by TChris

The evidence against Alberto Sifuentes and Jesus Ramirez is skinny. Before she died, a store clerk told the police that she was robbed by "two Hispanic men between the ages of 18 and 20 and in a gold car." Sifuentes and Ramirez, driving home from a club, matched that vague description.

Court documents show there was no DNA, no blood, no gun or any other evidence that tied the two men to the crime. Still, Ramirez and Sifuentes were sentenced to life in prison in separate trials in 1998. Their convictions were upheld on appeal.

The Mexican consulate and a Dallas law firm will present new evidence to a Texas court, hoping to prove that Sifuentes and Ramirez are innocent. A diligent (if belated) investigation unearthed facts that refute the state's circumstantial case.

by TChris

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham hasn't been charged with a crime (yet), but documents filed in the government's forfeiture action against his house accuse Cunningham of taking a bribe.

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham "demanded and received" a bribe from a Pentagon contractor who paid far above market value for the congressman's Del Mar-area home in 2003, according to court documents filed Thursday by federal prosecutors.

Without citing details, prosecutors said in the documents that Cunningham sold the house in return for his influence in Congress, where he serves on the House subcommittee that oversees Pentagon spending.

When will charges against Cunningham be announced? Feel free to start your own office pools.

TalkLeft background on Cunningham is collected here.

As long as Crooks and Liars and everyone else is ragging on the she-pundit with long blonde hair, I thought I'd mention that Labor Day Weekend, "God and Country," complete with the she-pundit, Zell Miller and Christian bands, is coming to Denver's Pepsi Center, our biggest arena - the one where the Stones will play in November.

The TL kid's dad has a big box there, above and close to the stage. I was thinking of asking for a few tickets, since I know he won't be going. Not to blog live - I couldn't stand it - but to be able to unfurl a banner while she speaks. It would be a large white sheet. Here's what it would look like.

On the other hand, I may have to grovel big-time for a seat for the Stones, and I'd hate to waste a favor on something so silly as the she-pundit and "God and Country."

89 detainees at Guantanamo Bay have resumed a hunger strike. According to Guantanamo spokesman Colonel Brad Blackner, it resumed on August 8:

The prisoners, protesting against their living conditions and their continued detention without trial, had gone on a widespread hunger strike that ended in July. Word that the hunger strike had resumed was disclosed on Thursday by Clive Stafford Smith, a British human rights lawyer who returned from visiting clients at the base a week ago. Mr Smith warned that many detainees have grown so desperate that they intend to starve themselves to death in an effort to create a public relations disaster for the US military.

The cause of the resumed hunger strike appears to be abuse-related:

The decision was sparked by rumours of a violent interrogation session and two rough extractions of detainees from their cells, as well as a new incident of alleged desecration of a copy of the Koran.

The Wall St. Journal today has an article about the mis-direction of the supply-side oriented war on drugs.

...don't be confused by the facts. There's a whole army of Washington bureaucrats paid to fight America's drug habit by cutting off supply. A cynic might even suggest that career drug warriors have an incentive to see the "war" go on forever. One glance around this town and you can see that, barring a change in policy, it probably will.

Reporting from Guatemala, it seems things have never been better for sellers:

StoptheDrugWar has an update on the Utah Rave bust. The promotors of the event are planning a lawsuit and insist they had the proper permits.

Fullmer disputed the sheriff's office statement that he lacked a permit. "They are saying I didn't have my permits, which is a flat-out lie," he said. "I'm not some kid; I'm a businessman and I've been doing these events for 10 years. We were in complete compliance with the requirements of Utah County."

The Utah County Sheriff's Office claimed that the event was not properly permitted because under county ordinance, events with more than 250 people must receive a permit from the county commission. But the sheriff's office was being intentionally misleading, said Fullmer. "The county law says you need the permit if you're going to have more than 250 people and the event is going to last more than 12 hours, but our event was not scheduled for more than 12 hours, therefore we did not need that permit."

