Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, has issued this statement on the Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Preserve Traditional Marriage:

Today’s hearing is merely the latest in what has become a series of hearings on amending the Constitution in one manner or another. It would seem that members of the majority are obsessed with rewriting the Constitution. This is the fourth constitutional amendment to which this Committee has devoted significant time for debate in the 108th Congress, and this is the third hearing this month to debate a constitutional amendment seeking to limit rather than expand the rights of the American people. This proposal is one of 61 constitutional amendments introduced so far this session. Sixty-one amendments to the Constitution introduced in this Congress alone, and more than 11,000 since the 1st Congress was convened. We can only imagine what the Constitution would look like if we had adopted amendments at the wholesale rate seemingly favored by many in the 108th Congress.

As we say often on TalkLeft, the Constitution is not a rough draft. Leave it alone.

The time for action is now. Contact your Senators and Congresspersons. Remind them that the United States Constitution they are sworn to uphold is sacred, and Congress should not be treating it like a "rough draft," to be edited at the whim of political might.

Richard Clarke will testify today before the Commission on 9/11 . Here's an open thread to discuss it.

Clarke, who is to testify today before the independent commission looking into the attacks, said in a telephone interview that CIA Director George J. Tenet used his morning briefings to warn Bush "over and over" beginning in June 2001 that al Qaeda would "almost certainly" stage a major attack. Clarke said the CIA believed it was "most likely" to occur overseas. "Virtually every day, George Tenet said to him: There's an impending al Qaeda attack," Clarke said. "You know the old Shakespearean line -- I think they doth protest too much. They're guilty of not having done enough."

[Ed. title corrected, thanks to a commenter who pointed out that today's testimony was not before a House Panel but before the independent 9/11 commission. ]

Our Hall of Shame Award today goes to Philadelphia's Common Pleas Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan.

TChris wrote yesterday about Philadelphia public defender Fred Goodman who got decked by his client in front of the jury during a murder and rape trial which might bring the death penalty. It was inevitable that the Judge would allow Mr. Goodman to resign after the punch. It also should have been inevitable that a mistrial be declared--Mr. Goodman shouldn't have to continue the trial, and, after all, the jury saw what happened too.

But no, the Judge in the case tried to force Mr. Goodman's associate counsel, Andrea Konow, to continue by herself. She refused. Now she's in jail. The Judge says she's staying there until she changes her mind and resumes representing the client.

What is this Judge thinking? Here's what the Defender's Association had to say:

"She was held in contempt because she couldn't go forward and represent a client who had just punched her partner in the face. She couldn't go forward because in good conscience, she can't represent a client who has exhibited that degree of violence. She didn't feel safe next to the client. She didn't feel she could represent the client zealously as an advocate and for that reason she couldn't go forward and represent him."

We hope the Court of Appeals reverses this judge immediately. Even if the client used every trick in the book, including the sucker punch, to get a mistrial, he's facing death and is entitled to a fair trial and adequate representation. No one knows better than Ms. Kunow whether she can provide effective representation. If she says she can't, she can't.

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times have some sharp criticism for the Government's treatment of Guantanamo military chaplain Captain James Yee. From the Times' editorial, Military Injustice:

The damage this case did to Captain Yee is incalculable, but the military has also hurt itself. It has cast further doubt on its detention policies in Guantánamo. It has diminished public confidence in military justice. And it has weakened its own credibility for future cases when it tries to invoke national security. For Captain Yee's sake and its own, the military should apologize for its misguided prosecution and put in place procedures to prevent a case like this from happening again.

by TChris

News reports indicate that the F.B.I. has joined the investigation into the murder of rap artist Notorious B.I.G. (a/k/a "Biggie Smalls," born Christopher Wallace), seven years ago. The F.B.I. may be looking into a theory, advanced by former LAPD Detective Russell Poole, that a former Los Angeles police officer conspired with Death Row Records head Marion "Suge" Knight to arrange the killing.

Poole ... contends then-LAPD officer David A. Mack, acting at Knight's request, arranged for [Amir] Muhammad, Mack's friend and college roommate, to kill Biggie. He also believes Knight had Tupac [Shakur] killed six months earlier in Las Vegas because he was about to leave Death Row Records and that Knight then had Wallace murdered to make it appear both slayings were the result of a bicoastal rap feud.

Ex-Officer Mack is now serving time for bank robbery. Poole resigned from the LAPD in 1999 over disputes about the investigations, and the LAPD announced in 2000 that it no longer considered Muhammad a suspect. Although the LAPD dismissed Poole's theory, the FBI may be giving it a fresh look.

According to law enforcement sources and court documents obtained by [LA Times reporter Scott] Philips, the FBI took interest in the Biggie murder after an agent watched a VH1 special on the rapper last summer. The agent contacted the slain rapper's mother, Voletta Wallace, and her attorneys, who filed a wrongful-death suit against the city of Los Angeles in 2002 accusing the LAPD of covering up police involvement in the murder .... Voletta's attorneys told the FBI agent that witnesses were afraid to talk to LAPD detectives about the case because of corruption.

All of the alleged conspirators deny any involvement in the crime, and the F.B.I. has declined to comment.

by TChris

Trial by media is a way of life in the United States. A handful of cases (like Kobe Bryant's or Scott Peterson's) receive nationwide attention, but local media place many other trials in the public spotlight. The struggle to balance the right to a fair trial and the media's right to report on a public trial is a familiar one in our courts.

