|
|
|
Supreme Court refuses to halt execution of Ga. man
Top Court Watch |
2015/01/30 13:01
|
The Supreme Court has refused to halt the execution of a Georgia man whose lawyers say he is ineligible to be executed because he is intellectually disabled. Warren Lee Hill's lawyers argue he shouldn't be executed because he is intellectually disabled.
The justices on Tuesday turned away a last-minute plea from Warren Lee Hill. He is scheduled to be executed at 7 p.m. at the state prison in Jackson, Georgia.
Different courts have intervened with temporary reprieves at the last minute on three previous occasions. Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have granted Hill another reprieve.
State and federal courts had already rejected his filings this time around, and the State Board of Pardons and Paroles —the only entity authorized to commute his sentence to life in prison — denied him clemency Tuesday. Hill has filings pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which is now the only potential barrier between him and a lethal injection of the drug pentobarbital.
"The clemency board missed an opportunity to right a grave wrong," Brian Kammer, a lawyer for Hill, said in an emailed statement Tuesday. "It is now up to the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that an unconstitutional execution of a man with lifelong intellectual disability is prevented."
Hill was sentenced to serve life in prison for the 1986 killing of his 18-year-old girlfriend, who was shot 11 times. While serving that sentence, he beat a fellow inmate, Joseph Handspike, to death using a nail-studded board. A jury in 1991 convicted Hill of murder and sentenced him to death. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court weighs suit in US Marshals shooting
Top Court Watch |
2015/01/30 12:57
|
An appeals court is deciding whether deputy U.S. marshals who shot and wounded a teenage driver eight years ago may be sued in federal court, a case that's unfolding amid a national debate about police use of force and the legal protections afforded to law enforcement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments last month and could issue an opinion soon.
The case of driver Michael Fenwick raises questions about how police can deal with fleeing individuals and the role video should play in analyzing a police pursuit. A case that presented similar issues was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last year after fascinated justices watched dashboard camera video of the chase.
The key issue for the appeals court is whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, a legal principle that shields government officials from being sued unless their actions violate clearly established constitutional rights. A lower-court judge in 2013 allowed the case to go forward, saying there were legitimate questions about whether excessive force was used, but rejected many other arguments from Fenwick's lawyer.
An appeals court ruling in favor of the marshals would end the case. But if the judges prove sympathetic to arguments that the shooting was unjustified, the case would be returned to the trial court, where it could ultimately reach a jury and add to a body of law that is still developing. That's a potentially heavy legal burden, given past court decisions that give law enforcement leeway in firing at fleeing suspects if they feel endangered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judicial candidates' appeals for campaign cash at high court
Top Court Watch |
2015/01/20 12:28
|
The Supreme Court is weighing whether candidates for elected judgeships have a constitutional right to make personal appeals for campaign cash.
The justices are hearing an appeal from Lanell Williams-Yulee of Tampa, Florida, who received a public reprimand for violating a Florida Bar rule that bans candidates for elected judgeships from personally soliciting donations.
The bar and many good government groups say the ban that is in place in Florida and 29 other states is important to preserve public confidence in an impartial judiciary.
A ruling for Williams-Yulee could free judicial candidates in those states to ask personally for campaign contributions.
In all, voters in 39 states elect local and state judges. In the federal judicial system, including the Supreme Court, judges are appointed to life terms and must be confirmed by the Senate.
The arguments are taking place five years after the Supreme Court freed corporations and labor unions to spend freely in federal elections. The court has generally been skeptical of limits on political campaigns, though slightly less so when it comes to those involving judges.
In 2002, the court struck down rules that were aimed at fostering impartiality among judges and barred candidates for elected judgeships from speaking out on controversial issues. But in 2009, the court held in a case from West Virginia that elected judges could be forced to step aside from ruling on cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suspect in trooper shooting case heads to court
Top Court Watch |
2015/01/05 16:10
|
A man who eluded police for 48 days after allegedly shooting to death a state trooper and wounding another is due in court for a preliminary hearing which could decide whether his case goes to county court for trial.
A Pennsylvania district judge must decide Monday whether there are sufficient grounds to send the case against Eric Frein, 31, to county court.
Frein has been charged with shooting Cpl. Bryon Dickson and Trooper Alex Douglass Sept. 12 outside their state police station in northeastern Pennsylvania. He was captured Oct. 30 at an abandoned airplane hangar in the Pocono Mountains.
Authorities say Frein confessed to what he described as an assassination designed to "wake people up" and result in a change in government. Dickson was killed and Douglass was wounded.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Frein was identified as a suspect shortly after the shootings when a passer-by found his vehicle partially submerged in a small pond near the state police station.
The manhunt, with drew a large police force to the rural area, frightened residents as there were numerous reported sightings of Frein, an expert marksman. A team of federal marshals performing a systematic search stumbled across him about 30 miles from the scene of the shooting and were able to arrest him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woman at center of 1961 Supreme Court case dies
Top Court Watch |
2014/12/11 12:52
|
A woman who stood up to police trying to search her Ohio home in 1957 and ultimately won a landmark Supreme Court decision on searches and seizures has died.
Dollree Mapp died Oct. 31 in Conyers, Georgia. A relative and caretaker, Carolyn Mapp, confirmed her death Wednesday and said she died on the day after her birthday at the age of 91.
Mapp's Supreme Court case, Mapp v. Ohio, is a staple of law school textbooks and considered a milestone case on the Fourth Amendment, which requires law enforcement officers to get a warrant before conducting a search. The case curbed the power of police by saying evidence obtained by illegal searches and seizures could not be used in state court.
Mapp's path to the U.S. Supreme Court began on May 23, 1957, when three Cleveland police officers arrived at her home. There had just been a bombing at the home of Don King, who later became famous as a boxing promoter, and police believed that a person wanted for questioning was hiding in Mapp's home. The officers demanded to enter, but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. More officers later arrived and police forced open a door, according to a summary of the case in the Supreme Court opinion.
When the officers confronted Mapp, one held up a piece of paper, claiming it was a warrant, and Mapp snatched it away. After a struggle an officer got the paper back, Mapp was handcuffed for being "belligerent," and officers searched her home. They didn't find the person they were looking for, but they did find some pornographic books and pictures. At the time, an Ohio law made having obscene material a crime, and Mapp was convicted, though she said the materials belonged to a former boarder. Prosecutors never produced a search warrant at trial.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned Mapp's conviction in a 6-3 decision, ruling in 1961 that illegally obtained evidence could not be used in state court. The court had previously ruled that this was the case in federal court, but Mapp's case extended the "exclusionary rule" to states where the vast majority of criminal prosecutions take place, broadening the protection. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the internet world. Small Law Firm Web Design by Law Promo |
|
Recent Lawyer Blog Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
