Despite the Supreme Court's ruling that the U.S. cannot continue to indefinitely detain persons who have been ordered deported but whose home countries won't take them back, some experts wonder whether Immigrations and Customs will comply with the ruling. Mark Dow, author of American Gulag: Inside America's Immigration Prisons, notes in the comments to our post,

The question remains: Who will make sure the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will comply with the law?

The recent Mariel ruling was based on the court's 2001 ruling in Zadvydas v. Davis that the government could not detain certain legal immigrants indefinitely, but a May 2004 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the immigration service has failed to comply fully with that ruling. Some 2000 immigrants effected by the new ruling are scattered in jails and prisons around the country. Congress must immediately establish an independent body to ensure that ICE complies with the new -- and old -- laws.

As if there isn't enough news to write about, the Wall Street Journal (free link) picks up on a spat that's going on in the blogosphere over fallout from the Armstrong Williams consultancy flap. It repeats what Markos of Daily Kos and Jerome of MyDD told their readers ages ago - that they had been hired by the Dean campaign as consultants for a period of time. Jerome shut down MyDD while he was working for Dean and Markos kept the disclosure on the front page of Daily Kos for the duration of his consultancy.

Very few bloggers make a living by blogging. Most are lucky to take in a few bucks through donations and advertising. There is nothing wrong with bloggers being consultants. In this case, Jerome and Markos went the extra mile to disclose it. So where's the story? Answer: There is none.

The Florida Supreme Court is weighing a challenge to the reliability of a drug-detecting dog. CrimProf blog aptly notes:

I always tell my Criminal Procedure class that narcotics-sniffing dogs should be subjected to the same 4th Amemdment reliability standards as other "tipsters." A dog who has consistently falsely alerted in the past should be considered like an informant whose tips have repeatedly not panned out. The Supreme Court of Florida is considering this issue currently, as a defendant is arguing that the narcotics that a canine named "Razor" found on him should be suppressed on the ground that Razor has been so unreliable in the past that his "alert" with respect to the defendant did not give rise to probable cause for the search. Currently, no national standards exist to measure canine competence.

Prince Harry really stepped in it this time. He went to a costume party wearing the uniform of an SS Offcier, complete with swatstika. The 20 year old prince has apologized. Should that be the end of it? His aunt, Sarah Fergueson, thinks so.

Or, should it engender a discussion of whether the current generation of youth are being educated about the holocaust?

In Jerusalem, Robert Rozett, the director of the library at Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, said the photographs of Harry wearing a swastika showed that "the lessons of the Holocaust have not really entered deeply within his understanding and consciousness."

....We would hope that figures like Prince Harry would be more sensitive and not trivialize it. ... We would suggest that Harry and others would do well to learn more about the subject, be more careful about how they use the subject in public."

I agree with Mr. Rozett on that. I also think it probably was just a thoughtless act by Harry with no actual malice or prejudice intended. But, would your kid have done it? In most households I know of, there have been many discussions about Hitler, the Holoucaust and the persecution of Jews. Maybe they didn't have these discussions in Harry's house.

Also, this isn't the first time that the Royal Family has engaged in questinable behavior regarding the Nazis:

Human Rights Watch has issued its annual report. It calls for prosecution of U.S. officials over the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse and of the Sudanese Government for Darfur, and asks Bush to appoint a special prosecutor:

"The vitality of global human rights depends on a firm response to each -- on stopping the Sudanese government's slaughter in Darfur and on fully investigating and prosecuting all those responsible for torture and mistreatment in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo," it said.

Seven members of a U.S. military unit posted at Abu Ghraib have been charged with crimes since pictures of piles of naked men and others held on a leash were leaked last year. In addition the U.S. military has charged or imposed administrative punishments on dozens of servicemen accused of abusing detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has issued this statement on yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Booker and FanFan.

Also, Maine Criminal Justice Act Counsel David Benneman has some practical thoughts on the decisions that he has allowed us to disseminate. [link fixed now.]

The Capital Times has a nice article on Booker, with reference to Booker's defense attorney, Chris Kelly, known on TalkLeft where we are ever grateful for his excellent blogging contributions, as TChris.

TChris is still in trial in Green Bay, but check back over the weekend for his comments.

Charles Graner did not take the stand after all in his trial on charges he abused Iraqi Abu Ghraib prisoners. Why did his lawyer change his mind about putting him on the stand/

"We came in with a checklist of the things we wanted to present to the jury," said a statement from Graner's lawyer, Guy Womack. "Once we accomplished that, there was no reason to continue. We presented all the evidence we wanted."

Today's chief witness for the defense was former soldier Megan Ambuhl, who also pleaded guilty to abuse and also was romantically involved with Graner. Closing arguments are tomorrow.

Jeffrey Toobin, writing for the January 17, 2005 New Yorker, has a long article on Arizona death row inmate Martin Soto-Fong, and asks whether former prosecutor Kenneth Peasly put the wrong man on death row (pdf)? Soto-Fong was 17 at the time of the crime. The article is not available at the New Yorker site, but the Federal Defender's office in Arizona has put up a copy.

Last year, Peasley acquired another distinction: he was isbarred for intentionally presenting false evidence in death-penalty cases—something that had never before happened to an American prosecutor. In a 1992 triple-murder case, Peasley introduced testimony that he knew to be false; three men were convicted and sentenced to die. Peasley was convinced that the three were guilty, but he also believed that the evidence needed a push.

...According to the Death Penalty Information Center, since the mid-nineteen-seventies a hundred and seventeen death-row inmates have been released. Defense lawyers, often relying on DNA testing, have shown repeatedly how shoddy crime-lab work, lying informants, and mistaken eyewitness identifications, among other factors, led to unjust convictions.But DNA tests don’t reveal how innocent people come to be prosecuted in the first place. The career of Kenneth Peasley does.

Read the whole thing, it's fascinating and Toobin doesa great job telling the story. Peasly, now disbarred, is working as a paralegal. He can apply to get his license back in four years. Soto-Fong remains on death row.

If you want to read more about the Booker and FanFan decisions, Howard Bashman of How Appealing has this group of links to a large number of news articles from around the country. For analysis, I recommend Law Prof Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy.

TalkLeft's advice to members of Congress in the wake of yesterday's Booker and FanFan decisons....go slow. As NACDL President Barry Scheck said:

For 20 years, federal courts have been forced to impose unjust, irrational sentences based on unproven allegations, speculative calculations and the worst kinds of hearsay. Congress should welcome this opportunity to create a fair and just federal sentencing system, not a quick fix.

Will they heed it? As we wrote here, Congress may have legislation creating mandatory minimums for every federal offense waiting in the wings. This Philadelphia Inquirer columnist reported in December:

The New York Times today reports that Michael Chertoff, Bush's nominee for Homeland Security Chief, may have to answer questions about John Walker Lindh . On Tuesday, we wrote:

Chertoff is probably smooth sailing for Bush. But, there were some delay at his judicial nomination hearing over whistleblower Jesselyn Radack. Radack had been employed in the Justice Department's Professional Responsibility Advisory Office, and claimed she was forced to resign after writing an opinion that the FBI could not interrogate "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh without his counsel present.

The New York Times goes deeper today, reporting:

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) today called for Democrats to go progressive. He said Democrats didn't talk enough about values in the election.

"We were remiss in not talking more directly about them - about the fundamental ideals that guide our progressive policies," he said. He added that Kerry's loss also showed that Democrats must communicate better with voters on issues of deep conscience, including abortion, without yielding the party's support for a woman's right to choose.

Kennedy has a progressive agenda ready for the taking: