Update: The prosecution has just filed a request to close the portions of the preliminary hearing addressing the accuser's sexual conduct. The response alleges that Pamela Mackey consciously misrepresented the evidence "in order to smear the victim publicly." [Shouldn't they have waited until they hear from her witness(es) before making that allegation?]

Yet, the People implicitly acknowledge that the advance notice requirement of the rape shield law doesn't apply at preliminary hearings. They say an in camera hearing is in line with "the intent" of the Rape Shield statute--not the language of the act. Big difference. Also, they attach a sealed "offer of proof" to the motion that they say supports their position that the accuser's sexual conduct "arguably" is protected by the Rape Shield act and ask for an in camera (closed) hearing on the issue.

Update: CBS analyst Andrew Cohen provides a good analysis of the issues here. AP article on the proseuction's motion is here.

************
Original post:

The defense may call witnesses at tomorrow's continuation of the Kobe Bryant preliminary hearing. Colorado rules specifically allow for the defense to present evidence at such hearings.

Can it really be necessary for border agents to dismantle gas tanks of cars coming across the border? The Bush Administration says yes. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said no. The Supreme Court will decide.

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide if border officers can randomly search gas tanks of vehicles coming into the country, security measures the Bush administration argued are important in the war on drugs and terrorism.

An appeals court had said that officers can visually inspect gas tanks, but not dismantle them unless they have reason to suspect wrongdoing.

...the White House, argued that the decision would make it easier to sneak weapons, drugs and even people into America. On the other side, lawyers said it's unconstitutionally intrusive, and potentially hazardous, for vehicles to be taken apart at border stops.

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, but the Supreme Court has held that people entering the United States can be subjected to routine searches without suspicion. At issue here is whether such gas-tank searches are routine, or whether reasonable suspicion is required before a search.

We agree with the defense that:

...there's a difference between dismantling searches with mechanics and routine inspections involving drug dogs, fiber optic scopes or manual steps like tapping on the tank.

Dismantling, which is far more instrusive, should not be performed at the direction and discretion of border agents, absent evidence of wrong-doing. The case is United States v. Flores-Montano, 02-1794.

Great news....

The Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for state laws allowing ill patients to smoke marijuana if a doctor recommends it.

Justices turned down the Bush administration's request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or perhaps just talking about the benefits of the drug to sick patients. An appeals court said the government cannot.

This case was unusual in that it involved not just medical marijuana but doctors' First Amendment free speech rights.

This one presented a more difficult issue, pitting free-speech rights of doctors against government power to keep physicians from encouraging illegal drug use. A ruling for the Bush administration would have made the state medical marijuana laws unusable.

Some California doctors and patients, in filings at the Supreme Court, compared doctor information on pot to physicians' advice on "red wine to reduce the risk of heart disease, Vitamin C, acupuncture, or chicken soup."

Here are some details of the case and opinions that we posted in July.

Update: Marijuana backers react to the ruling. Linda Greenhouse at the New York Times describes the case and issues.

On March 12, 1998, in response to a caller who asked why the Clinton Administration was not fighting illegal drugs with the same effort being used to fight the tobacco industry, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh responded with some support of a legalized, regulated drug market (The Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, March 12, 1998):

"[Drug] interdiction doesn't work and the effort to convince people not to do it really doesn't work. In fact, with young people it may even entice them more ...

It seems to me that what is missing in the drug fight is legalization. If we want to go after drugs with the same fervor and intensity with which we go after cigarettes, let's legalize drugs. Legalize the manufacture of drugs. License the Cali Cartel. Make them tax payers and then sue them. Sue them left and right and then get control of the price and generate tax revenue from it. Raise the price sky high and fund all sorts of other wonderful social programs.

Daily Kos, always miles ahead of the pack, has made the move from MT to Scoop. The move will be fully complete in the next day or two, but if, like us, you can't wait, you can go check it out now here. You can also register and get acquainted with the new features. It is really awesome. Kos, you've done us all proud.

Kos has leaped into the Instapundit and Atrios category in daily visitors. About 40,000 people a day read his blog. Kos was also kind enough to re-design TalkLeft for us back in June, 2002. We are thrilled that he has had such great success. And we bet this is only the beginning.

