressing that the government “cannot be legitimately and justifiably accused” of dealing with non-national migration issues without a humanitarian pillar, Young reiterated:

It is not up to any one person — in a democracy, it doesn't operate like that. It's not up to lawyers, it's not up to courts, it's not up to anyone to just change the law according to how they feel. This government has always approached the issue of non-national migration with a balance that includes the humanitarian aspect.

At the beginning of 2019, however, even as Caribbean nations were attempting to engage in decisive international diplomacy regarding Venezuela’s political impasse, Trinidad and Tobago seemed reticent to label it a humanitarian crisis, opting instead to echo the Caribbean Community's (CARICOM) diplomatic position of “non-interference and non-intervention.” By June of that year, the Trinidad and Tobago government did make good on its promise to regularise Venezuelan asylum-seekers. Many of the conditions and privileges associated with this registration process have since been extended past the initial year-long limit, all of which Young cites as proof of his government's consideration of the humanitarian angle, though it remains unclear what is to happen once the extension is up. International agencies have not always agreed that the Trinidad and Tobago government has acted in humanitarian ways. Back in April 2018, Trinidad and Tobago's repatriation of 82 Venezuelans attracted harsh criticism from The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which called the move a “forced deportation” that breached international law. Trinidad and Tobago has acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention and is a signatory to both the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. At his press conference, Young chastised “international agencies” for bandying about statistics that suggested there were far larger numbers of Venezuelan asylum-seekers in the country than the amount that actually registered during the two-week process in June 2019. However, a Global Voices report dated June 4, 2019, states that the UNHCR estimated that Trinidad and Tobago's “population of concern” at that time comprised more than 10,000 people — among them, 800 refugees and 9,985 asylum-seekers, most of whom are from Venezuela. The final tally of asylum-seekers who registered was 16,523. At the end of the process, Trinidad and Tobago instituted a visa requirement for all Venezuelans wishing to enter the country. Unregistered non-nationals would be subject to deportation. Saying that he “understands the emotion” of the situation, Young warned against those who are attempting to “manipulate the narrative as being about women and children.” For many social media users, however, that was the crux of the matter:

So arrangements are being made in the Cedros police station to deport 16 Venezuelan children including a baby and children aged 2-8). Their fathers hold MONS permits/UN /Asylum Certificates. They all have relatives here. Since when have we engaged in family separation? — S (@shivkgs) November 21, 2020

Attorney Mohammed confirmed that some of the children’s parents are registered in Trinidad and Tobago, while others are UNHCR card-holders. Minister Young countered that Venezuelans with Trinidad and Tobago registration cards who bring friends or family into the country are breaking the law and will be deported, adding that UNHCR registration does not give anyone landed status in the country. He also raised concerns about situations of this nature being a red flag with regard to human trafficking, since there are active rings in Trinidad and Tobago, and members of law enforcement and border control authorities are suspected of being involved. Despite referring to Trinidad and Tobago's Immigration Act, which has a clause that refers to an “undesirable” class of people that may be prohibited from entering the country and offers a “further layer of protection,” Minister Young said that while he was concerned for the group's safety, he must uphold the law, which is “clear and cannot be contradicted.” With regard to the court protocols, he noted:

The persons were returned to Venezuela before any court order was made. So, there is no longer any jurisdiction, there is no breach, there is no misinforming the court or anything like that.

Nevertheless, the court has successfully ensured that the group is back on Trinidad and Tobago soil and that the children have been released into the care of their parents. The legal process continues, but in the court of public opinion, many have already decided that Trinidad and Tobago's actions were “morally bankrupt.”

Written by Janine Mendes-Franco

0 notes

districofcolumbiaprelawland-blog · 5 years

Text

Arizona Attempts To Limit Its Death Penalty Laws

By Albina Khatiwoda, Howard University Class of 2022

March 28, 2019

The Death Penalty is the punishment of execution to someone who has committed a capital crime. Among other topics, it is one of the most widely debated legislation in the contemporary United States.

In the process of a criminal trial, if at the end, a person is found guilty, the court must determine the punishment for their crimes. To influence this decision, the prosecuting attorney may emphasize the presence of aggravating factors. These factors serve as evidence that merits a harsher sentence for the criminal. Aggravating factors are generally signs that lead the court to believe that the intention of the accused was crude, and/or they will repeat the offense. For example, the presence of prior convictions to higher levels of crime may warrant the defendant a harsher sentence. In contrast, mitigating factors are evidence that would emphasize the justification of a more lenient sentence. A mitigating factor may be that the defendant has no previous history of misconduct, leading the court to believe it was a mistake that doesn’t merit as harsh of a punishment as that of a serial criminal.

Arizona is attempting to eliminate 3 of its 14 Aggravating Factors. If passed, this proposal will be a step towards reducing the number of criminals sentenced to the death penalty. Some experts have argued that the multitude of Aggravating Factors in Arizona permits every convicted first-degree murderer to be eligible for death.

The 8th amendment of the constitution states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” While this clearly states that cruel and unusual punishments are illegal as mandated by the primary law of the United States, some judges argue on the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment clause as well as the interpretation of the constitution.

Furthermore, the 14th amendment could be analyzed to support Arizona's proposal of the elimination of such Aggravating Factors. It states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This implies that the defendants indicted with the Death Penalty are not receiving equal protection of the laws. The presence of Aggravating Factors also halts equal protection as the verdict for two people who committed equivalent offenses but have contrasting values of aggravating factors may be unfair.

The Aggravating factors that would be eliminated following the bill apply if the defendant created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the person killed, if the offense was committed in a "cold, calculated manner without pretense of moral or legal justification," and if the defendant used a stun gun in committing the murder. Arizona has rarely utilized these aggravating factors in court.

The Cunningham Vs. California court case established aggravating factors as a valid form of negotiating punishments. However, experts argue that the application has since expanded. Experts argue that certain factors influence the regularity of capital punishment. Dale Bach, the chief of the Habeas unit of the Federal Public Defender's office in Arizona says that the aggravator that involves an offense committed in a heinous, cruel or depraved manner used to be determined by a judge. However, since 2002, it has been resolved by jurors, which could lead to it being used more often as they might not have the same experience and objectivity as judges on its application.

The United States splits on this issue as 30 states, including Arizona, are employing the Death Penalty as a form of punishment for distinguished crimes, while 20 states have decided to ban it. Nevertheless, America was constituted on the notion of due process and equal protection despite how heinous one’s acts. If we do not let criminals have these rights, we are limiting the expressions of democracies.

The expulsion of some aggravating factors is a turning point towards reducing the number of people receiving capital punishment and many people strongly oppose it equating it to the crime being unpunished. Regarding issues such as the death penalty, when our emotions overpower us, and our rationale fails us, we must attend to the heart but without neglecting the brain.

________________________________________________________________

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors, Justia, https://www.justia.com/criminal/aggravating-mitigating-factors/ (last visited Mar 3, 2019).

Aggravating Factors for Capital Punishment by State,Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/aggravating-factors-capital-punishment-state (last visited Mar 12, 2019).

Penalty Law, U.S. News & World Report, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arizona/articles/2019-03-02/arizona-lawmakers-move-to-tighten-states-death-penalty-law (last visited Mar 3, 2019).

Furman v. Georgia, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/69-5030 (last visited Mar 3, 2019).

The 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org, https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-viii (last visited Mar 10, 2019).

0 notes

justicedemocrats · 7 years

Link

It’s time to rebuild the Democratic party from scratch and make it represent the American people.

WE WILL:

PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PUT AN END TO WASHINGTON CORRUPTION AND BRING ABOUT ELECTION REFORM.

Super PACs should be banned, private donations to politicians and campaigns should be banned, and a clean public financing system should be implemented to end the takeover of our government by corporations and billionaires. Americans deserve free and fair elections — free from the corruption of big money donors. The Supreme Court has effectively legalized bribery. It’s time for an Article 5 convention to take our Democracy back from the brink of Oligarchy. Prior to passing this amendment, all Justice Democrats should reject billionaire and corporate donations when running for office to show the American people we don’t just talk the talk, we walk the walk. Ranked choice voting should also be implemented to make smaller parties a viable option. All provisions of the Voting Rights Act should be reinstated, and gerrymandering for partisan gain should be eliminated.

RE-REGULATE WALL STREET AND HOLD WHITE-COLLAR CRIMINALS ACCOUNTABLE.

Despite engaging in systemic fraud and causing a subprime mortgage meltdown and the great recession, you can count the people from Wall Street who are in prison for their crimes on one hand. It’s time to prosecute the criminals, bring back Glass-Steagall, and re-regulate Wall Street to prevent another crash. Prison is not just for the poor and the middle class anymore. We will have cops on Wall Street, not just Main Street.

END BILLIONAIRE AND CORPORATE TAX DODGING, FIX THE SYSTEM TO BENEFIT MIDDLE-CLASS AND POOR PEOPLE.

Corporations dodge $450 billion a year in taxes by using offshore tax havens. We should end this injustice, as well as chain the capital gains tax to the income tax, increase the estate tax, and implement the Buffet Rule so that no millionaire CEO pays less in taxes than his or her secretary. It’s time for a tax system that benefits the middle-class and the poor, and makes the top 1% and multinational corporations pay their fair share.

DEFEND FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.

We support the right to express unpopular opinions without fear of censorship. We support free speech on college campuses. The marketplace of ideas should be embraced. A vibrant debate is healthy for democracy, and we should cherish our first amendment. We also support net neutrality for a free and open internet.

OPPOSE BIGOTRY.

We must speak out against racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all forms of bigotry. Non-discrimination protections that currently apply to race, religion, and gender should be expanded to include the LGBTQ community and the atheist community. Making all Americans equal is not asking for special privileges, it’s asking for the rule of law — justice and equality for all as outlined in the United States Constitution.

