by TChris

The case of Marcus Dixon, the black high school student who received a ten year sentence for having consensual sex with his white girlfriend who had not yet reached the age of sixteen, demonstrates the need for sentencing reform, according to an analysis prepared by The Sentencing Project. TalkLeft has written about Dixon's case here and here.

The Sentencing Project criticizes the prosecution's decision to charge Dixon with a felony carrying a ten year mandatory minimum sentence, rather than limiting the charge to a misdemeanor that more appropriately fit the crime.

This choice is a noteworthy example of the impact of prosecutorial discretion upon the sentence that a defendant will receive if convicted. There are two statutes in Georgia law that could apply to this case: one a broadly conceived piece of legislation intended to target persons engaged in child molestation (a felony), and one narrowly tailored to address consensual intercourse between two teenagers within three years of age of one another (a misdemeanor). The prosecutor chose the general statute, which holds a much more severe penalty, and in doing so, made Dixon eligible for a ten-year mandatory minimum under Georgia’s “seven deadly sins” laws.

by TChris

A second trial against a former police officer accused of using excessive force against a California teenager has ended in a hung jury. Prosecutors argued that a videotape presented clear evidence that Inglewood police officer Jeremy Morse used excessive force when he slammed a handcuffed teenager into the hood of a car and punched him in the face. Defense lawyers had argued that the teenager grabbed Morse's groin during a struggle. The teenager, Donovan Jackson, testified that he did not fight with the officers.

The jury was split 6-6, forcing a mistrial. An earlier trial also ended in a mistrial after jurors divided 7-5 in favor of conviction. It is unlikely that the prosecution will seek a third trial in light of the outcome of the first two.

by TChris

Notes made by a victim's advocate during a police interview with the woman who accuses Kobe Bryant of raping her cannot be released to Bryant's defense lawyers, according to a ruling by Judge Terry Ruckriegle on Friday. The judge wrote

that state law provides such strong privacy protection for communications between victims and victim advocates that he cannot even review the notes in private to determine whether they are relevant to the case.

It is difficult to understand how, at least under these circumstances, the public's interest in promoting honest communication between an alleged crime victim and a victim's advocate could outweigh Bryant's constitutional right to discover evidence that would assist his defense. This was not a private communication between the accuser and the advocate. Rather, the advocate was merely a witness to a conversation. How is justice promoted by treating her differently than any other witness who overheard a police interview, simply because of her status as a victim's advocate?

A few days ago we wrote about rumors Gary Hart had decided not to run for U.S. Senate against Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Hart made it official last night.

Hart, who represented Colorado in the Senate from 1975 to 1987, opted out of this year's race by saying he thought he could make his best contribution by writing and speaking on national issues. It was the second time Hart had ruled out a run for the seat, and in his announcement's wake, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb's name came up for the second time, although even those recruiting him signaled little hope he would enter the race.

Before that, Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., toyed with the idea of challenging Campbell for months before opting out right around Christmas.

by TChris

Complaining that "sensationalistic" media coverage based on "inaccurate information from law enforcement" has made it impossible for Eric Rudolph to receive a fair trial in Birmingham, Rudolph's lawyers are seeking a change of venue. Rudolph is charged with bombing a clinic in Birmingham, killing a security guard and injuring a nurse.

The defense said the argument was reflected in polling it conducted. With only minor prompting, 97 percent of those polled were aware of the case and 65 percent said Rudolph was either definitely or probably guilty.

The defense also pointed out that, among those who supported the death penalty, "78 percent felt that the death penalty was a more appropriate punishment for Mr. Rudolph than life without the possibility of parole."

Yikes! When 65 percent of the likely jury pool have made up their minds, picking an unbiased jury becomes difficult at best. The defense polling indicated that while fewer citizens of Tennessee were predisposed to find Rudolph guilty and to impose the death penalty, the numbers were still high. Although the case received nationwide attention, potentially tainting the jury pool in any venue, fairness can best be achieved by moving the trial from Birmingham.

by TChris

Amid increasing Republican support for an independent investigation of the intelligence upon which the Bush administration based its case for the war in Iraq, Vice President Cheney has reportedly told key lawmakers that the Bush administration is open to "a range of options." President Bush has stated only that he wants to know about the discrepancies between pre-war intelligence about WMD's and the post-war discovery that no WMD's can be found. It is unclear whether the "range of options" that Cheney mentioned would be broader than the inquiry envisioned by Bush. Would the administration support an independent investigation that would ask whether it selectively relied upon questionable intelligence to build a case for war?

Support for an independent investigation of some sort is growing in the president's party.

"A lot of Republicans are ready to get on the independent bandwagon," a senior GOP Senate leadership aide said.

They include John McCain (R-AZ) and former Defense Secretary William Cohen. But the real question is whether any investigation will be limited to "intelligence failures" or will expand to include the administration's use of that intelligence.

by TChris

Freedom of the press isn't so free in San Mateo County, at least for television stations that want their reporters and camera crews to have a convenient space to work while covering Scott Peterson's trial. For a mere $51,000, San Mateo County is allowing stations to use one of sixteen 13 by 17 foot spaces next to the courthouse.

The $51,000 fee amounts to about $230 per square foot. At the height of the dot-com boom, prime office space in San Francisco leased for about $80 per square foot.

The fee doesn't include a $7,500 a month charge for parking satellite trucks. Reporters are not being charged for using a media center located a block from the courthouse.

