Faulty chemist reports in 206 DUI cases in Colorado Springs have resulted in the dismissal or reduction of charges in 9 cases, including 5 where the defendants had already served time. The faulty testing resulted in higher blood alcohols being reported.

The mistakes were discovered when two chemists were given proficiency tests and one failed. Local defense attorney Tim Busey, filed an open records request to obtain some of the documents related to the errors says:

“Every person in the county needs to be concerned about that lab,” he said. “To simply blame it on one analyst is to ignore the fact that any lab is a system of checks and balances from the lab to the certifying agency, which in this case is the department of health.”

A summary of the nine cases is here.

Cameron Douglas, son of actor Michael Douglas, was sentenced to five years for selling methamphetamine today.

He was facing a ten year mandatory minimum, but with a motion from the prosecutors to depart due to cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of others, the judge was able to go below it. (The motion is not public, nor are the details of his cooperation. All references to cooperation have been blacked out from the pleadings and letters, with the Court's approval.)

Once the Government files that motion, the court is free to depart as much or as little as it wants, and to take into consideration other factors, such as his addiction, his commitment to changing his life, the pleas of family members, etc.

Without that motion, absent a safety valve, the court's hands would have been tied. Ten years would have been the minimum, even, for example, had there been evidence Cameron Douglas marched into a burning building and rescued a dozen children from perishing.

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws need to be repealed. At a minimum, they should be amended so that judges are free to depart on their own motion, not just on the Government's motion or in the limited circumstances where the safety valve applies. Snitching should not be a prerequisite.

Today, for the first time since 2002, I rejected an ad for TalkLeft because of the message. Most people realize that ads on the site don't represent the point of view of the blogger. I've accepted ads before I don't agree with, and when I've thought about what kind of ad I would reject in the past, the only thing that came to mind was an ad supporting the death penalty.

So what pushed me over the top this time? It was an ad for gun control, that began in big letters, "Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals" and urged people to support new laws on sales at gun shows.

Given the focus of this blog, to protect the rights of those accused of crime and particularly, constitutional rights, I would have recoiled every time I logged on to my own blog. So, even though it would have paid for TalkLeft's hosting service for a full month (no small amount since we're on our own server), I rejected it. [More...]

Open Thread.

US. v. Stevens (PDF), 8-1, with Alito in dissent. From the syllabus:

Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. §48 to criminalize the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. The statute addresses only portrayals of harmful acts, not the underlying conduct. It applies to any visual or auditory depiction “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed,” if that conduct violates federal or state law where “the creation, sale, or possession takes place,” §48(c)(1). Another clause exempts depictions with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” §48(b). The legislative background of §48 focused primarily on “crush videos,” which feature the torture and killing of helpless animals and are said to appeal to persons with a specific sexual fetish. Respondent Stevens was indicted under §48 for selling videos depicting dogfighting. He moved to dismiss, arguing that §48 is facially invalid under the First Amendment. The District Court denied his motion, and Stevens was convicted. The Third Circuit vacated the conviction and declared §48 facially unconstitutional as a content-based regulation of protected speech.

Held: Section §48 is substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment.

Haven't read the opinion but I am curious if the question of whether Congress can regulate the underlying conduct came up.

Goldman Sachs earnings:

Beset by accusations of securities fraud, Goldman Sachs nevertheless showed Tuesday that it was still very good at what it does best: making money. Earnings for the Wall Street giant rose 91 percent in the first quarter of 2010, to $3.46 billion [. . .] In addition, Goldman said it had set aside 43 percent of revenue in the first quarter for employee salaries and bonuses, down from 50 percent for the period a year ago.

(Emphasis supplied.) Let's do the math 0.43 X 3.46 billion = $1,487,800,000. [NOTE: The article states that 43% of revenues was set aside,which actually amounts to $5.5 billion set aside in compensation.] FOR ONE QUARTER!! To put this in perspective, you know that huge progressive win Chris Bowers at Open Left likes to talk about in the health bill? The money for community clinics? Well, the money to be spent for community clinics in one year is $478 million LESS than Goldman bonuses in six months (more likely, given my mistake between revenues and earnings, the amount paid to Goldman employees exceeds by more than double the amount spent yearly on community health clinics, the "great progressive victory" of the health bills).