MAKE THE MINIMUM WAGE A LIVING WAGE AND TIE IT TO INFLATION.

This is about justice and basic human decency. If you work hard and you work full time you shouldn’t live in poverty. Furthermore, we support strong unions and collective bargaining.

ENSURE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE AS A RIGHT.

The United States should catch up to every other modern nation and implement a single-payer, medicare-for-all system. There’s no reason we can’t be #1 in the world instead of #37. It’s time to end the destruction of American healthcare by rapacious, price gouging, for-profit, private health insurance middlemen.

ENSURE UNIVERSAL EDUCATION AS A RIGHT.

Educating the citizenry of a nation pays dividends in the long run, with the economy getting back much more than is initially put in. Crushing student debt for higher education would no longer burden young men and women trying to improve their lives through hard work. We should strive to have the best education system in the world.

END UNNECESSARY WARS AND NATION BUILDING.

The United States maintains 800 military bases worldwide at a cost of $100 billion a year, this is money that can be spent at home creating jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, and investing in the future of the people. The disastrous war in Iraq cost trillions, the war in Afghanistan is 15 years in with no end in sight, and we’re currently bombing 7 different countries. We spend more on our military than the next 8 countries combined. Despite countless lives lost and destroyed, terrorism has only gotten worse. It’s time to end the wars and the perverse monetary-incentive structure that makes politicians flippant about sending young men and women to die. Unilateral U.S. military force should only be used as a last resort to defend the nation. The current budget could be cut drastically if we used our department of defense for what it was intended — defending us, instead of waging interventionist wars.

END THE FAILED WAR ON DRUGS.

The goal is legalization, taxation, and regulation. Prohibition only makes drug cartels more powerful, increases crime, and makes drugs more dangerous due to lack of enforced safety standards. What you put in your body is your own business, and your right. A free society should allow individuals to make their own choices about their bodies. While most users are recreational and moderate, rehabilitation and treatment should be provided for people struggling with addiction. Additionally, those serving time for non-violent drug offenses should be pardoned.

CREATE THE NEW NEW DEAL.

Our infrastructure gets a grade of D from the Society of Civil Engineers. The government should invest trillions in rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, schools, levees, airports etc. There’s no reason why we can’t have the world’s #1 infrastructure.

CREATE THE RENEWABLE ENERGY REVOLUTION.

Scientists are sounding the alarm on climate change. In order to avoid the worst case scenario and a dystopian future we need a massive green revolution. It’s time to drastically and immediately move away from fossil fuels and develop the technologies of the future. This will be a giant boon to both the private and public sector, as well as a necessary response to a global crisis. We can and we must be #1 in sustainable energy production in the world.

BLOCK BAD TRADE DEALS LIKE THE TPP AND OPPOSE OUTSOURCING THAT WILL FURTHER DAMAGE THE MIDDLE-CLASS.

As a result of NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China and the WTO, Americans have lost millions of decent paying jobs. It’s time to end the race to the bottom and renegotiate these rigged deals that only benefit elites. We should not sacrifice our sovereignty, the only people who are allowed to make laws for the United States should be the American people, not multinational corporations.

END CONSTITUTIONAL OVERREACHES.

Ban the NSA from bulk data-collection and warrantless spying. Shut down Guantanamo Bay and all extrajudicial prisons. Prosecute torturers and those who violated the Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg Tribunal, International law and US law. Return habeas corpus and due process. Pardon whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. We shouldn’t be leading from behind on human rights, we must be the home of liberty. We should practice the values we preach.

NO LONGER SELL ARMS TO HUMAN-RIGHTS VIOLATORS.

Ban arming human rights violators. We recently gave Saudi Arabia billions in weapons and watched the civilian death toll in their vicious bombing campaign in Yemen tick up. We continue sending Egypt arms as they violently crack down on peaceful protesters. Israel received $38 billion in aid and promptly announced new settlements. The first step to peace is not enabling nations who regularly violate international law. We must be bold enough to stand up to human rights violators who aren’t just our enemies, but our allies. We don’t weaken our allies by holding them accountable, we strengthen them.

DEFEND AND PROTECT WOMEN’S RIGHTS.

We support the Paycheck Fairness Act. We oppose Republican cuts to Planned Parenthood and women’s health clinics all across the country. In 2016 alone, 60 TRAP laws targeting abortion were passed in 19 states. We will vigorously oppose all efforts to dismantle reproductive rights.

ENSURE PAID VACATION TIME, SICK TIME, FAMILY LEAVE, CHILDCARE.

The United States is one of just three countries in the world that doesn’t offer paid maternity leave, the others being Oman and Papua New Guinea. We are the only industrialized nation that doesn’t offer paid vacation time. This should be changed immediately.

PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.

Republicans have been trying to privatize and cut earned benefit programs for decades. Corporate Democrats have been willing to go along with them under the guise of a ‘grand bargain’ and ‘reform’. We pledge to staunchly oppose this. Social Security reduced the elderly poverty rate from 35% to 10%. 3.4 million Americans would immediately fall into poverty without Medicaid. Gutting these vital programs is not an option.

IMPLEMENT COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM.

We won’t give an inch in our opposition to Trump’s outrageous proposals. Ideas like a ‘total and complete’ shutdown of Muslim immigration and deporting all undocumented immigrants are anathema to America. We will fight for comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship. America is a proud nation of immigrants.

ENACT POLICE REFORM.

We believe in the core idea of policing — to serve and protect the community. Police are a vital part of American society and that is why it’s so important to reform the system to make it serve all Americans. For-profit policing and for-profit prisons should be abolished. Police training should be retooled to emphasize deescalation tactics, and body cameras should be mandatory on all officers. Furthermore, community oversight boards should be created and broken windows policing should be eliminated. Stop & frisk — which disproportionately targets blacks and latinos 87% of the time — has a 97% failure rate. On top of being discriminatory and ineffective, it’s also unconstitutional and should be ended. Special prosecutors must also be appointed to hold police accountable.

COMBAT HOMELESSNESS.

More than 600,000 Americans are homeless on any given night, including over 57,000 veterans. Studies show the cost of leaving a homeless person on the streets is $30,000 while the cost of housing them is just $10,000. Addressing this crisis is both the moral and fiscally responsible thing to do.

ENACT COMMON-SENSE GUN REGULATION.

92% of Americans want expanded background checks, 54% want a ban on assault weapons, and 54% want a ban on high capacity magazines. We agree with the majority of the American people and support these measures. Over 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence, including over 10,000 homicides. The time to act is now to address this public health crisis.

ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY.

Humans are fallible, we’ll never get the right answer 100% of the time. 4% of the people on death row are not guilty of a crime and have been wrongly convicted. A system that puts innocent people to death is indefensible and should be reformed. We want justice for the American people but killing innocent people on death row is the exact opposite.

THESE IDEAS REPRESENT WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT ALL ALONG.

Opinion polls in the United States demonstrate that these policy positions are overwhelmingly popular. Indeed, throughout the industrialized world these ideas are considered moderate. This is a movement about freedom and justice. And it’s a movement by and for working people. If the Democrats refuse to embrace this platform, they’ll continue to lose, either to Republicans or to us. The future of the Democratic party is the Justice wing, not the establishment wing.

#justicedemocrats #justice democrats #politics #democracy #liberal #progressive

197 notes · View notes

berniesrevolution · 7 years

Text

FULL Justice Democrats Platform

It’s time to face the facts: the Democratic Party is broken and the corporate, establishment wing of the party is responsible. Republicans now hold most state legislatures, most governorships, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency. So in 2018, hundreds of Justice Democrats will run a unified campaign to replace every corporate-backed member of Congress and rebuild the party from scratch. This is our plan.

Pass a constitutional amendment to put an end to Washington corruption and bring about election reform. Super PACs should be banned, private donations to politicians and campaigns should be banned, and a clean public financing system should be implemented to end the takeover of our government by corporations and billionaires. Americans deserve free and fair elections — free from the corruption of big money donors. The Supreme Court has effectively legalized bribery. It’s time for an Article 5 convention to take our Democracy back from the brink of Oligarchy. Prior to passing this amendment, all Justice Democrats should reject billionaire and corporate donations when running for office to show the American people we don’t just talk the talk, we walk the walk. Ranked choice voting should also be implemented to make smaller parties a viable option. All provisions of the voting rights act should be reinstated, and gerrymandering for partisan gain should be eliminated.

Re-regulate Wall Street and hold white-collar criminals accountable. Despite engaging in systemic fraud and causing a subprime mortgage meltdown and the great recession, you can count the people from Wall Street who are in prison for their crimes on one hand. It’s time to prosecute the criminals, bring back Glass-Steagall, and re-regulate Wall Street to prevent another crash. Prison is not just for the poor and the middle class anymore. We will have cops on Wall Street, not just Main Street.

End billionaire and corporate tax dodging, fix the system to benefit middle-class and poor people. Corporations dodge $450 billion a year in taxes by using offshore tax havens. We should end this injustice, as well as chain the capital gains tax to the income tax, increase the estate tax, and implement the buffet rule so that no millionaire CEO pays less in taxes than his or her secretary. It’s time for a tax system that benefits the middle-class and the poor, and makes the top 1% and multinational corporations pay their fair share.

Defend Free speech and expression. We support the right to express unpopular opinions without fear of censorship. We support free speech on college campuses. The marketplace of ideas should be embraced. A vibrant debate is healthy for democracy, and we should cherish our first amendment. We also support net neutrality for a free and open internet.

