We've made the move from Blogger Pro to Movable Type. We hope you like it as much as we do. Once again, thanks to Daily Kos for the hours he spent helping build the page and for his invaluable technical assistance.

You can now post comments directly in response to any post. Recent posts are on the right, as are categories of all of our 125 posts to date and monthly archives.

There is also an xml feed that many of you have been asking for.

Let us know what you think, either here or by e-mail.

In other site news, we are pleased to report that Howard Bashman of the excellent appellate-law blog How Appealing has added TalkLeft to its list of "Especially Appealing" blogs.

Many conservative law enforcement officials predicted that the Supreme Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia declaring the execution of the mentally retarded unconstituional would unleash a flood of appeals from death row inmates.

At least in Texas, it hasn't happened. Only one inmate has filed for relief so far under the new decision.

"Texas is one of 20 states that, until the Supreme Court decision, allowed execution of the mentally retarded. The Death Penalty Information Center claims Texas has executed at least six mentally retarded inmates since 1982, a number disputed by death penalty proponents."

What does it take to prove mental retardation? According to the American Association of Mental Retardation, there are three factors: below average intellectual functioning, usually an IQ of 70 or below; poor adaptive skills, such as inability to hold a job or communicate with others; and the onset of symptoms before age 18.

We cheered the Postal Service earlier this week when they announced their workers would not participate in Operation Tips.

Now, the about-face. Seems the Postal Service didn't really understand the program (or so they say) and they and union officials are going to meet with the Justice Department about the program before making up their mind.

By the way, TIPS stands for Terrorist Information and Prevention System.

Also from the CNN article linked above, "Members of civil liberties and privacy groups have joined conservative groups in their condemnation of the proposed program, dubbing it "Operation Snoops."

That's our name for it from now on.

Talk about forensic power--the country's three most famous forensic experts in homicides have joined forces to determine who killed Chandra Levy.

That's right, Henry Lee, Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht.

Billy Martin, Levy Family lawyer made the announcement today. The trio examined Levy's remains at the District of Columbia medical examiner's office, and went to Rock Creek Park where the remains were found May 22.

Courtesy of the Washington Post.

Former NY Police Commissioner Bill Bratton has joined the race for chief of LA's Police Force. We like Bratton a lot. Unlike Guluiani, he knows how to reduce crime without violating civil and constitutional rights. He did an unbelievable job when he had the job in Boston.

We would rather have seen him as Mayor of New York City, but that was not to be this past election.

If you want to know more about him and his theories on policing, look for his book on Amazon. We'll get it here over the weekend...

Mark your calendars for this one....Congressional representatives, health professionals and patients will be holding a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday, July 24, urging Congress to debate and approve H.R. 2592, the "States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act."

House Bill 2592, introduced by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), would amend federal law so that states wishing to legalize and distribute medical marijuana could do so without running afoul of federal law. The bill has 36 bi-partisan co-sponsors, but has never received a hearing in Congress. For more info, visit this page on NORML's website.

Thanks to Jason Rylander for his exceptionally nice compliment on our coverage of the Moussaoui attempted plea news yesterday, "Talk Left owns this story and is correcting lots of media mistakes on court process and pleas -- head over there for detailed news."

Over the weekend we will be making the transition from Blogger to Movable Type. We're not expecting down-time, especially since the incredibly web savvy Daily Kos volunteered to help us with it --but if we do, just know we'll be back up asap.

5:00 If there was a news conference, we didn't see it. We did just see a taped report of NBC's Pete Williams on MSNBC, and he got it right as to the procedure. So did Dan Abrams on his show at 6pm ET. According to a law professor interviewed by Pete Williams in his piece, the death penalty is legally doubtful for Moussaoui if all he did was join the conspiracy but didn't actually kill or hurt anyone. Dan disagreed, pointing out that the jury was allowed to consider the death penalty for Terry Nichols even though he was not in Oklahoma City the day the federal building there was bombed. (The Nichols jury voted for life over death, which explains the State of Oklahoma's insistence on trying him in state court where he will once again be subject to the death penalty. )

Our view: Send in the lawyer from Texas that Moussaoui asked to have advise him weeks ago. It shouldn't matter that the lawyer isn't licensed in Virginia, he's not seeking to enter his appearance as Moussaoui's counsel, only to advise Moussaoui while he is representing himself. It's clear Moussaoui doesn't understand the consequences of pleading guilty if he thinks it is a guarantee of saving his life. And sending Moussaoui to face a death penalty jury without advice of counsel of choice is not a resolution Americans should be proud of--or stand for.

1:15 News conference hasn't started yet, but some misinformation is emerging on two cable networks that we've seen about what happens sentencing-wise if Moussaoui pleads guilty.

Here is the applicable federal death penalty statute.

First, contrary to what one analyst has said, Moussaoui does not need the Government's permission to plead guilty. There is no plea bargain here. Anyone can plead guilty at any time to all of the charges against them. They just can't plead guilty to lesser charges without an agreement. The sole issue as to whether Moussaoui can plead guilty to the offenses with which he is charged is whether he is legally competent to do so.

