by TChris

On Wednesday, TalkLeft reported the arguments of Rush Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, in opposition to Florida's use of a search warrant to obtain Limbaugh's medical records without Limbaugh's consent. Black argued that prosecutors should have applied for a subpoena and given Limbaugh notice so that he could object. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons filed an amicus brief with the court yesterday in support of Limbaugh's position, arguing that upholding the warrant would have an intimidating effect on Florida doctors. Also supporting Limbaugh in the court of appeals are the American Civil Liberties Union, the Florida Pain Initiative, and the National Foundation for the Treatment of Pain. The court of appeals in West Palm Beach yesterday gave prosecutors 15 days to respond to Limbaugh's argument.

In the meantime, Limbaugh disclosed yesterday that prosecutors have, in fact, subpoenaed records from his doctors.

On his radio show Friday, Limbaugh said Palm Beach County prosecutors sent subpoenas to the offices of four of his doctors, "demanding a list of every employee at every doctor's office I visited, from March to September of 2003," according to a transcript of the program on his Web site.

"They're already figuring they're going to win the opportunity to see my medical records, and once they see them, they want a list of names at these doctors' offices that they can re-subpoena and bring in for interviews," Limbaugh said.

Adding another layer of controversy to the case, the former maid who blew the whistle on Limbaugh's alleged drug use is angry at his on-air assertion that a "lawyer, with Democrat connections ... went to the state attorney and got [her] immunity."

There are more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities denied to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families because they cannot legally marry in this country. Here are just a few:

• ability to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency.
  petition for partner to immigrate.

• up to 12 weeks leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner.

• parenting responsibilities of children brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means.

• ability to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

All American families deserve the same protections. Check out the Million for Marriage page of Human Rights Watch and sign a petition to end the discrimination.

by TChris

Four Utah death row inmates who want to face a firing squad may have their wishes fulfilled, despite a new law that, if signed by the Governor, will ban that form of execution. While firing squads have not been widely used in this country since the Civil War, Utah has imposed the death penalty on thirty-nine prisoners (including Gary Gilmore) by shooting them to death. Sadly, debate in the Utah legislature focused not on the barbarity of a practice that is authorized only in two other states, but upon the value of the publicity surrounding the executions.

During the Senate debate on Thursday, Sen. Ron Allen, a Democrat, said allowing murderers to choose firing squads so they can "go out in a blaze of glory" makes heroes of criminals and causes victims' families more pain.

But Sen. Dave Thomas, a Republican, argued that media circuses are "exactly what we want" in executions.

"We don't want these sentences to be carried out in the dead of night so no one knows," said Thomas, adding that lethal injection is painless and "the easy way out."

Sigh. Governor Olene Walker is expected to sign the law changing Utah's method of execution to lethal injection.

by TChris

When an accused murderer is willing to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence without parole, does it make sense to insist on a death penalty trial? Can a judge accept a guilty plea in exchange for a life sentence over the objections of death-seeking prosecutors? These are the questions posed by Jonathan Mills in New Haven, who has been trying to plead guilty for three years.

In their motion to be filed this week, Mills' lawyers argue that Judge [Jon] Blue "has the inherent discretionary sentencing power" to accept Mills' plea. Prosecutors' insistence on the death penalty, the motion says, "is irrelevant to the court's sentencing powers."

If Blue agrees, he could provide finality for the families of victims and murderer alike. He would also save Connecticut taxpayers money--at least $1 million, probably much more.

Connecticut has not executed a prisoner since 1960. Assuming that prosecutors are successful in their efforts to persuade jurors that death is the appropriate penalty for Mills, it may take decades for post-conviction proceedings to conclude, at a cost to taxpayers of at least $2.5 million (an estimate that the New Haven Advocate suggests may be "ridiculously low"), far more than the cost of imprisoning Mills for the rest of his life.

Is it worth it?

The New York Times on President Bush's recess appointment of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Judge Pryor has testified before Congress in favor of dropping a crucial part of the Voting Rights Act, argued in favor of a Texas law that made gay sex illegal and taken outlandish positions on "federalism," a states' rights philosophy that seeks to undercut federal rights. He has reserved his most intemperate remarks for the issue of reproductive rights, declaring at one point that Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling upholding abortion rights, had "ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children."

The recess appointment will last only until sometime in the fall of 2005. At that point, Judge Pryor will need Senate confirmation. Given his record, even that brief term seems much too long.

by TChris

In another victory for opponents of the death penalty, a New Jersey appellate court ruled that the state cannot execute any prisoners until it implements procedures for halting an execution after the process has begun, or proves that the process, once started, is irreversible.

In the "unlikely" but possible event of a reprieve being issued after the first of three lethal drugs has been injected, the court said, the state would owe the condemned inmate a duty to do everything possible to bring him back from the brink of death. The court said the current regulations assume, without medical evidence, that the process is irreversible.

The court also criticized prison regulations that prohibit contact between the news media and the condemned inmate during his final 72 hours. The regulations permit news media witnesses to see the condemned inmate only after he has been sedated and strapped to a gurney.

Appellate Division Judge Sylvia Pressler rejected the state's arguments that prison security required those restrictions. She added that there is "a significant public interest" in learning about executions.

"It is one thing for proponents and opponents to talk about capital punishment as an abstract proposition. It is quite another to see it carried out," Pressler wrote. She said giving the press and public greater opportunity to see what actually occurs during an execution is not just "a matter of voyeurism. We believe, to the contrary, that it is a matter of demonstrating to the public the reality of the choices it makes."