Oppose bigotry. We must speak out against racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all forms of bigotry. Non-discrimination protections that currently apply to race, religion, and gender should be expanded to include the LGBTQ community and the atheist community. Making all Americans equal is not asking for special privileges, it’s asking for the rule of law — justice and equality for all as outlined in the United States Constitution.

Make the minimum wage a living wage and tie it to inflation. This is about justice and basic human decency. If you work hard and you work full time you shouldn’t live in poverty.

Ensure universal healthcare as a right. The United States should catch up to every other modern nation and implement a single-payer, medicare-for-all system. There’s no reason we can’t be #1 in the world instead of #37. It’s time to end the destruction of American healthcare by rapacious, price gouging, for-profit, private health insurance middlemen.

Ensure Universal education as a right. Educating the citizenry of a nation pays dividends in the long run, with the economy getting back much more than is initially put in. Crushing student debt for higher education would no longer burden young men and women trying to improve their lives through hard work. We should strive to have the best education system in the world.

End unnecessary wars and nation building. The United States maintains 800 military bases worldwide at a cost of $100 billion a year, this is money that can be spent at home creating jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, and investing in the future of the people. The disastrous war in Iraq cost trillions, the war in Afghanistan is 15 years in with no end in sight, and we’re currently bombing 7 different countries. We spend more on our military than the next 8 countries combined. Despite countless lives lost and destroyed, terrorism has only gotten worse. It’s time to end the wars and the perverse monetary-incentive structure that makes politicians flippant about sending young men and women to die. Unilateral U.S. military force should only be used as a last resort to defend the nation. The current budget could be cut drastically if we used our department of defense for what it was intended — defending us, instead of waging interventionist wars.

End the failed war on drugs. The goal is legalization, taxation, and regulation. Prohibition only makes drug cartels more powerful, increases crime, and makes drugs more dangerous due to lack of enforced safety standards. What you put in your body is your own business, and your right. A free society should allow individuals to make their own choices about their bodies. While most users are recreational and moderate, rehabilitation and treatment should be provided for people struggling with addiction. Additionally, those serving time for non-violent drug offenses should be pardoned.

Create the new New Deal. Our infrastructure gets a grade of D from the Society of Civil Engineers. The government should invest billions in rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, schools, levees, airports etc. There’s no reason why we can’t have the world’s #1 infrastructure.

Create the renewable energy revolution. Scientists are sounding the alarm on climate change. In order to avoid the worst case scenario and a dystopian future we need a massive green revolution. It’s time to drastically and immediately move away from fossil fuels and develop the technologies of the future. This will be a giant boon to both the private and public sector, as well as a necessary response to a global crisis. We can and we must be #1 in sustainable energy production in the world.

Block the TPP and all outsourcing deals that will further damage the middle-class. As a result of NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China and the WTO, Americans have lost millions of decent paying jobs. It’s time to end the race to the bottom and renegotiate these rigged deals that only benefit elites. We should not sacrifice our sovereignty, the only people who are allowed to make laws for the United States should be the American people, not multinational corporations.

End Constitutional overreaches. Ban the NSA from bulk data-collection and warrantless spying. Shut down Guantanamo Bay and all extrajudicial prisons. Prosecute torturers and those who violated the Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg Tribunal, International law and US law. Return habeas corpus and due process. Pardon whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. We shouldn’t be leading from behind on human rights, we must be the home of liberty. We should practice the values we preach.

Enact common-sense gun regulation. 92% of Americans want expanded background checks, 54% want a ban on assault weapons, and 54% want a ban on high-capacity magazines. This should be implemented along with a federal gun buyback program to cut down on the 300+ million firearms in circulation. Over 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence, including over 10,000 homicides. The time to act is now to address this public health crisis.

Ensure paid vacation time, sick time, maternity leave, childcare. The United States is one of just three countries in the world that doesn’t offer paid maternity leave, the others being Oman and Papua New Guinea. We are the only industrialized nation that doesn’t offer paid vacation time. This should be changed immediately.

Abolish the death penalty. Humans are fallible, we’ll never get the right answer 100% of the time. 4% of the people on death row are not guilty of a crime and have been wrongly convicted. A system that puts innocent people to death is indefensible and should be reformed. We want justice for the American people but killing innocent people on death row is the exact opposite.

Defend and protect women’s rights. We support the Paycheck Fairness Act. We oppose Republican cuts to Planned Parenthood and women’s health clinics all across the country. In 2016 alone, 60 TRAP laws targeting abortion were passed in 19 states. We will vigorously oppose all efforts to dismantle reproductive rights.

Enact police reform. We believe in the core idea of policing — to serve and protect the community. Police are a vital part of American society and that is why it’s so important to reform the system to make it serve all Americans. For-profit policing should be abolished, police training should be retooled to emphasize de-escalation tactics, and body cameras should be mandatory on all officers. Furthermore, community oversight boards should be created and broken windows policing should be eliminated. Stop & frisk — which disproportionately targets blacks and latinos 87% of the time — has a 97% failure rate. On top of being discriminatory and ineffective, it’s also unconstitutional and should be ended. Special prosecutors must also be appointed to hold police accountable.

JusticeDemocrats.com

#politics #Justice Democrats #populism #grassroots #progressive #progressive movement #bernie sanders #political revolution #democrats #democratic party #tyt #The Young Turks #secular talk #berniecrats

414 notes · View notes

lodelss · 4 years

Text

ACLU: Defending Immigrants’ Rights and Reproductive Freedom in the U.S. Supreme Court

Defending Immigrants’ Rights and Reproductive Freedom in the U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a number of cases this term that will have a crucial impact on civil rights and civil liberties — from LGBTQ equality to reproductive freedom and immigrants’ rights. Earlier in the term, the ACLU had two cases asking whether workers can be fired for being gay or transgender. On March 2, we will be arguing a case on immigrants’ rights, and we have filed or will file friend-of-the-court briefs in major cases involving reproductive freedom, contraceptive access, and religious freedom.

We sat down with David Cole, the ACLU’s national legal director, to discuss what’s in store for the ACLU next week, and what’s at stake for civil liberties this SCOTUS term.

Q: The ACLU is going to the Supreme Court next week. What is the case and what’s at stake?

We will be arguing Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam on Monday, March 2. It asks whether the Constitution guarantees judicial review of deportation orders. This is a fundamental question for every immigrant, and it’s all the more important because President Trump is seeking to deport as many people as quickly as he can, often with as little process as possible. To that end, the administration has expanded a program called “expedited removal,” which allows the government to order the deportation of foreign nationals while denying them the right to have their case reviewed in court.

We’re defending Thuraissigiam, who is a Tamil, an ethnic minority group in Sri Lanka. He fled to the United States seeking asylum after being abducted and tortured by government agents. He applied for asylum, but the asylum officer found that he did not present a “credible fear of persecution at home,” even though the violent treatment he suffered fits precisely the pattern of government abuse of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

We argue that Thuraissigiam has a constitutional right to have a court review whether the deportation was legal or not through “habeas corpus,” a writ allowing any person facing detention to challenge its legality before a judge. The government argues that the Constitution does not protect immigrants, like Thuraissigiam, who challenge the legality of their removal from this country. In so arguing, it asks the court to depart from over 100 years of Supreme Court precedent. At the end of the day, if immigrants can be deported without judicial review, regardless of the legality of their deportation, then the rule of law in immigration proceedings will mean nothing. Under the government’s view, our client would have no judicial recourse, even if the Department of Homeland Security denied his request for asylum because he is dark-skinned.

Q: The court will also hear arguments on a Center for Reproductive Rights case related to abortion next week. What’s at stake there?

A: In this case, June Medical v. Russo, we filed an amicus brief supporting the abortion providers. The court will hear arguments on March 4. It’s a challenge to a Louisiana state law that requires doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. But what’s at stake is whether the new Supreme Court with two justices appointed by President Trump will give states the green light to push abortion care further and further out of reach.

Four years ago, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute that was identical to the Louisiana law. In that case, the court said there is no medical rationale for requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges in local hospitals. All the law did was make it harder for people to get abortions. Louisiana nonetheless argues that their identical law is constitutional. But to reach that result would likely either formally or as a practical matter overturn Whole Women’s Health, and if the court does that, it will be a very disturbing sign for the future viability of abortion rights.

Q: This is the first reproductive rights case that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch will hear since being confirmed to the court. How do you think this will affect the decision?

A: That’s the million-dollar question. No one knows for sure. What we do know, is that President Trump promised to put justices on the court to reverse Roe v. Wade. So we know what his intention was, but the question will be whether these justices abide by precedent or feel free to break from it.

Q: Is there a common thread in both these cases?

A: The common thread is that for the court to rule against the position we are advancing would require it to break from precedent. We’re asking the court to hold fast to core principles that have long been decided. The opposing sides, in both cases, are asking the court to ignore precedent and make new law.

I think we’re well-positioned to address these issues, because we’ve been at the forefront of the struggles for immigrants’ rights and reproductive freedom for the last 50 years. We were involved in Roe v. Wade itself, and we’ve been involved in virtually all the court’s major immigrants’ rights and reproductive rights decisions for decades. Reproductive freedom and immigrants’ rights are two of the most important issues that we fight for every day, and never have they been more under attack than under the Trump administration.

Q: What is the biggest challenge we face in these two cases?

A: The biggest challenge is that we now have a court that is dominated by very conservative justices. The question will be whether the court decides these cases in a partisan way, or whether it will rise above the partisan divide and act like a court. We rely on Supreme Court justices to apply the law, not to enforce partisan political views. These cases will be a real test of that principle.

Q: The Supreme Court recently announced it will hear Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. What is at stake there?