Second, the death penalty can be applied where a defendant pleads guilty. Moussaoui said today he wants to fight the death penalty. The procedure followed when someone pleads guilty in a case in which the Government has filed a notice to seek the death penalty is for the judge is to convene a 12 member jury to hear the evidence and make the life/death decision.(Section (b)(2)(a) of statute linked to above, 18 USC 3593).

However, the judge can make the decision without a jury if the defendant requests, and the government agrees. (Section (b)(3))

By pleading guilty to the crime, Moussaoui does not waive his right to seek life over death, and he certainly could get the death penalty if the jury or judge so determined after a hearing.

12:25 Moussaoui confesses to crimes in open court...According to Pete Williams now on MSNBC, Moussaoui was more combative in court today, mocking the Judge, talking when she talked, saying the Judge isn't being fair, her politeness is a sham, she is trying to get him executed.

At the end of hearing, which was supposed to be his re-arraignment on the new Indictment, the fireworks started when he refused to plead and the Judge said she would enter a not guilty plea for him. He then said he wanted to plead guilty because the Judge wouldn't allow him to run his defense the way he wanted to. He announced he was guilty, he was a member of Al Qaeda, and he knew who was responsible for the September 11 attacks.

The Judge gave him a week to think it over.

Moussaoui wants to plead guilty but fight for his life in the sentencing phase.

12:25 MT: news conference about to start, longer AP article

Coming across the AP wires now, " Zacarias Moussaoui, indicted in connection with Sept. 11 attacks, tries to plea guilty to federal charges; judge tells him to think it over "

Stay tuned....

Word reaches us within the past hour the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-7 to approve the Innocence Protection Act substitute amendment. Sens. Specter and Brownback were the 2 Republicans joining all 10 Democrats on the committee. Thanks to Kyle O'Dowd, Legislative Director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for the update.

Focus now shifts to the House Judiciary Committee. For more info, check out our action alert from last week, which includes this link to Senator Leahy's statement on the compromise bill.

Witnesses and Criminals is an editorial in today's Washington Post about holding detainees under the material witness statute.

We agree with the second half of this editorial, but not the first. It seems to change course in midstream. In fact, had we followed our instincts to tune out after the first two paragraphs, we would not have read the last two paragraphs, which we think are all too true.

The subject is the differing rulings of two federal judges in New York on the material witness statute as pertains to post-September 11 detainees.

We disagree with the Post and think Judge Scheindlein's view is correct that the material witness statute applies to trial witnesses, not grand jury witnesses. The Post maintains that the statute allows the government to "hold witnesses who might otherwise flee in order to secure their testimony," and that this is the way it should be, citing Terry Nichols' arrest on a material witness warrant when they didn't have enough to charge him with the Oklahoma bombing but wanted to secure his testimony.

The Post then criticizes the practical application of the law, "because it can be abused and should not be used indirectly as a punitive measure." We're beginning to agree.

The Post really engages our attention when it continues with, "What's troubling about the government's behavior in these cases is not that material witnesses have been detained but the circumstances and duration of the detentions." The Post is justly critical of the Government for holding Osama Awadallah in isolated detention for months, during which he sustained bruises and had limited access to counsel.

The Post opines, "If this is true, then it is unacceptable. More generally, the material witness statute authorizes holding people only for "a reasonable period of time" so that their testimony can be obtained. It's hard to see how this law could justify holding someone for months or after that person's grand jury testimony has been taken."

What happens when the witness does not want to talk? Under federal law, a witness who refuses to testify before a grand jury can be held in contempt and kept in jail for the remaining life of the grand jury. Grand jury terms are eighteen months. Sometimes a grand jury has not finished investigating a case when its term is up and a new grand jury is empanelled and the case transferred. The recalcitrant witness can be held for the life of that grand jury as well. So the "reasonable period of time" that the Post assumes will cause someone to intervene to prevent overly lengthy detentions doesn't really exist. There is no definition of "reasonable period of time," and with the detainees, reasonable time seems to be equated with "as long as it takes to make him talk."

We know that the Judge can release the person doing contempt time for refusal to testify before a grand jury if the Judge becomes convinced that the person won't talk no matter how long he or she remains in jail. Again, this is an arbitrary decision--hardly a uniform measuring stick of "reasonable time."

In the case of the detainees, where are the contempt hearings? Where are the contempt charges? Due to secrecy rules, we can't learn the truth. But even the Government says these witnesses have not been charged. They are not criminals, yet they have lost their jobs, their family life and their ability to partake of the ordinary pleasures in life.

The Post concludes with, "Still, the material witness law has clearly been used as a means of locking up people who have information relevant to the investigation and who themselves may be dangerous, yet against whom no case can immediately be made. This is pushing a line: The material witness law is not a means of preventive detention and should not be used as one."

So doesn't Judge Scheindlein's ruling make more sense?

P.S. We think Mr. Awadallah's wife has been a gutsy, intelligent and passionate advocate on his behalf.

Richard Cohen in today's Washington Post Spotlight John maintains that John Walker Lindh should have made the resignation of Ashcroft a condition of his plea bargain.

"Just about the only time Ashcroft chose to keep his mouth shut was when the plea bargain was announced. For once, the AG was not in makeup.For Ashcroft, this is beginning to look like a pattern. First comes the hype and then comes the disappearing act.