Since New Jersey has not eecuted anyone since 1963, has only 13 people on death row, and would not be likely to execute any of those in the near future, the ruling, in response to a lawsuit filed by New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium, will have no immediate impact. It will nonetheless add fuel to the capital punishment debate, and may contribute to the erosion of public support for the death penalty.

Ralph Nader has said that he will announce shortly his decision whether to mount another third party candidacy during this Presidential election-- thus possibly throwing the election to the Republicans for a second time.

Please see this editorial from the Nation that eloquently explains why this action would betray the causes that Nader claims to stand for.

Please, call Nader's Exploratory Committee at 202-265-4000 and urge Nader not to go on this ego trip again!

by TChris

The United States Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether American citizens arrested on American soil can be detained indefinitely as "enemy combatants" without access to lawyers or courts. The issue arises in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested nearly two years ago for allegedly participating in a plot to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the United States.

Not surprisingly, Attorney General John Ashcroft takes the position that the power to designate someone as an "enemy combatant" and to hold that person indefinitely, without the right to seek release in court or even to obtain legal representation, "is a vital part of the war on terrorism." Others quite properly view such action as a war on the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law and contains no express exception for persons viewed as a threat by a presidential administration.

"Because the president said `I think you're a bad man,' he's been in jail for two years," said Andrew Patel, one of Padilla's attorneys. "He hasn't had a chance to defend himself. That's not the way we do things in this country, when we're at war or when we're at peace."

The Court will also decide whether an American citizen captured in Afghanistan can be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant. The cases dovetail with another another case the Supreme Court recently accepted, in which it will decide whether foreign-born terror suspects may be held indefinitely at the military's prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Court's willingness to decide these troubling issues may signal an unwillingness to accept the administration's cavalier disregard of the Constitution.

by TChris

President Bush will, for a second time, use a recess appointment to install a judicial nominee on the federal bench who failed to win Senate approval. Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor will be appointed to the Eleventh Circuit this afternoon. Democrats opposed Pryor's appointment for reasons that TalkLeft reported last year.

Bush used a recess appointment last month to place Charles W. Pickering Sr. on the federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Both appointments will last until the next Congress takes office.

It seems likely that Bush made these appointments to appease conservatives who have been critical of the President's actions (and particularly his spending) outside of Iraq. Bypassing the Senate and appointing judges who are likely to favor conservative interests helps the President shore up his base of support.

The president used Democrats’ rejection of Pickering and Priscilla Owen in 2002 to urge his right-wing base to return Republicans to the majority in 2002. Following Republican success in that election, the judicial selection process began to be used in service of the president’s reelection effort. In an effort to shore up his right-wing base and recapture the White House, President Bush re-nominated all pending nominees in January 2003. And by nominating such lightning rods as Pryor and White House Counsel Brett Kavanaugh, the administration was offering more reassurance to the right wing that sympathetic judges would be appointed.

It is not clear that pandering to the right will help Bush in the general election, when he will need to appeal to moderate and independent voters. The President's desparate attempt to firm up conservative support illustrates his fear that even his core constituents won't be enthusiastic about voting or campaigning for him in November.

by TChris

A key witness against Martha Stewart admitted under cross-examination that she may have imagined some of the statements that she attributed to Stewart in yesterday's testimony. As TalkLeft reported yesterday, Stewart's friend, Mariana Pasternak, testified that she recalled Stewart saying "Isn't it nice to have brokers who tell you those things," an apparent reference to Stewart's alleged receipt of information that ImClone CEO Sam Waksal had been trying to dump his shares in the company. Today she isn't so sure.

"I do not know if the statement was made by Martha or if it was thought in my mind," Pasternak said. She also said she previously told prosecutors that she was not sure about that recollection.

The prosecution is expected to rest its case (or what's left of it) later today.

Update: The prosecution did indeed rest this afternoon. As expected, Stewart's attorney, Robert Morvillo, moved to dismiss the charges against her. The judge, Miriam Cedarbaum, will not decide that motion until Monday, but indicated that she viewed the securities fraud count as "the most problematic" (read: shakiest) of the charges against Stewart.

by TChris

A Texas grand jury investigating the activities of Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC, has subpoenaed the campaign records of Tom Craddick, the Texas House Speaker whose efforts at redistricting caused Democratic lawmakers to flee Texas twice last year.

The grand jury has been investigating whether TRMPAC, a political action committee begun by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, illegally used corporate donations to aid GOP candidates in 20 key Texas House races during the 2002 elections.

A victory in 15 of those races led to a Republican takeover of the lower chamber for the first time in more than 130 years. With the GOP majority, Mr. Craddick won his speakership and pressed a Republican-favored congressional redistricting plan that Mr. DeLay championed.

Although the grand jury investigation initially focused on whether money raised from corporations was spent to aid political candidates (a felony under Texas law), District Attorney Ronald Earle announced that the investigation broadened after "possible criminal conduct in connection with the race for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives was uncovered." Craddick's lawyer, Roy Minton, said that prosecutors told him last week that Craddick was not a target of the investigation. It seems that things have changed.

by TChris

Jeff Skilling, former CEO of Enron, shook his head "no" and then entered "not guilty" pleas to 35 counts charging him with fraud, insider trading, cooking the books, and other crimes related to his alleged deception of Enron investors. Charges were also brought against former Enron chief accountant Rick Causey.

Former Chairman Ken Lay, for years the public face of the company and a close political ally of President Bush, has not been charged and was not mentioned in the Skilling indictment.

Skilling's attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, called Skilling a "scapegoat" and said that he had passed a lie detector test. Given the complexity of the charges and the massive amount of discovery that defense lawyers will need to review, this case is unlikely to proceed to trial any time soon.