A: This case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, involves the City of Philadelphia’s taxpayer-funded foster care program and a nondiscrimination rule. Catholic Social Services, one of the nonprofits who contracted with the city to help carry out the city’s foster care program, refuses to certify same-sex couples as fit foster parents, even if they are otherwise fully qualified. Philadelphia’s law prohibits such discrimination. CSS claims that it has a constitutional right under the Free Exercise Clause to get government money to carry out a government program while violating the terms of the government program and engaging in discrimination with government money.

We represent two Philadelphia nonprofits that work with and for kids and families in the foster care system. We argue, alongside the City of Philadelphia, that if anyone wants to participate in a government program, they have to abide by the nondiscrimination rule and accept all qualified families. We won in the lower courts, but the Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision. This will be one of the most important cases argued next October. Catholic Social Services argues that they have a religious license to discriminate. We vehemently disagree.

Q: What other SCOTUS cases is the ACLU involved with this year?

A: We are involved in many cases, but I’ll just mention a few. We directly represented Aimee Stephens and Don Zarda in two cases that ask whether firing someone because they are LGBTQ is a form of sex discrimination in violation of federal law. The cases were argued in October, and we’re awaiting a decision. We argue that under the plain language of the statute, when you fire a woman for being attracted to women, but wouldn’t fire a man for being attracted to women, you are discriminating on the basis of sex. The same holds true when you fire an employee for coming to work as a woman because she was assigned male at birth. That is also discrimination because of sex.

We also filed an amicus brief challenging President Trump’s revocation of DACA, which provides legal status and work privileges to 700,000 undocumented young people who were brought to the U.S. as children. The lower courts held that the revocation was illegal. If the court rules otherwise, all DACA recipients will be in jeopardy of deportation.

Additionally, we are preparing an amicus brief in a Trump v. Pennsylvania, a case challenging a rule that would allow employers to deny insurance coverage to employees for contraception if the employer objects to contraception on religious or moral grounds. It essentially allows employees to impose their religious beliefs on their employees’ private lives. The lower courts ruled that the rule was illegal because the administration lacks the power to give employers the right to inflict their beliefs on their employees.

Q: What is the one key takeaway you want the public to know about the current SCOTUS term?

A: There is really one big thing to watch for this term: We have a new court with two new conservative justices. Are they going to apply the law and be bound by prior constitutional decisions, or are they going to break from those principles and use their majority power to make new law that undermines civil rights and civil liberties? Whatever happens, we can be sure of one thing: The ACLU will be there, advocating for the rights of us all.

Published February 28, 2020 at 02:22AM via ACLU https://ift.tt/3cdVeJB from Blogger https://ift.tt/2Vp2nAS via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

nancydhooper · 4 years

Text

Defending Immigrants’ Rights and Reproductive Freedom in the U.S. Supreme Court

We sat down with David Cole, the ACLU’s national legal director, to discuss what’s in store for the ACLU next week, and what’s at stake for civil liberties this SCOTUS term.

Q: The ACLU is going to the Supreme Court next week. What is the case and what’s at stake?

Q: The court will also hear arguments on a Center for Reproductive Rights case related to abortion next week. What’s at stake there?

Q: This is the first reproductive rights case that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch will hear since being confirmed to the court. How do you think this will affect the decision?

Q: Is there a common thread in both these cases?

Q: What is the biggest challenge we face in these two cases?

Q: The Supreme Court recently announced it will hear Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. What is at stake there?

Q: What other SCOTUS cases is the ACLU involved with this year?

Q: What is the one key takeaway you want the public to know about the current SCOTUS term?

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/defending-immigrants-rights-and-reproductive-freedom-in-the-u-s-supreme-court via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

biofunmy · 5 years

Text

Songbirds silenced as Colombia fights wildlife trafficking

The metal doors of a shoebox-sized cage open up and a bird tagged #811 launches into a giant aviary. The palm-sized finch performs a midair pirouette, lands on a willow branch and curiously twitches its saffron-colored head sideways, as if surprised by its good fortune.

“That’s what it feels like to be free,” said Juan Camilo Panqueba, a veterinarian at a quarantine center in Colombia’s high Andean capital, far from the canary’s natural habitat along the humid, Caribbean coast.

The moment of liberation contrasts with the dreadful conditions in which the finch was found. Three weeks ago, authorities in the capital seized 32 finches in a surprise raid on a cockfighting ring where a high-stakes, booze-filled songbird contest billed as “the clash of titans” on social media was taking place.

While sparring by way of song has been a pastime throughout the Caribbean for centuries, trapping wildlife without a license — even species like these saffron finches, or Sicalis flaveola, which are not threatened — is a crime in Colombia, though one that authorities ignored in a country overrun by drug cartels, leftist guerrillas and other armed groups

Until now.

Taking advantage of a decline in violence, and spurred by a growing awareness of Colombia’s importance as the country with the second highest biodiversity in the world, authorities are going after animal trafficking like never before. Last year, police seized more than 34,600 animals illegally poached from the wild — a 44% increase over 2017. Many were detected by a pack of 16 feather- and skin-sniffing dogs stationed at airports and bus stations.

“Just because it’s a tradition doesn’t make it right,” said Maj. Paula Ortiz, head of a 500-strong police unit that combats environmental crimes.

Prosecutors are also more aggressively going after the criminal networks that thrive on the illegal trade, whose profits trail only drug and arms smuggling, according to police. Globally, the wildlife trade is worth more than $10 billion, according to the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime.

The focus on law enforcement coincides with a debate about the rights of wild animals raging in Colombia and around the world.

This month, judges on Colombia’s constitutional court heard arguments in a long-running case over the fate of an endangered Andean spectacled bear named Chucho, who years ago was taken from a nature reserve and locked up a zoo in Barranquilla. A lawyer claiming to act on the bear’s behalf successfully sued to have Chucho released. If the high court upholds that ruling it would be the first time a wild animal in Colombia has ever been granted habeas corpus rights similar to those enjoyed by human beings.

The seizure of the 32 birds was the result of an undercover operation led by members of Bogota’s environmental secretariat. In May, with police they seized 16 birds, including an endangered cardinal, locked in small cages in three working-class apartments. Leads from that raid allowed authorities to clandestinely penetrate a network that organized last month’s event.

A video posted on a closed Facebook group promised participants and the paying public plenty of whiskey and “something wonderful” as they cheered on the birds hanging in cages above an artificial turf ring. The owner of the bird with the biggest pipes, as measured by judges counting chirps on a giant abacus with a star at one end, was to take home a $100 prize.

Officials from the environmental secretariat say the birds were subjected to prolonged abuse by their captors, mostly migrants to the capital from the Caribbean coast and Venezuela, who kept them in the tiny cages and force them to listen to loud music around the clock in an effort to spur them to sing. In the wild, the birds croon to defend their territory or court a mate.

“For them, it was like torture,” said Panqueba, the veterinarian, who is technical supervisor at the city-run wildlife center where the birds are cared for alongside more than 1,000 animals, among them rainbow-colored macaws, endangered sea turtles and tiny titi monkeys — all of them rescued from traffickers.

“Unfortunately there’s not a single day where we don’t receive a wild animal,” said Panqueba, who did not partake in the police operation.

While the aim is always to return the animals to their natural habitat, many are unfit to survive in the wild, having developed diseases or grown too accustomed to human beings. In the case of the canaries, 11 of the 32 tested positive for a parasite that needs to be treated before they can resume flight.

Not all bird lovers support the crackdown.

Carlos Castellano, a Colombian judge for the World Ornithological Confederation, believes authorities are criminalizing a rich cultural tradition. Birds have been bred in captivity for their colors, shape or song since at least the 14th century, he said, and the tradition is especially rooted in Latin America, where the practice arrived with the Spanish conquistadores.

“I wish it were so easy to obligate a bird to sing,” joked Castellano, whose singing sidekick “Caruso” in 1989 won Colombia’s only top prize ever at the World Ornithology Championship, held in Italy. “If a bird isn’t happy in its cage, which is its home by birth or destiny, it won’t ever sing, no matter what you do.”

While Castellano acknowledges that taking the birds from the wild is illegal, he accuses authorities of overlooking the fact that their abundant population, widely distributed throughout Latin America and a colonizing presence even in urban areas, isn’t at risk. Even breeders like himself need to supplement their domestic population from time to time with wild specimens, he says.

“This is going to convert a cultural tradition into a clandestine activity,” Castellano said.

Authorities want to deliver a blow to the highly organized, dangerous syndicates behind the illegal trade. While wildlife trafficking is punishable with jail sentences of four to nine years, few of the more than 3,500 people caught in the act so far this year for environmental and wildlife crimes are currently behind bars. Many are repeat offenders. In the case of the canaries, prosecutors for the first time are trying to stiffen the punishment by adding conspiracy charges.

For the most part, traffickers continue to operate with impunity.

After the canaries were rescued, an unidentified man showed up at the wildlife center offering to bribe a security guard a few hundred dollars to have the birds returned. When he was sent away, he said, “We’re going to leave you alone for now,” Panqueba said. Days later, one of the birds’ former owners was discovered inside the wildlife center trying to blend in with a group of workers carrying out a construction project on the premises.

As a result of the repeated threats, the birds are being relocated to another wildlife center in an undisclosed location to continue their rehabilitation, which will last a minimum of 45 days.

“Unfortunately the justice system in our country guarantees more the rights of individuals than wildlife,” said Ortiz, the police major. “But we’re not going to give up and will continue to act severely against these crimes.”

———

Joshua Goodman on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APjoshgoodman

Sahred From Source link Technology

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2KzG6dy via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

maxwellyjordan · 4 years

Text

Relist Watch (Updated)

John Elwood briefly reviews Monday’s relists.

Editor’s note: This post has been updated with a discussion and note of two additional new relists: Avery v. United States, 19-633, and Kelly v. White, 19-264.