The United States isn't the only judicial system wrestling with that balance. South Africa is confronting similar issues as it considers the impact of its Bill of Rights on the criminal justice system, including the issue of trial by media.

A South African law professor, speaking at a symposium Monday, called on the media and the judiciary "to get together and work out guidelines for reporting" on criminal cases in the aftermath of cases in which the media had "jumped on the bandwagon and reported on criminal matters" before they were tried in court. Some of those cases were dismissed.

She quoted a judgment by Judge Kees van Dijkhorst in which he said trial by newspaper was objectionable as it would lead to disrespect of the law. The judge said if the mass media was allowed to usurp the function of the court, it would lead to some cases not being tried. The public would then be led to believe that it was easy to find the truth in the media and subsequently disrespect the process of the law, he added.

by TChris

Philadelphia public defender Fred Goodman had a tough assignment: defending Abdul Malik El-Shabazz against charges that he raped and murdered 6-year-old Destiny Wright. The job got tougher when El-Shabazz, at the conclusion of the prosecution's case, sucker punched Goodman in the face.

El-Shabazz and Goodman evidently had a strategic disagreement about the theory of defense.

On March 10, after Goodman told jurors that his client killed the little girl and the debatable issue "is the difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder" El-Shabazz screamed, "I'm innocent! That's what the D.A. and my lawyers won't tell you."

Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan sent the jury home after a sheriff's deputy tackled El-Shabazz and dragged him out of the courtroom. The prosecution is opposing a mistrial, but the judge would be inviting reversal if she forced Goodman to continue representing El-Shabazz. She might think that punching counsel is tantamount to waiving counsel, but requiring El-Shabazz to start representing himself midway through a murder trial would also lead to reversal. A mistrial is inevitable.

Taking the war against drunk driving to the next ridiculous level, states are now passing laws that require persons convicted of driving under the influence to put special "scarlet letter" license plates on their vehicles to let the world know about it. The trend started in Ohio.

A new state law in Ohio requires judges to brand convicted drunk drivers with special “scarlet letter” license plates — with red numbers on a yellow background so other motorists will know exactly what they’ve done. Though the crimson-numbered plates have been a sentencing option for the past 37 years, Ohio Municipal Judge John Adkins was one of the few to use it as punishment for DUI before the state law mandate went into effect.

A similar law is working its way through the Illinois legislature.

What about the innocent spouse, friend or child of the driver who takes the car out for a spin? What right does the state have for branding them? If a person is a dangerous driver, take away their license. If they are licensed, let them alone. And leave their property alone.

[comments now closed]

Last week we wrote about House of Bush, House of Saud, the new book about the relationship between George Bush and the Saudi Royal Family. Now, Eric Boehlert, writing for Salon, tells us that a British publisher has dropped the book, fearing lawsuits from the Saudis.

From the book's website:

House of Bush, House of Saud begins with a single question: How is it that two days after September 11, 2001, even as American air traffic was tightly restricted, a Saudi billionaire socialized in the White House with President George W. Bush as 140 Saudi citizens, many immediate kin to Osama Bin Laden, were permitted to return to their country? A potential treasure trove of intelligence was allowed to flee the country-- including an alleged al-Qaeda intermediary who was said to have foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Why did the FBI facilitate this evacuation, and why didn't the agency question the people on the planes? Why did Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of most of the hijackers, receive exclusive and preferential treatment from the White House even as the World Trade Center continued to burn?

Via CNN tv, at 4:10 am Baghdad time, an explosion that may have been a rocket hit the Baghdad Sheraton, a hotel housing journalists. No casualties.

Kobe Bryant's accuser will testify tomorrow about her sex life--behind closed doors.

The hearing will be held to determine whether details of the woman's sex life can be introduced at Bryant's trial. The defense says the information should be admitted because it could show that the woman's injuries were caused by another sexual partner and that she had a "scheme" to sleep with Bryant, possibly to gain the attention of an ex-boyfriend. The prosecution fought to limit defense questioning, but was rebuffed by the Colorado Supreme Court. The hearing will be the first time the woman has faced Bryant since their encounter last summer.

We'll be talking about it tomorrow on Fox (12:20 ET)- and on MSNBC on the Abrams Report around 6:30 ET.

[Fox cancelled due to coverage of 9/11 hearings....Abrams may do the same. Fox moved to 9:30 ET Thursday--Abrams will also do Thursday]

by TChris

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a movie must be worth a million. No surprise, then, that the defense in Jayson Williams' murder case wanted to show the jury a video that demonstrates how the killing could have occurred accidentally.

Many lawyers believe that jurors have been conditioned by years of television viewing to pay rapt attention to anything they see on a TV screen. To the extent that the belief is true, televised evidence is more likely than live evidence to stick in the minds of jurors. What better way to tell the defendant's story, then, than via computer animation?

Demonstrative evidence is nothing new -- witnesses commonly use models and drawings to help juries understand their testimony -- but current technology makes it possible to create a very precise and detailed view of the evidence from a defense perspective. That's what Williams, the former NBA star charged with manslaughter for killing a chauffeur with a shotgun, wanted to do.

[Williams' lawyer, William] Martin said the video, which he called an animated CD, explained the gun's hammer and firing mechanism and illustrated the opinion of the defense's firearms expert that a stray wood chip had become lodged in the hammer mechanism and caused the gun to misfire while Mr. Williams held it.