First, a major thanks to TChris for posting great stuff today. I headed off for court this morning, and one thing followed another, and I just got back. I haven't seen any news, so here's a place for you to discuss whatever you want while I take a few hours to unravel and get caught up.

by TChris

If you steal a bottle of vitamins from Wal-Mart, you get prosecuted for a crime. If multinational drug companies steal hundreds of millions of dollars from California by overcharging for medicine, they get sued in a civil action. Seem fair?

Attorney General Bill Lockyer charged that the drug makers, including some of the world's leading pharmaceutical concerns, defrauded the state's Medi-Cal system for at least the past decade. ... "We're dragging these drug companies into the court of law because they're gouging the public on basic life necessities," Mr. Lockyer said at a news conference here. "This scheme has cost California taxpayers potentially hundreds of millions of dollars and is jeopardizing the public health by diverting money away from patient care."

Mr. Lockyer said that each of the companies made as much as $40 million a year in illegal profits. He said he hoped to recover that amount plus the triple damages allowed under the state's false claims act.

by TChris

After the Supreme Court's Booker decision, federal judges have discretion to impose the sentence that they believe best advances the goals of sentencing, even if that sentence is less than the sentencing guidelines advise. But just how much discretion do they have? We may soon find out, as the government appeals the 22 year sentence imposed on Ahmed Ressam for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, among other crimes. (TalkLeft background here.)

Ressam had struck a deal with federal prosecutors to provide information against other terror suspects in exchange for a shorter sentence. But at his sentencing on July 27, prosecutors asked for [a 35 year] term on the grounds that he had failed to work with them and jeopardized cases they were building against other terror suspects.

In a surprise move, Coughenour sentenced Ressam to 22 years, saying that he believed the sentence reflected "the fairness and transparency of the U.S. justice system."

If it sounds to you like the government is sucking on sour grapes, you're probably right. The court of appeals will review the sentence to decide whether it's "reasonable," a standard of review that should be highly deferential to the sentencing judge, who was in the best position to evaluate Ressam.

The real question in this case is whether federal sentencing should be controlled by district court judges or (as has long been the case) by prosecutors. The answer should come in several months.

by TChris

What started as a joke ended in tragedy as a 14 year old boy put his 5 year old half sister into a large coin-operated washing machine.

The boy put no coins in the machine but it started anyway, [defense attorney John] Graham said. The boy tried "frantically" to stop the washer and free his sister, taking a large rock from the parking lot to smash at the glass, Graham said.

The tragedy was compounded when a Virginia prosecutor charged the kid with manslaughter. That decision was foolish: the boy has been punished enough by the death of his sister, and he had no way of knowing that the machine would start on its own. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed, and the charges were dismissed today.

by TChris

The first six words of the Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required ...." Perhaps the Boston judge who set $250,000 bail for a 12 year old should look up the word "excessive."

Judge Paul D. Lewis railed against urban youth violence Tuesday after he set cash bail for the South End boy, who Boston police said was found with a loaded gun on Monday.

Urban violence is of concern to everyone, but setting excessive bail to "send a message" is an affront to the Eighth Amendment. The kid is charged with possessing a gun, not with shooting someone. He's presumed innocent of that charge, but even if he's eventually convicted, he faces no more than Department of Youth Services supervision until he's 18. He has no real incentive (and probably no ability) to flee, making it inappropriate to set high cash bail.

by TChris

Despite the propogandists who relentlessly proclaim that protest against the war in Iraq is unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops, the American public overwhelmingly believes protesters have the right to protest.

Nearly three weeks after a grieving California mother named Cindy Sheehan started her anti-war protest near President Bush's Texas ranch, nine of 10 people surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll say it's OK for war opponents to publicly share their concerns about the conflict.

That 90 percent of the public agrees on anything is amazing. It's heartening to know that the constitutional protection of free speech still commands respect.