For the second week running, the Supremes cleared out a metric ton of relists. Because we love success stories, in discussing last week’s relists, we of course start with the grants: two cases involving the Affordable Care Act (again!), one Freedom of Information Act case (again!), and the case that won the lottery to replace Walker v. United States, which was dismissed earlier this year after the petitioner died. A slew of other cases are being held for those new grants — so many that including all the hyperlinks would not seem funny at all, but just annoying. Finally, Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a statement respecting the denial of cert criticizing the idea of deferring to agency interpretations of a criminal statute.

This will be a quick post this week because all the new relists fall into (barely) three categories. Most of the new relists last week involved an effort to find a replacement for Walker. This week, most of the new relists are potential replacements for another recently dismissed case, Mathena v. Malvo, 18-217, involving the D.C. sniper.

The second issue presented by a new relist involves collateral review of criminal convictions. Edwin Avery had his federal firearms conviction enhanced under the much-litigated Armed Career Criminal Act. After the Supreme Court held that ACCA’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague, Avery challenged his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He lost and didn’t appeal. Then he filed another Section 2255 challenge. Again, the district court dismissed. And on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction over Avery’s case, because 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b) provides that “[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” The 6th Circuit was untroubled that Section 2241(b) textually applied only to the habeas petitions of state prisoners under Section 2254, and not to federal prisoners under Section 2255, saying in its unpublished opinion, “our cases teach that its bar on repetitive filings extends to federal prisoners’ §2255 motions.” The government now “agrees that Section 2241 does not apply to Section 2255 motions and … the court of appeals erred in concluding to the contrary.” But it notes that the 6th Circuit later recognized in a published opinion that Section 2241 does not apply to Section 2255 motions, and it argues that Avery would lose for other reasons.

The only other new case this week involves the standard for summary judgment, brought in the case of a contested encounter between a suspect and the police officer who shot him. I may be singing a different tune soon, but this one strikes me as fodder for one or more separate opinions rather than an outright grant.

The court will meet to consider new cases this Friday, then they’ll be off for a week until they meet again on March 20. We’ll be back next week to sort through the anticipated relists. Until next time!

New Relists

Newton v. Indiana, 17-1511 Issues: (1) Whether Miller v. Alabama applies to discretionary sentences of life without parole imposed for juvenile offenses, as 16 states have held, or whether it is limited to mandatory sentences of life without parole, as 10 others have found; and (2) whether an evidentiary hearing is required to assess whether juveniles sentenced before Miller are irreparably corrupt. (rescheduled before the September 24 and November 30 conferences; relisted after the December 7, 2018, January 4, 2019, January 11, 2019, January 18, 2019, February 15, 2019, February 22, 2019, March 1, 2019, March 15, 2019, and February 28, 2020, conferences)

Jones v. Mississippi, 18-1259 Issue: Whether the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencing authority to make a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole. (relisted after the February 28 conference)

Oklahoma v. Johnson, 19-250 Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment requires that the individualized sentencing proceeding necessary to impose a life-without-parole sentence upon a juvenile homicide offender be a trial by jury. (relisted after February 28 conference)

Kelly v. White, 19-264 Issue: Whether the Eighth Amendment, under Miller v. Alabama, which applies to mandatory sentences, requires invalidation of respondent Lydell White’s sentence. (relisted after February 28 conference)

Kelly v. White, 19-265 Issue: Whether the Eighth Amendment, under Miller v. Alabama, which applies to mandatory sentences, requires invalidation of respondent Laycelle White’s sentence. (relisted after February 28 conference)

Pittman v. Harris, 19-466 Issues: (1) Whether in Scott v. Harris the Supreme Court announced an “exception” to the summary-judgment standard in cases commenced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and if not, whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred when it deviated from other circuit holdings and announced that Scott directs the lower courts to examine whether a self-serving narrative is contradicted by individual pieces of the record, as opposed to the entire record, to discern if a genuine dispute of material fact exists; and (2) whether the respondent, Herman Harris, “clearly established” his right to be free from excess force when Harris assaulted the petitioner, Zachery Pittman, in a wooded area, attempted to murder Pittman with his service weapon and presented a lethal threat until Pittman fired in rapid succession. (relisted after February 28 conference)

Avery v. United States, 19-633 Issue: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to federal prisoners seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (relisted after February 28 conference)

Returning Relists

Andrus v. Texas, 18-9674 Issue: Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced in Strickland v. Washington, fails to protect the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the 14th Amendment right to due process when, in death-penalty cases involving flagrantly deficient performance, courts can deny relief following a truncated “no prejudice” analysis that does not account for the evidence amassed in a habeas proceeding and relies on a trial record shaped by trial counsel’s ineffective representation. (rescheduled before the November 1, 2019, and November 8, 2019, conferences; relisted after the November 15, 2019, November 22, 2019, December 6, 2019, December 13, 2019, January 10, January 17, January 24, February 21 and February 28 conferences)

Cannon v. Seay, 19-311 Issues: (1) Whether, in review of a state decision under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, when a federal appellate court must determine if double-jeopardy protection bars retrial after a mistrial is granted over a defendant’s objection based upon the absence of a critical prosecution witness, the required strict scrutiny applied to the legal determination of manifest necessity constrains in equal or greater measure the deference universally accorded a trial court’s fact-finding; and (2) whether, in granting relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit egregiously failed to apply clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Washington and accord deference to the state court’s ruling finding manifest necessity for mistrial when it resolved that omission of a reference to consideration of alternatives in the court’s oral ruling made the ruling fatally insufficient, even though the record shows the state court did not act rashly in granting a mistrial, but pursued a cautious approach that included suspending the trial to allow a search for the missing witness prior to considering and granting the state’s mistrial motion. (relisted after the January 10, January 17, January 24, February 21 and February 28 conferences)

The Rams Football Company, LLC v. St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, 19-672 Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court to refuse to enforce the terms of an arbitration agreement assigning questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator if those terms would be enforceable under ordinary state-law contract principles in a non-arbitration context. (relisted after the January 24 January 24, February 21 and February 28 conferences)

VF Jeanswear LP v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 19-446 Issues: (1) Whether Title VII authorizes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to continue investigating a charge of discrimination after the commission issues the charging party a right-to-sue notice and after the charging party pursues private litigation; and (2) whether the EEOC can rely on a charge of discrimination to demand information from an employer about acts or practices not affecting the charging party. (relisted after the February 21 and February 28 conferences)

Davis v. United States, 19-5421 Issue: Whether factual error is categorically immune from plain error review. (rescheduled before the January 10, 2020 conference; relisted after the February 21 and February 28 conferences)

Bazan v. United States, 19-6113 Issue: Whether factual error is categorically immune from plain error review. (relisted after the February 21 and February 28 conferences)

Bazan v. United States, 19-6431 Issue: Whether factual error is categorically immune from plain error review. (relisted after the February 21 and February 28 conferences)

Halprin v. Davis, 19-6156 Issue: Whether Randy Halprin’s second federal petition raising a judicial bias claim is “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) if the judge concealed his bias by failing to recuse himself, and the public exposure of his bigotry after the conclusion of Halprin’s initial habeas proceedings in the district court created Halprin’s first fair opportunity to present his claim. (relisted after the February 21 and February 28 conferences)

The post Relist Watch (Updated) appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/03/relist-watch-159/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes

policeslime35-blog · 5 years

Text

Lt. gov. hopeful Jeff Bartos says the death penalty is a deterrent. Researchers disagree.

Jeff Bartos, the Republican candidate for Pennsylvania lieutenant governor, said in a debate Saturday that there isn’t yet consensus on whether the death penalty serves as an effective criminal deterrent.

“In terms of capital punishment and my views on capital punishment, the jury is very much still out about whether it’s a deterrent factor or not,” Bartos said during a pre-recorded debate filmed Saturday afternoon aired that evening byWPXI-TV in Pittsburgh. “But what I am certain of is a specific deterrent with the most heinous crimes — what we see happening on school grounds and when we see people slaughtering children, and we see certain people sitting on death row who have wantonly just destroyed families and lives, they deserve the death penalty and to take that away from a judge and a jury, in my opinion, is wrong.”

The question he was answering mentioned gubernatorial running mate Scott Wagner’s proposed policy of a mandatory death sentence for school shooters.

Asked to clarify Bartos’ answer Wednesday, campaign spokesperson Andrew Romeo said via email, “Since [the proposed policy] has not been tried yet in Pennsylvania, there is no way to tell whether or not it will be a deterrent, but Scott and Jeff believe it will be.”

In 60 years of research, is there evidence to support their belief?

For this fact-check, we’ll put aside the ethical, moral and religious arguments around the death penalty’s use, and look just at the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent.

Both advocates and abolitionists have troves of competing data. Some studies point to comparable or nearly identical murder rates between states with the death penalty and those without it. Others argue a statistical correlation between the death penalty and reductions in murder rates.

But the overarching consensus in the most authoritative circles — a task force and advisory committee to the Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission among them — is that all or many of these studies were flawed.

“I don’t know empirically that anyone can demonstrate it’s a deterrent,” said John Rago, an associate professor at the Duquesne University School of Law. “The death penalty has always struck me as an expression of society’s condemnation of a particular act, as opposed to an attempt to deter others from doing it.”

Rago pointed to the June 2018 report on the death penalty for the Pa. Joint State Government Commission. In it, a task force and advisory committee reports to the commission that research on the subject of the death penalty as a deterrence factor is severely lacking.

“In a state like Pennsylvania with a relatively large number of death sentences but almost no executions, the deterrent effect of the death penalty is attenuated, regardless of whether a more vigorously applied death penalty would have a deterrent effect” the study states, citing decades of flawed research in supporting this conclusion.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf imposed a moratorium on executions shortly after taking office in 2015.

