Newsday is reporting that at least seven of the New York Mets have used marijuana this season.

"None of the Mets contacted made any connection between the team's miserable 2002 season and drug use. However, medical experts say marijuana use can impair coordination."

Reading this article was like taking a step back to the movie "Reefer Madness." Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration. Still, it was hard to believe they were talking about marijuana and not heroin.

But sports is not something we know anything about, so we will wait to see how those who do weigh in. Daily Kos , Cooped Up , and Smythes World, are you out there?

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News has started a firestorm in the murder case of Danielle Van Dam in San Diego. After a three month trial, the jury found the defendant David Westerfield guilty of the kidnap and murder and recommended he be sentenced to death. Westerfield was aggressively defended by esteemed San Diego defense lawyer Steven Feldman.

O'Reilly is filing an ethics complaints against Mr. Westerfield's lawyers because of media reports that Mr. Westerfield had agreed to plead guilty and take a life sentence before Danielle's body was found. This wasn't presented to the jury because in California and elsewhere, pretrial plea bargaining can't be revealed to jury.

Mr. O'Reilly believes that if Mr. Feldman knew his client committed the murder, it was unethical of him to suggest to the jury that a stranger could have done it. Evidence was presented at trial that the Van Dam parents had allowed strangers into their home in connection with their "swinging lifestyle" (as the press referred to it.) No evidence was presented by the prosecution at trial that put Westerfield inside the Van Dam home from which the seven year old Danielle was kidnapped.

Defense lawyers are defending Westerfield's lawyers. Here is an article from the Copley News Service (we found it on Lexis.com but it is likely online somewhere.)

Michael Skakel, convicted of murdering Martha Moxley when they were both 15 has filed his appeal.

He has raised more than 25 grounds for appeal, the first of which argues his case should not have been transferred from juvenile court to adult court for trial. He also argues the case should have been dismissed before trial because there was a five year statute of limitations on murder in 1975. There are numerous allegations of errors by the Court in admitting evidence and against the prosecution for withholding evidence and otherwise impermissibly prejudicing Skakel during trial.

You can read the appeal document outlining all 25+ issues here.

If you missed our prior post on what went wrong for Skakel at the trial, you can read it here.

After five days of deliberation, the jury in the San Diego murder trial of David Westerfield (convicted two weeks ago for the murder of 7 year old Danielle Van Dam) came back today with a recommendation he be sentenced to death.

The jury returned this morning after four days off, deliberated two hours and sent a note to the judge saying they were deadlocked. Then they went to lunch. They came back from lunch and sent a note to the judge saying they wanted more time to deliberate. Ten minutes after that note they sent another note that they had reached a verdict.

The defense moved for a mistrial arguing the jury had to have discussed the case at lunch which the court's instructions forbid. The judge denied the motion.

The Judge could override the jury's verdict and sentence Westerfield to life without, but California experts say this is rarely done.

We hear Hannity and Colmes will be discussing this case around 9:30 ET on the Fox News Channel . Sean Hannity takes the position that the parents are "morally culpable" for their daughter's death due to their "swinging lifestyle" and pot use which resulted in their bringing strangers into their home.

We think life without ("lwop") was the more appropriate result. In weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, you have the heinousness and brutality of the child's murder on the one side, and Westerfield's lifetime of no criminal conduct, kids who still love him and testified he was a good dad and his usefulness to society (through inventing and patenting medical devices for the ill and injured) on the other. We think the mitigators outweighed the aggravators, but we know we're in the minority on this.

Most of the news articles we've seen regarding the probe into Noelle Bush's alleged "cocaine possession" at a drug treatment facility fail to mention that the substance allegedly found in her shoe was crack cocaine, not powder.

This is significant because under federal law, the penalties for crack cocaine remain 100 times higher than the penalties for powder cocaine.

The Washington Post article says "a two gram rock of crack cocaine" was found in Ms. Bush's shoe. Five grams of crack under federal law gets you a five year mandatory minimum penalty. Five grams of powder, if for personal use, is a misdemeanor, with probation likely.