The Washington Post rails today against the new Texas redistricting plan in The Soviet Republic of Texas . After explaining the details of the plan, and the unfairness of it, the Post asks:

Do Texans really want a polarized delegation of 22 conservative Republicans and 10 liberal Democrats, as the current plan envisions? Do they really want a state with a white party and a minority party? Republican politicians are engineering it that way, whatever voters may want. For redistricting -- quite the inverse of elections -- is a process in which politicians get to choose their voters. It is a process that a healthy democracy would seek to reform.

An ethics charge has been brought against Florida's ex-Secretary of State Katherine Harris.

The Florida chapter of the senior's organization Alliance of Retired Americans has requested the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct inquire into Harris' conduct:

The group claims that Harris abused the powers of her office and trampled on First Amendment rights when she had her staff seize printed material -- health care talking points and copies of Harris' voting record -- from retirees who attended a town hall meeting with the congresswoman in Bradenton, Fla., this summer.

Harris' response?

"It is unfortunate that these professional disrupters from Palm Beach seek to lengthen their 15 minutes of fame through a frivolous complaint," Harris' office wrote in an e-mail to the Miami Daily Business Review.

Jury selection begins today in trial of sniper suspect John Muhammed.

The trial is taking place in Virginia Beach, 200 miles from the site of the killing of Dean Myers, a 53 year old engineer who was pumping gas at a Sunoco station when he was shot and killed.''

While John Lee Malvo, the younger sniper suspect, apparently is cooperating with his lawyers and planning on using an insanity defense, Muhammed has been much more difficult to get a read on.

The defense team is struggling to overcome not only the government's powerful circumstantial evidence and widespread media coverage, but also Muhammad's taciturn defiance.

In the Two Years Too Late Department: Florida has ordered a review of Broward County's Election Office. Broward County has more voters than any other county in Florida.

Florida officials will investigate whether Broward County's elections department is up to handling upcoming elections, including the March presidential primary.

Secretary of State Glenda Hood ordered an assessment of supervisor Miriam Oliphant's office Tuesday in the wake of her firings of four key subordinates, including the deputy supervisor. Oliphant has also been accused of incompetence.

It seems the same problems that plagued the 2000 Presidential election surfaced again in the 2002 Gubernatorial election.

[Miriam Oliphant] was criticized after last year's gubernatorial primary in which voters received bad ballots and inaccurate registration information, some polls opened late and others closed early, and thousands of votes were not counted until a week after the election.

The problems received national attention because of similarities to the botched 2000 Florida presidential recount, which happened before Oliphant took office.

The probe also will review the state's election machinery.

Atrios has beat our record. Last month we wrote Will Link for Laptop and a generous reader bought us our brand new Sony Vaio with no strings attached in 7 hours. (Atrios linked to our post right after it went up, which likely was a big help in getting the word out.)

Monday, Atrios put out a plea for his own new Sony laptop (same model we asked for.) Someone bought it for him in 3 hours....on top of that, appreciative readers maxed out his Amazon Honor account with $3,400 in donations.

We think it's great when readers show their appreciation for bloggers' efforts with donations. We know others disagree, and each to his or her own, but we're happy for Atrios. He deserves it.

It's no suprise that defense costs for the Sniper trial will top $1 Million. The prosecution tab will be far greater.

We disagree with the official who lamented the lack of caps on defense fees. The Constitution guarantees defendants a fair trial, and it is hardly fair to have the awesome and unlimited powers of the Government come down upon you and not be allotted sufficient resources to defend yourself.

One million doesn't even level the playing field, but we recognize its a lot more than Virginia has granted in prior cases, so we won't complain--particularly since defense counsel have said they got almost everything they asked for.

Lawyers for the sniper suspects are working for reduced rates--$125.00 an hour. Their regular law practices are on hold while they do this case. It's a death case. Death is different. And death costs more. If Virginia is upset about the costs, it could drop the death penalty and allow life in prison without the possibility of parole to be the top punishment. That would save hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions.

The article makes reference to the Oklahoma bombing trials. The prosecution spent $82 million on the case. McVeigh's defense spent $15 million. We don't see how anyone can complain.

If the defense isn't granted adequate funding for counsel, investigation and experts at trial to test the Government's evidence, then it's not a fair trial and we --as a society--cannot trust in the integrity of any verdict that comes down.

This is shaping up to be another big embarassment for the Administration--see Dubious Letters From GIs In Iraq --Counterspin is on top of it, his latest update is here.

The LA Times article on the letters is here.