The following year, the Pa. Department of Corrections reported a 0.6 percent decrease in murders. But there’s conflicting data from the Department of Health, where records show 48 more homicides in 2016 than in 2015.

Marshall Dayan, an assistant public defender in the capital habeas unit of the federal public defender’s office for the Western District of Pa., was one of 30 advisory committee members behind the June report to the Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission. He said he’s represented people charged with or convicted of capital crimes for more than 30 years and that anecdotally he’s found “the death penalty isn’t a deterrent because nobody thinks they’re going to be caught.”

He relayed a common refrain from clients: “Of course we didn’t care. It made no difference to us whether it’s death or life without parole or boiling us alive in hot oil.”

Said Daniel Nagin, a researcher and professor of public policy and statistics at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, in a 2014 piece by the Washington Post: “It’s the certainty of apprehension that’s been demonstrated consistently to be an effective deterrent, not the severity of the ensuing consequences.”

In a phone conversation Wednesday, Nagin, who was chair of a committee that created a 2012 report for the National Academy of Sciences on this subject, said their conclusion was that research on the death penalty was so flawed as to be “uninformative on the question of whether there was a deterrent effect of the death penalty.”

The body of research was deemed flawed, in large part, because it failed to take into account whether the death penalty was a greater deterrent than other options available to the criminal justice system. That hasn’t changed in the six years since, at least not to his knowledge, Nagin said.

Dayan stressed that the question of relative effectiveness is crucial. “The question is not whether the death penalty deters in a vacuum,” he said, “the question is whether there’s any additional deterrent effect of threatening to kill somebody versus threatening to incarcerate someone for a long period of time or forever.”

“It’s not like the options are either you get sentenced to death or we give you the key to the city,” Dayan said.

“Really smart social scientists have been looking at this for 60 years and have pretty consistently concluded that it can’t be proved one way or the other,” Dayan added. “Sixty years with no conclusion suggests to me there is a conclusion, that is we can’t either prove or disprove deterrence and so if you want to rest public policy on the deterrence rationale — the research just doesn’t support that.”

Source: https://billypenn.com/2018/10/11/wagner-running-mate-jeff-bartos-says-the-death-penalty-is-a-deterrent-researchers-disagree/

0 notes

duaneodavila · 5 years

Text

Too Harsh For Too Long Is No Excuse

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner has been everything he said he would be when he ran for office, and he’s taken some heat along with the kudos. But a collateral consequence is unfolding as his Conviction Integrity Unit is doing its job. Judges find it hard to adjust to a prosecutor who concedes that there are innocent people in prison.

As much as his office has demonstrated its willingness to go back, review old convictions, determine whether they were obtained through some impropriety or whether a defendant might have been innocent, it wasn’t entirely his call.

It will be a decade in April since a federal judge, after hearing evidence in the case of Terrance Lewis, ruled that he appeared to be innocent of the 1996 murder of Hulon Howard in West Philadelphia — but that for procedural reasons, his conviction and life sentence could not be overturned.

The procedural reasons aren’t specified, but almost certainly refer to the AEDPA, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, that so drastically limited the time within which to bring what used to be known as a Writ of Habeas Corpus as to render it irrelevant. The rationale was that there must be some finality to the system or claims go on forever. Included in the claims lost forever was actual innocence, even when the proof of innocence was hidden by the prosecutor so that the wrongfully convicted had no chance to bring a timely petition.

Having the door to federal court slammed in his face, Lewis sought relief in state court. This time, luck was on his side when Krasner became prosecutor. But even then it didn’t go as smoothly as one would hope.

Kevin Harden, who represents Lewis, said the CIU’s hesitation was in part a reaction to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision last October rejecting the district attorney’s attempt to overturn a death sentence secured by a prior administration on the basis of “prosecutorial discretion.”

“That informs all the work everyone is doing with regard to post-conviction issues, because the courts have an independent duty to maintain the finality of judgments,” Harden said.

Prosecutorial discretion plays a huge role prior to conviction, but convictions come from courts, not prosecutors, and it’s no longer up to a district attorney to say “never mind.”

A year into Krasner’s tenure, his ambitious Conviction Integrity Unit — charged with both investigating problematic convictions and reversing unjust sentences — has repeatedly found its agenda stymied by a cautious judiciary.

CIU director Patricia Cummings on Monday said she believed the pushback in part reflected a lack of trust in Krasner’s administration.

“We’re getting scrutiny because of Larry Krasner being who he is, and because we have made it clear that this is a priority,” she said. “Some judges think we’ve gone rogue or we’re renegades, and that we’re going to come in and undo convictions when the law doesn’t support that.”

Ordinarily, judges find themselves in the position of “refereeing” between an overly zealous prosecutor and the defense, After all, who would be prosecutor if not to prosecute? But Krasner’s many initiatives have not only closed the gap between the two sides, but has put judges in the awkward position of assuming the prosecutor mantle when they believe Krasner is too defense oriented and unwilling to do his job.

Krasner spokesperson Ben Waxman said that under Cummings’ leadership, the CIU has brought five cases to court. In two, murder convictions were thrown out. But in the other three, judges blocked attempts to overturn convictions or vacate sentences — even ones prosecutors believed were clearly illegal.

The prevailing argument in favor of conviction finality is that it would “open the floodgates” to constant relitigation of old and decided cases. But five? In the scheme of Philadelphia convictions, five cases doesn’t make a dent. Krasner is hardly throwing open the cell doors and letting killers walk out. If anything, it’s shocking that it’s only five, as Philly has no history of being well-aquainted with fairness. Indeed, Mayor Frank Rizzo was beloved for his cops tossing black guys against walls to remind them who’s in charge.

So why are Philadelphia judges so hard on Krasner’s rather insignificant effort to correct illegal convictions?

Still, Marissa Boyers Bluestine, executive director of the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, chalked the conflict up to an “adjustment period.”

“You have some judges who have been on that court for 20 years and … now it appears to their ears that they are being asked to do things that are improper,” she said. “It’s a matter of assuring them that ‘just because we’re taking a position that is not as draconian as our predecessors’ doesn’t mean we’re not following the law.’”

Some judges are, to be kind, harsh. Let’s not forget that the past half century has been a competition over who can be tougher on crime, and nobody was complaining about hanging judges. But others mean well and try to do what’s right. This puts them in a very different, very uncomfortable, position.

For their entire career, off and on the bench, the prosecution argued for conviction, argued why a sentence far harsher than the defense sought was necessary to protect the public from some criminal. They understood it. They believed that “justice” came from the struggle between the two sides, the prosecution and defense.

Now, with Krasner as District Attorney, the system is askew. Maybe not quite turned upside down, but certainly not what it was before. Can they trust Krasner to be the prosecutor? Can they trust his discretion? Is he doing the prosecutor’s job or is he another defense lawyer in district attorney’s clothing?

From all appearances, Krasner’s CIU has not only done its job well and fairly when it concludes that a conviction should be reversed, but is overwhelmed by the calls for review.

Meanwhile, some lawyers who have decades-old cases in the CIU’s queue complain of the office’s opacity.

Susan Burt-Collins, who has urged the CIU to take up the case of Naeem Jones for more than a year, has grown frustrated.

“The innocence cases, they’re just sitting there,” she said.

While it’s somewhat understandable that judges are reluctant to let this new guy come in and undo what generations of prosecutors before him did, this sense that Krasner’s a rogue prosecutor doesn’t appear remotely supported by reality. This “adjustment period” means that innocent and illegally sentenced defendants are sitting in cells while judges get used to a prosecutor who won’t abuse the system to secure convictions.

Granted, it may feel very different from what they experienced up to now, but the problem isn’t that Krasner has gone rogue, but that his predecessors had for decades and nobody stopped them. Judges shouldn’t acquiesce to Krasner’s discretion because he’s too soft, but because it’s been too harsh for too long. Their “adjustment period” is an innocent person’s life in prison. Get over it. Do law, even if it feels weird doing it right.

Too Harsh For Too Long Is No Excuse republished via Simple Justice

0 notes

marymosley · 5 years

Text

Trump’s Inclinations and Actions Remain Thankfully Divergent

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the reported interest of President Donald Trump in ordering the investigation and prosecution of Hillary Clinton and James Comey.

Here is the column:

The reported demand of President Trump to have the Department of Justice prosecute his 2016 political opponent, Hillary Clinton, and former FBI director, James Comey, is deeply alarming. Such an order would violate long-standing rules separating presidents from such prosecution decisions, particularly when directed against political opponents.

One of the most alarming aspects of the story is its timing. If true, Trump has still not learned basic lessons about the limits of his office, despite two years of self-inflicted injuries caused by his own ill-conceived actions and comments. He is not unique, however, as a president who seems to fit uncomfortably within his office.

Trump reportedly told former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II that he wanted to order the prosecution of Clinton and Comey. McGahn, as he had in the past, pushed back on Trump and explained that such an order would be a fundamental violation of our legal system and would raise a viable basis for impeachment. In doing so, McGahn again fulfilled the most essential function of his office in reminding a president of the navigational beacons of his office. This suggestion was not just outside of those beacons but off the known navigational chart.

What is most distressing is that the president is still even contemplating such actions after he incurred huge costs with missteps at the start of his administration. Like the recent disclosure that Ivanka Trump used her personal email system for official communications, after her father’s vehement campaign against Clinton for such violations, there appears to be a dangerously long learning curve in the White House about basic rules of conduct.

Nevertheless, it is notable that Trump did not in fact give the order. There remains a sharp disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and his actions. When viewed from his actual decisions, Trump is not dissimilar from prior presidents. While perhaps due to the principled stance of people like McGahn, Trump has adhered to contrary court rulings and has not materially departed from the baseline of prior presidents.