The point of publicizing this is not to trash Noelle Bush, or even her father, whom we would like to see replaced as governor of Florida. It is to highlight the injustice of the crack laws, and to put people on notice to watch for any preferential treatment since the offense is legally considered to be so much more serious than one involving cocaine powder.

And to wonder why the press, with the exception of the Washington Post, has been avoiding the use of the nasty word "crack" thus far.

The federal judge in Atlanta presiding over the libel lawsuit brought by the parents of JonBenet and Burke Ramsey against Court TV for airing a program in which it was insinuated that Burke Ramsey was once a suspect, notwithstanding that he had been declared by the police not to be a suspect, will be heard in Georgia, home of the Ramseys, not New York. Court TV had battled mightily for the case to be heard in New York.

And in other venue news, ex-NY cop Charles Schwarz lost his bid to have his re-trial on charges he assisted Justin Volpe in the brutal assault against Abner Louima that took place in the police precinct bathroom moved out of NY. Jury selection begins again Monday. (Didn't we just cover this re-trial? Yes, but that was the third trial. This is the fourth trial for Schwarz.)

"Earlier this year, a jury found Schwarz, 36, guilty of lying about escorting Louima toward a bathroom in 1997. But it deadlocked on more serious charges alleging he held Louima down while another officer sodomized him with a broken broomstick. Schwarz denies being in the bathroom during the 1997 attack, which touched off protests alleging widespread abuse of minorities by police. "

Yes, we will follow the fourth trial too. We think the Government is right to retry Schwarz. We've been on Louima's side since day one of this case. But Schwarz proclaims his innocence and we certainly don't begrudge him his day in court.

Still, we can't help wondering why can't these guys find some common ground? Surely there is some offense Mr. Schwarz can plead to that won't involve his admission to conduct he disputes he engaged in and will entail a sentence that, when considering the time-served credit to be applied against it, Schwarz can live with and Louima can feel adequately redresses the wrong done to him.

So how much time would you want someone to serve for sodomizing you with a broomstick while their cronies looked on and, at best, did nothing and at worst, acted as a lookout or helped hold you down? Us too.....so get ready for Trial IV.

And to see what's become of Abner Louima, here is Jim Dwyer's great article from the New York Times Magazine this summer.

For some of our coverage of the last re-trial, go here and here.

As to last week's conviction and 20 year sentence imposed on Michael Skakel for the murder of Martha Moxley that occurred in 1975 when they were both 15, we previously told you we have been following and commenting on the case for the past four years, ever since the investigation was reopened with Michael Skakel as the chief suspect.

"We attended a day of the trial and we know the defense attorney Mickey Sherman well. He did a great job at trial. The media on the whole predicted an acquittal because there was little physical or forensic evidence, no dna, no witnesses to the crime. And there were plenty of other suspects. So what went wrong?"

The answer could, and undoubtedly will, fill a book. But it is not one that we will write, even though we regularly discussed the case with the defense team , read the pleadings and familiarized ourselves with the evidence. The trial is over, Michael is in jail awaiting the outcome of his future appeals.

We have our doubts that there is anything to be gained now by re-iterating that the evidence in the case came from an unreliable, dead drug addict who waited 20 years before coming forward with his story about Michael having told him he could get away with murder because he was a Kennedy, and then came forward to the media, not the police, and then who acknowledged at a pre-trial hearing he was high on heroin at the time of his grand jury testimony, that his memory wasn't trustworthy and who was dead of a drug overdose by the time of trial so he wasn't able to be cross-examined (while his prior testimony was orally read to the jury by the lawyers role-playing the parts of questioner and witness as the transcript of his testimony was rolled on the giant overhead screen like it was a movie--really, we were there that day).... from a former suspect (the tutor) who had been granted immunity...and from other similarly unreliable witnesses whose testimony of purported confessions was disputed by other witnesses....

Or from our repeating the evidence the jury didn't hear...like that former long-time suspect and brother Tommy also changed his story years after the murder in his discussions with Skakel-family private investigators to say that the night Martha was killed he and Martha had been mutually masturbating on the ground under the tree her body was found ...see the many news articles on the topic by Newsday writer Len Leavitt who broke the story years ago...still available on Lexis (search the database "news two years and beyond")...or read other articles referencing same currently on Court TV....

