|
|
|
Court reluctant on plea bargains after sentencing
Industry News |
2011/11/01 10:15
|
The Supreme Court seemed reluctant Monday to allow criminals to ask for a previously offered plea bargain after they've been sentenced, despite the inmates' claim of misconduct by their lawyers including neglecting to tell their clients that a deal had been offered.
Asking judges to go back and figure out on appeal whether a suspect would have taken a plea deal before a trial, whether a judge would have accepted it, whether a prosecutor would have withdrawn it or whether the negotiations would have fallen apart is simply unworkable, said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often a tiebreaker votes on divisive issues.
The high court heard appeals from two different sets of prosecutors who had their cases overturned by appeals courts that said criminals were denied their Sixth Amendment effective assistance of counsel because of mistakes during plea negotiations. The Supreme Court has amplified that by saying that counsel's representation must not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there must not be a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.
In the first case, Anthony Cooper's conviction for shooting a woman in the thigh and buttocks after missing a shot to her head was overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati because his lawyer gave him bad advice. His lawyer told him not to take a plea offer that could have had him out of prison in four years, thinking that there could not be a finding that Cooper intended to murder his victim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama immigration fight recalls civil rights era
Industry News |
2011/10/31 08:40
|
The epicenter of the fight over the patchwork of immigration laws in the United States is not Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico and became a common site for boycotts. Nor was it any of the four states that were next to pass their own crackdowns.
No, the case that's likely to be the first sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court comes from the Deep South state of Alabama, where the nation's strictest immigration law has resurrected ugly images from the state's days as the nation's battleground for civil rights a half-century ago.
And Alabama's jump to the forefront says as much about the country's evolving demographics as it does the nation's collective memory of the state's sometimes violent path to desegregation.
With the failure of Congress in recent years to pass comprehensive federal immigration legislation, Arizona, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina and Indiana have passed their own. But supporters and opponents alike agree none contained provisions as strict as those passed in Alabama, among them one that required schools to check students' immigration status. That provision, which has been temporarily blocked, would allow the Supreme Court to reconsider a decision that said a kindergarten to high school education must be provided to illegal immigrants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court avoids dispute over highway crosses
Industry News |
2011/10/31 08:40
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of a ruling that 12-foot-high crosses along Utah highways in honor of dead state troopers violate the Constitution.
The justices voted 8-1 Monday to reject an appeal from Utah and a state troopers' group that wanted the court to throw out the ruling and take a more permissive view of religious symbols on public land.
Since 1998, the private Utah Highway Patrol Association has paid for and erected more than a dozen memorial crosses, most of them on state land. Texas-based American Atheists Inc. and three of its Utah members sued the state in 2005.
The federal appeals court in Denver said the crosses were an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity by the Utah state government.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a 19-page opinion dissenting from Monday's order. Thomas said the case offered the court the opportunity to clear up confusion over its approach to disputes over the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, the prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana, Planned Parenthood in court over funding
Industry News |
2011/10/21 09:36
|
Planned Parenthood of Indiana can end a dispute over a law that would cut some of its public funding if it became two separate entities, with one offering abortion services and the other offering general health services, an attorney for the state told a federal appeals court Thursday.
Solicitor General Thomas Fisher said during oral arguments before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago that Indiana's new law is aimed at keeping taxpayer dollars from indirectly subsidizing abortions.
He told the appeals court that Planned Parenthood of Indiana could ensure that wouldn't happen by separating its operations into two entities.
Only by separating the two can we be sure that there's no cross-subsidy, Fisher said.
Planned Parenthood's attorney, Ken Falk of the American Civil Liberties Union, told the appeals court during the 45-minute hearing that Indiana's own Medicaid agency warned state lawmakers while they were weighing the legislation that it would violate Medicaid recipients' freedom of choice by targeting the abortion provider. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