Indeed, other presidents have proven far greater menaces to the Constitution but are, today, curiously celebrated as great leaders with little reference to their constitutional violations.

Consider Abraham Lincoln, who committed an act that is the very definition of tyranny under our Constitution: He unilaterally suspended habeas corpus in the United States.

Referred to as “the Great Writ,” habeas corpus affords citizens the right to challenge their arrests and jailing. It is the right that not only protects due process but checks authoritarian power. The suspension of that right is left to Congress under Article I, Section 9, which mandates that it should not be done “unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Lincoln acted during the Civil War, of course, but he acted alone without Congress’s approval. Moreover, many political opponents of Lincoln, including “Copperheads” (Democrats in the North who opposed the war), were arrested. While Congress later tried to rectify the problem retroactively, Lincoln clearly violated the Constitution.

Similarly, Franklin Delano Roosevelt refused to accept basic limits on this authority. One of the most alarming cases involved the capture of two teams of German saboteurs in 1941 who were supposed to wreak havoc in a secret operation called “Pastorius.”

From the outset, two of the saboteurs (including their leader) intended to reveal the operation upon landing, and did so to the FBI. (Then-Director J. Edgar Hoover would later lie to the public and Congress, claiming that his agents discovered the plan). Roosevelt insisted that all eight men be shot and that Hoover be given a medal. His aides noted that the men deserved a legal process, which Roosevelt refused to acknowledge. When the case went to the Supreme Court, Justice Owen J. Roberts was used to convey to the whole court in its internal conference that FDR intended to have all eight men shot if the court did not acknowledge his authority.

In other words, if the court found that the men had rights, FDR would shoot them in defiance. In one of the most unethical and shameful moments of the court, the justice relented and circumvented a confrontation.

Strangely, former White House counsel John Dean said this week that even Richard Nixon, who resigned just before impeachment, would never have contemplated such an order. Since Nixon carried out the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” (in which he ordered the firing of a special prosecutor, which led to the removal of the two highest ranking Justice officials who refused to obey his order) — not to mention his misuse of the FBI and CIA for criminal purposes — the moral or ethical clarity suggested by Dean is rather difficult to discern.

Even a liberal icon like Barack Obama flouted the Constitution, ordering the nation to war in Libya without a congressional resolution, let alone a declaration, and repeatedly circumvented Congress in areas such as immigration — the very act that Obama’s defenders now denounce in the Trump administration.

Considering such blatant historic violations, in both peacetime and wartime, presidents are a virtual rogue’s gallery of unconstitutional actors. Ironically, while viewed as someone with authoritarian ideations, if not inclinations, Trump thus far is distinguishable in not actually giving orders to do things like firing special counsel Robert Mueller or demanding the prosecution of his former political opponent.

That does not mean this new account should not be treated as alarming. Trump continues to maintain that he can order the entire investigation closed and fire anyone with impunity. He is wrong, and such an assault on the process would raise serious questions for impeachment. Indeed, it is unnerving to hear any president voicing abusive thoughts. However, this is why the White House counsel position is so vital, and why confidentiality is so important. If we had a transcript of all the ideas raised by presidents in anger or frustration, it would likely chill the public to its core.

None of this excuses President Trump if he suggested such a course of action. His extreme view of presidential power seems indelible and inalterable, despite a series of losses in court and recurring chaos in the White House. We have reason to be concerned.

From a constitutional perspective, Trump remains what a beat cop might call a “suspicious character” who talks boldly of unlawful schemes but, thus far, has a relatively clean record. The greatest irony would be if Trump actually continues this course in complying — reluctantly — with the Constitution while stating a desire to violate it. Conversely, his more polished, circumspect predecessors often voiced fealty to constitutional limits while honoring them largely in the breach.

With McGahn and others gone from his inner circle, and things heating up in Washington, Trump could still yield to his worst inclinations and send his presidency and the country into a constitutional crisis. The fact that he has not done so remains strangely intriguing and even encouraging.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Trump’s Inclinations and Actions Remain Thankfully Divergent published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

benrleeusa · 6 years

Text

[John K. Ross] Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Butter grades, toxic coal ash, and Stairway to Heaven.

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.

Friends, the Supreme Court has long treated the nondelegation doctrine as a dead letter. Indeed, since 1935 no public nondelegation challenge has prevailed at SCOTUS, which is unfortunate; the doctrine was meant to safeguard the separation of powers (and thus individual liberty), and its disappearance coincides with rampant overcriminalization. But this week, SCOTUS heard oral argument in Gundy v. United States, which presents the Court with a chance to reconsider. Click here to read IJ's amicus brief.

New on the podcast: a special live edition recorded at UNC law school at the invitation of UNC's Federalist Society chapter and featuring Chris Brook of the ACLU of North Carolina and IJ's very own Justin Pearson. Click here for iTunes.

After state-court criminal conviction, lawyer discovers that a juror had apparently been consulting a book by Ann Coulter (literally entitled Guilty) in the jury room. And that would be a problem if this had been a federal trial, says the First Circuit, but it doesn't create grounds for habeas relief.

Allegation: Nesquehoning, Penn. officer loses control during 100-mph chase (over minor traffic violation), crosses center line and crashes into man's vehicle, seriously injuring him and killing his wife. (The officer pleads guilty to vehicular homicide.) Can the man sue the officer? District court: Yes. Third Circuit: Vacated. The officer's conduct shocks the conscience but does not violate clearly established law. From here on out, though, no qualified immunity for this. Partial dissent: Every reasonable officer knows this is outrageous, unconstitutional conduct.

Perfluorinated compounds from U.S. Navy facilities in Pennsylvania contaminate two families' private wells. The Navy connects them to municipal water supply. Yikes! That's contaminated, too. Third Circuit: The feds are cleaning up the facilities, so most of the families' claims can't go, but it could be that the Navy has to pay for medical monitoring. That claim should not have been dismissed.

Whole Foods gets caught selling prepackaged food that included the weight of the package in the total price of the food—and thus charging consumers for more than they received. Allegation: Executives lied to investors during this scandal, artificially inflating the price of the company's stock. Fifth Circuit: "Just because Whole Foods' prices were not as competitive as advertised, it need not follow that they were not competitive." No securities violations here.

Defendant entered a guilty plea without being fully apprised of the possible immigration consequences, though he says he wouldn't have gone to trial anyway. Sixth Circuit (over a dissent): But he might have been able to negotiate about those consequences in the course of plea bargaining, so he gets to withdraw the plea anyway.

District court: Toxic coal ash is most likely leaking from ponds near a soon-to-be shuttered Tennessee Valley Authority power plant into the Cumberland River near a popular recreation spot. The TVA must move the coal ash to a new facility with better protections against leakages. Sixth Circuit: Not so. Because the contamination reaches the river indirectly (first seeping into groundwater and then reaching the river), the Clean Water Act doesn't apply. (Other laws might, though.) Judge Clay, dissenting: "Can a polluter escape liability under the Clean Water Act … by moving its drainage pipes a few feet from the riverbank? The Fourth and Ninth Circuits have said no. In two cases today, the majority says yes."

Environmentalists: Toxic coal ash is leaking from ponds near a Kentucky power plant into groundwater and then into a nearby lake. Sixth Circuit: Not a Clean Water Act violation. But the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates solid waste management, applies. The RCRA claim should not have been dismissed. Judge Clay, concurring in part, dissenting in part: The CWA applies, too.

Butter sold in Wisconsin must bear a grade based on 32 different characteristics (relating to flavor, body, color, and salt) that is bestowed by state or federal butter graders. (No other state requires butter grading.) Ohio dairy company that sells its artisanal Amish-style butter nationwide objects to Wisconsin's grading—it's too expensive and, besides that, it violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the dormant commerce clause. Seventh Circuit: Nope. Butter badges build better butter buyers.

Did Led Zeppelin steal "Stairway to Heaven"? (Have a listen to Spirit's song "Taurus" and decide for yourself.) Ninth Circuit: Could be. The jury should have been instructed that the selection and arrangement of unprotectable musical elements are protectable. Remanded for a new trial, and this time "Taurus" must be played in front of the jury.

Decatur, Ala. woman arrested, indicted on drug charges (which prosecutors agree to dismiss upon her paying court costs). But housing authorities terminate her Section 8 voucher (which prohibits recipients from engaging in drug-related criminal activity) based on the indictment. Eleventh Circuit: Can't do that. The authorities needed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she committed the crime; the indictment establishes only probable cause, which isn't enough. Concurrence: This is what our precedent requires, but it should be overruled en banc.

Allegation: Prisoner is shanked in the eye by fellow inmate, dies the following day. Did the Springville, Ala. prison warden unconstitutionally interfere with the deceased's care by approving a "do not resuscitate" order and authorizing physicians to take him off life support? The Eleventh Circuit says yes. Prison wardens cannot act as proper surrogates to make end-of-life decisions. No qualified immunity.

Deaf man alleges that four Hallandale Beach, Fla. websites fail to provide the closed captioning required by federal statute. District court: Only one of the four websites belongs to the city. (One is Facebook.) And anyway, the man had to file a FCC complaint before filing suit. Case dismissed. Eleventh Circuit: Vacated. There's no need to file a complaint first. (But if indeed three of the sites are not run by the city, those claims can't go.)

"How did we ever reach the point where this Court, sitting en banc, must debate whether a carjacking in which an assailant struck a 13-year-old girl in the mouth with a baseball bat and a cohort fired an AK-47 at her family is a crime of violence? It's nuts." So writes Judge William Pryor, concurring in the Eleventh Circuit's decision to implement a saving construction and find that a residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act defining the term "crime of violence" is not unconstitutionally vague (as the Supreme Court has held other similarly worded residual clauses to be). Judge Jill Pryor dissenting: It's up to Congress to save it.