Maybe, just maybe, the rich can afford to pay a few percent of the money the get to help sustain a government that saved their bacon. Just a thought.

Speaking for me only

Via atrios, the strong Executive in action:

The Obama administration plans to change the so-called Title IX policy which governs gender equality in sports, eliminating what some women's rights supporters claim is a Bush-administration loophole in compliance, according to a senior White House official.

[. . .] Universities initially faced three requirements to prove they were complying with the law: that the proportion of male and female students participating in sports at the university was proportional to the number of male and female students enrolled in the university; that the university was expanding opportunities for women students in athletics; and that the university was meeting the athletic abilities and interests of women students.

In 2005, the administration of former President George W. Bush changed the third requirement, allowing the university to prove it was meeting the athletic interests of women by carrying out surveys of students' interest in sports. [. . .] Under the new policy, universities will no longer be able to claim that a low response to surveys means a low interest in sports, the official said. [. . .] The official told CNN the new rules "restore the system to what it was before" the 2005 change. That rule "made it easier for universities to avoid complying with Title IX," the official said.

Well done, Obama Administration!

The NYTimes writes a news analysis story arguing so:

In accusing Goldman Sachs of defrauding investors, regulators are not only taking aim at a company with deep pockets and a will to fight — they are also pursuing an unusual claim that could be difficult to prove in court, legal experts said.

I have not delved enough into the facts of the case to know if this is true, but some statements in the article seem clearly wrong on the law. This statement for instance:

To win its case, the S.E.C. must prove that Goldman was not merely silent about Mr. Paulson’s role but actually gave investors the wrong impression, experts in securities law said. Then it must prove that the missing information was material, a legal term meaning that investors armed with that knowledge might have decided not to buy the product from Goldman, or to do so at a lower price.

(Emphasis supplied.) That is not a good description of the standard in my view. We went through this issue before. The standard the reporter is trying to articulate is this:

It's 4/20 day, also known as Marijuana Freedom Day, celebrated around the world by marijuana users and those who want to see the end to criminalization of its use.

Also today, NORML launches a new advertisement for 4/20 on Times Square’s largest electronic billboard calling out New York City politicians and law enforcement for having one of the highest—and most racially disparate—cannabis arrest rates in the United States. The advertisement will run 18 times a day until late May, and will be seen by an expected 1.5 million Times Square visitors.

California will be front and center this year, as marijuana legalization will be on the ballot. If you'd like to help them, go on over to TaxCanabis and make a donation.

The War on Drugs is a failure. Let's bring it to an end.

Some of you undoubtedly are watching the McVeigh Tapes tonight on MSNBC. They will have a computer generated character, who in their view bears a physical resemblance to Timothy McVeigh, so you have something to look at as they play the audio of tapes made during interviews he granted to the two reporters who wrote the book, American Terrorist.

Since I was one of McVeigh's trial lawyers, I obviously have my own opinions about why he chose to speak to the reporters and what his objectives were -- and how much of what he told them was accurate.

The reason I doubt I'll like Maddow's show is the attempt to politicize it and tie McVeigh to current times and the anti-government feelings some are expressing. There is no connection. And it's long past time to put the conspiracy theories to rest. [More...]

Miley Cyrus, liberal threat to the Republic? Who knew? In the threads, Amanda Marcotte informs me at least that Dolly Parton is actually a fantastic liberal. I admit that I did not know that. Go Dolly!

Jeralyn should be taking over soon and I am urging and hoping for some words from her on "The McVeigh Tapes" which will be on MSNBC this evening. I'll DVR it cuz NBA playoffs are always my first viewing choice this time of the year.

Open Thread.

Political fodder:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission split 3-2 along party lines to approve an enforcement case against Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to two people with knowledge of the vote. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sided with Democrats Luis Aguilar and Elisse Walter to approve the case, said the people, who declined to be identified because the vote wasn’t public. Republican commissioners Kathleen Casey and Troy Paredes voted against suing, the person said.

Political hay for Dems in this.

Speaking for me only