Steve Alms, the county's real property services manager, defends what might be seen as an effort at profiteering, stating that the county is being "fiscally responsible" by "trying to recover the cost burden" on the county. But stations complained both about the amount of and the deadline for the payment.

When Alms said the fee was due Saturday at noon, he was nearly shouted down by reporters and producers in the room, saying that even major networks can't get that kind of money together in less than a day.

Alms responded by extending the deadline to February 13.

by TChris

Despite recent pleas by Denzel Washington and others to spare the life of Kevin Cooper, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger rejected Cooper's request for clemency. Cooper is scheduled to be executed on February 10. According to Schwarzenegger:

"Evidence establishing his guilt is overwhelming, and his conversion to faith and his mentoring of others, while commendable, do not diminish the cruelty and destruction he has inflicted on so many. His is not a case for clemency."

Cooper's attorney disagrees:

"There are too many unanswered questions about the evidence in this case and until those questions are answered, there is no reason to rush to kill Kevin Cooper," attorney Lanny Davis said in a statement.

"There is compelling evidence that police planted DNA evidence to link Cooper to the crime and there has yet to be testing of the blond hairs found in the death grip of the victim's hands (Cooper is African-American)."

California has executed only ten persons since 1976. Avenues of relief are rapidly diminishing for Cooper in light of Schwarzenegger's rejection of his request for clemency.

by TChris

The testimony of a key prosecution witness against Martha Stewart and her stock broker, Peter Bacanovic, has been delayed because prosecutors withheld documents from the defense that could cast doubt upon the witness' credibility. The witness, Douglas Faneuil, is now expected to testify on Thursday, a week after the originally scheduled date. Prosecutors expect Faneuil to say that he alerted Stewart to the fact that the company's founder, Sam Waksal, was selling large amounts of his stock in ImClone Systems Inc. Stewart sold 4,000 shares of ImClone stock after Faneuil allegedly gave her that tip.

At issue is an ambiguous statement that Faneuil's former defense lawyer Jeremiah Gutman gave investigators a year ago.

The defense interpreted the document to read that Gutman told investigators that Faneuil could not recall whether Bacanovic or Waksal instructed him to tip off Stewart. However, prosecutors said it was Gutman with the faulty memory. They said it was Gutman himself who could not recall Faneuil's statement about which man gave the order.

If enough doubt can be established as to who ordered Faneuil to reveal confidential stock information, it could undermine the government's charges that Bacanovic lied about his involvement in Stewart's suspicious stock sale.

While the withheld information may not have a direct impact upon the charges against Stewart, any evidence casting doubt upon the credibility of a prosecution witness should be helpful to her defense. This seems to be another case of over-zealous prosecutors deciding for themselves that evidence isn't exculpatory (regardless of how others might view it) and neglecting their obligation to share evidence that might benefit the defense.

From Human Rights Watch:

“The United States is doing the right thing by returning three former child soldiers home for rehabilitation," said Jo Becker, children’s rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. “But other child soldiers are still detained at Guantanamo. They are also entitled to rehabilitation and special protection too, but aren’t getting it."

....The Department of Defense has confirmed that an unspecified number of other children, aged 16 and 17, are also detained at Guantanamo. In contrast to the three who were released, these children are not segregated from the adult population, and are not receiving education or rehabilitation assistance. International law generally defines children as all individuals under the age of 18.

“The United States is bound by law to provide rehabilitation for any former child soldiers within its jurisdiction," said Becker. “Rehabilitation does not happen in a cell in Guantanamo."

Here's what the U.S. should be doing:

International standards recognize that children under the age of 18 are a particularly vulnerable group, and are entitled to special care and protection because they are still developing physically, mentally and emotionally. These standards include certain key principles, including the use of detention only as a measure of last resort, the separation of children from adults, the right of children to maintain contact with their families, and the right to a prompt determination of their case. In addition, treaties binding on the United States recognize the special situation of children who have been recruited or used in armed conflict, and their rights to prompt demobilization, and rehabilitation and reintegration assistance.

bq. In cases where children are believed to have committed war crimes, they can be formally charged and should be provided with counsel and tried in accordance with international standards of juvenile justice.

TChris has graciously agreed to guest blog here this weekend. We look forward giving our wrist a rest, but will post sporadically as well. It will also give us a chance to read what everyone else is writing about, and do some linking.

Atrios writes about the Israeli businessman from South Africa, Asher Karni, charged in the U.S. with supplying Pakistan with nuclear weapons detonators and he wonders why it hasn't gotten more coverage. He'll be glad to know there are now 303 articles on the case over at Google News.

We remember it because Karni was arrested at Denver International Airport. A U.S. Magistrate in Denver ordered him released on $75k bail. The Government asked for a reconsideration. The review hearing was held by videotaped conference with Karni appearing with his lawyers in Denver and the Government and Judge in DC where he was charged.

Karni has been a prominent member of the an Orthodox Hebrew Congregation in South Africa for the past 18 years and is an assistant to its rabbi. He is a businessman with tremendous support in the Capetown community.

The case sounds like a set-up to us. He had come to Colorado for a ski vacation with his wife and daughter. Good for the judge for granting bail, although the conditions are extremely stringent--he has to live with a rabbi in Maryland and is on house arrest.

Clearly, Mr. Karni, a devout practicing Jewish man, is not a terrorist member of al-Qaeda.

Here's the latest on who tipped off the authorities.

Update: The terms of the stringent bond for the Israeli citizen Asher Karni are here.

[comments now closed]