In 2008, Frederick, Md. sheriff deputies espy woman sitting on curb eating a sandwich before work, demand identification. She provides El Salvadoran ID, and the deputies discover she has an outstanding immigration warrant, so they arrest and jail her. Fourth Circuit (2013): Unconstitutional seizure. But back to the district court to determine whether the deputies' actions were official gov't policy. District Court (2018): They were! The county (plus its sheriff and deputies) are liable for the constitutional violations.

And in en banc news, the Third Circuit will reconsider its holding that TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers and so are immune from suits over intentional torts—in this case, fabricating criminal charges. (We discussed the original panel decision on the podcast.) The Ninth Circuit, however, will not reconsider its decision to deny qualified immunity to San Jose, Calif. officers who allegedly forced Trump supporters to exit a rally through a violent crowd of anti-Trump protesters.

This week, the Institute for Justice and Texas veterinarian Dr. Ron Hines stepped into the ring with the state vet board to defend free speech for the second time. IJ and Ron first mixed it up with the board back in 2013 when it forbade Ron—retired and disabled but still eager to help animals—from giving advice to pet owners around the world via the internet. Ron argued that professional advice is protected speech, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed, ruling that his emails were occupational conduct akin to welding or surgery. But the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in over the summer in a different case, making clear that professional advice is fully protected speech and not outside the First Amendment. Click here to learn more.

0 notes

lopezdorothy70-blog · 6 years

Text

Grandmother Wrongly Accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome is Freed from Prison After 11 Years

Maria Mendez, in blue, surrounded by her legal team from Project for the Innocent at Loyola Law School. Photo source.

by Terri LaPoint Health Impact News

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that a grandmother was freed from prison this month after Loyola Law School's Project for the Innocent became involved.

Maria Mendez spent the last 11 years of her life serving a 25-year sentence for the death of her 9-month-old grandson. She had been convicted of Shaken Baby Syndrome, but attorneys and law students who fight for people who are wrongfully convicted took up her case, pointing out medical evidence that was not considered by the court.

In most medical kidnapping stories we cover, no criminal charges are ever filed. The children are seized, placed into foster care – usually with strangers, and the parents sometimes lose custody permanently, even though the parents or grandparents are never charged with any type of a crime.

The rare cases of Child Protective Services involvement, in which someone faces criminal charges, usually fall in one of three categories:

Shaken Baby Syndrome

Multiple broken bones

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy/Medical Child Abuse

In each of the three, there is frequently a valid medical reason for the child's injuries, but that reason is often never presented as evidence in court.

In these cases, as well as in many cases that do not involve criminal charges, there is almost always a Child Abuse Specialist doctor involved.

As we recently reported, courts frequently ignore the reports of medical experts and specialists, elevating the reports of the Pediatric Child Abuse Specialist to a higher status than that of other experts.

See:

Pediatric Child Abuse “Experts” are NOT Experts in Anything

There are thousands of cases nationwide in which someone went to prison for child abuse based largely, or even solely, upon the testimony of Child Abuse Specialist doctors while other valid medical explanations are ignored in court.

Programs such as Loyola Law School's Project for the Innocent and The Innocence Project seek to free people who are wrongfully convicted of crimes. Hundreds of people across the United States have been exonerated through the efforts of such programs.

Many convictions of Shaken Baby Syndrome, like that of Maria Mendez, have been thrown out or retried in recent years.

Child Abuse Doctor Condemned Grandmother

Dr. Carol Berkowitz is the Director of the Child Abuse Fellowship at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. At one time, she served as the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics. She is part of the Helfer Society – an elite group of doctors involved with Child Abuse, and in 2014, she won the society's highest award.

Even today, Dr. Carol Berkowitz refuses to back down on her assertion that the grandmother abused the baby. Other doctors disagree, but she was the only doctor to testify 11 years ago. Photo source.

Despite her many accolades, Dr. Berkowitz, like her Child Abuse Specialist colleagues, failed to consider alternative explanations for the injuries sustained by the grandson of Ms. Mendez. The testimony that she gave reflects the junk science beliefs involved in Shaken Baby Syndrome.

“In your medical opinion, was the injury to Emmanuel caused by shaking?” the prosecutor asked.

“Yes,” Berkowitz responded. “That would be one mechanism for the injury.”

The prosecutor then asked how violently a baby would need to be shaken to cause brain swelling.

“It would be a significant force,” the doctor said. “One to two short, very forceful jerks would do it.”

Judge orders release of woman who served 11 years behind bars in grandson's death

By Marisa Gerber

Los Angeles Times

Excerpts:

A woman who spent 11 years behind bars in connection with the sudden death of her 9-month-old grandson has been freed from prison after new evidence revealed that the death may have been accidental.

Maria Mendez hugs family members after her release from wrongful incarceration. Photo source.

Maria Mendez - whose release from custody was made public by her attorneys Wednesday [July 11, 2018] - always maintained her innocence, vowing that she had not hurt her grandson, Emmanuel, before he collapsed and stopped breathing in December 2006.

“Finally, I have my liberty,” said Mendez, 64, who got out of prison last week after a judge vacated her old conviction as part of a larger plea deal. Under the agreement with Los Angeles County prosecutors, Mendez pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter, but was released since she had already served the maximum 11-year sentence.

Prosecutors said they stand by medical evidence presented at trial that the death resulted from abuse.

However, medical experts who testified for Mendez during a recent hearing said her case and others highlight increasing doubts about accepted theories of shaken baby syndrome.

Mendez was arrested and charged with murdering her grandson seven months after the baby's death, court records show. During her trial in 2009, a prosecutor told jurors that Mendez had fallen into a depression after her husband died and became frustrated after her teenage daughter got pregnant with Emmanuel. The prosecutor argued that on Dec. 13, 2006, while babysitting, Mendez snapped and fatally injured the baby.

Prosecutors called Dr. Carol Berkowitz, a pediatrician described to jurors as a child abuse expert. Berkowitz, who saw Emmanuel in the emergency department at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in 2006, testified that she believed the baby had experienced a traumatic injury one to two hours before paramedics arrived. Mendez, prosecutors argued, was the only adult with the baby during that time.

Maria Mendez was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

Her appellate attorney, who believed Mendez had been wrongfully convicted, contacted the Project for the Innocent at Loyola Law School, which eventually championed Mendez's case. The lawyers tracked down medical records, including a CT scan of the brain that Mendez's trial attorney had not received, said Paula Mitchell, one of Mendez's attorneys. Several medical experts reviewed the case, Mitchell said, and concluded that the evidence suggested an accidental death.

In a 2016 declaration, Dr. Frank Sheridan, the longtime chief medical examiner for San Bernardino County, wrote that he was the only medical expert who testified on behalf of Mendez at her trial and that her attorney never asked his views on many aspects of the case.

“It is my steadfast belief that Maria Mendez … was wrongfully convicted,” he wrote. “This case has haunted me for years.”

In court documents, another physician who reviewed the case, Roland Auer, wrote that an accidental fall a couple of days before Emmanuel collapsed could have caused cardiac arrest.

“Dr. Berkowitz's opinion that the child's head injury was inflicted … rather than accidental is unsupportable by any scientific evidence,” Auer wrote.

During a recent hearing, records show, a doctor with a specialty in pediatric radiology challenged the one- to two-hour trauma window Berkowitz testified about at trial. But in an interview with The Times this week, Berkowitz defended her assessment.

“It still sounds right to me,” the doctor said, adding that she remains confident the baby's death resulted from abuse.

In his 15-page report on the case, Auer wrote critically of the long-accepted tenets of shaken baby syndrome, saying that impact on a baby's brain looks the same “whether abusive or not.”

“There is no way of inferring abuse,” Auer wrote, “and the non-science has been called out in recent publications.”

At least 15 people convicted of injuring or killing an infant by violent shaking have since been exonerated, according to a national registry of wrongful convictions.

According to another national database, last updated in 2015, at least 3,000 criminal cases related to shaken baby syndrome have been filed in the U.S. over the years.

Last month, in the middle of an evidentiary hearing where medical experts testified about Mendez's case, Mitchell said prosecutors made her client an offer: They would agree to have her old conviction vacated if she pleaded no contest to two lower charges.

To avoid more prison time, Mitchell said, her client agreed, pleading no contest to voluntary manslaughter and child abuse. A judge accepted the plea last month, records show, and ordered Mendez's immediate release.

The district attorney's office remains “confident in the validity of the medical opinions and the medical evidence that supported the prosecution of the case,” said district attorney spokeswoman Shiara Davila-Morales. Mendez's plea, the spokeswoman said, “was effectively an admission that she is not factually innocent.”

Although the new charges lead to the same legal outcome - a conviction - Mitchell emphasized that her client had pleaded “no contest” rather than “guilty” to them.

It was Mendez's way, Mitchell said, of saying, “I don't want to fight this anymore.”

Read the full article at Los Angeles Times.

Project for the Innocent

Loyola Law School is located in Los Angeles, California. According to the website:

Loyola Law School's Project for the Innocent (LPI) is dedicated to the exoneration of the wrongfully convicted. Loyola Law School students are the heart and soul of the clinic, which is yearlong. If, after a thorough investigation of a case, a true claim of innocence is provable, clinic students will help draft a habeas petition so that the case can be litigated in court.

The Project does not accept phone calls from people seeking legal advice, but wrongly convicted individuals themselves may inquire about legal representation by writing to:

Loyola Project for the Innocent 919 Albany Street Los Angeles CA 90015

Comment on this article at MedicalKidnap.com.