Or even from again pointing to the strong support for the defense contention that this jury did not decide the case based on the evidence presented and refuted, but on their sympathy for Dorothy Moxley (whom we agree is one classy and admirable woman, although we think she is mistaken in her belief as to who murdered her daughter) and on their dislike for the well-known Skakel/Kennedy families. Not to mention the overwhelming pre-trial publicity in Connecticut largely resulting from the recent publication of books by celebrity novelist Dominick Dunne, himself the father of a slain daughter, and former O.J. cop Mark Fuhrman, proclaiming Skakel to be the murderer.

The appeals process will play out. Skakel should never have been tried in adult court --the law in effect in 1975 precluded same--and his trial and conviction are contrary to the five year statute of limitations in effect at that time.

Skakel was a troubled kid. He had an alibi. The prosecution never proved the time of death. They didn't even try, instead opting for a range of between 9:30 pm and the middle of the night. Expert defense testimony, coming from experts originally hired by the prosecution, established the time of death around 9:30 pm--when Michael was at his cousin's house. Witness testimony was presented about unusually excessive and prolonged dog barking also occurring at this time. Defense witnesses testified to Michael's alibi. Michael's taped statement in his own voice in which he denied committing the murder was played to the jury.

Yet, despite the paltry lack of credible evidence and the lack of any physical, forensic or DNA evidence linking Michael to the murder, the jury convicted.

Bottom line: Mickey Sherman tried a great case. Juries are unpredictable. And Michael Skakel may be a victim of the still unsolved murder as well.

Michael Skakel was sentenced to 20 years to life today.

We have been following and commenting on for the past four years, ever since the investigation was reopened with Michael Skakel as the chief suspect.

We attended a day of the trial and we know the defense attorney Mickey Sherman well. He did a great job at trial. The media on the whole predicted an acquittal because there was little physical or forensic evidence, no dna, no witnesses to the crime. And there were plenty of other suspects. So what went wrong?

We'll write a long analysis this weekend [ed. note: earlier today we wrote that we'd finish it tonight but we didn't.]

So check back this weekend, and in the meantime, if you're curious about the Skakel case, check out our comprehensive coverage at Crimes 'R Us: The Legal Side of Crimes in the News where we've been chronicling the case and providing defense-oriented coverage for a few years now. There's archives too.

In his first in-depth print media interview since being incarcerated, Robert Blake Says 'I Didn't Do It'

"He said he decided to speak out in spite of advice that he remain silent. "I'm sick of keeping my mouth shut," he said."

He makes some good points in the interview about why he had no reason to kill his wife. Time will tell if his decision to speak to the media was a wise one or not.

Update from our earlier post this morning on today's hearing on Michael Skakel's motion for new trial and sentencing:

The Judge has denied Skakel's motion for a new trial based upon grounds that included: the proseuction's withholding of a sketch of the suspect near the scene of the murder who allegedly resembled the tutor who was formerly a suspect, and the admission at trial of the dead drug addict's testimony at pre-trial hearings--even though, among other things, he acknowledged he was high on heroin during his grand jury appearance.

The defense obviously did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the dead witness --and although they did have the opportunity to cross him at pre-trial hearings, it's not the same. Some things you want to save for trial, the issues at preliminary and suppression hearings are far more limited than at trial, etc.

The Judge also rejected the defense argument that the prosecution was wrong in closing to flash "subliminal messages to the jury"--by using computer enhancement techniques to morph Martha Moxley's dead body into a photo of her as the vibrant, attractive 15 year old girl that she clearly was.

Sentencing will continue this afternoon, but the Judge has said not to expect a decision until Thursday.

So often a defendant who is convicted of a serious, high profile crime is made out to be a monster in the press. Many times they are quite different. We think Michael Skakel, who will be sentenced today for the killing of Martha Moxley 27 years ago when they were both 15, is such a case.

In letters filed with the Court, Skakel's family and friends described his life and gave him their support.

According to the letters:

Rushton Skakel, Michael's father and the brother of Ethel Kennedy, "beat him so often that he often slept in his closet. Once his father fired a rifle at him while hunting."

A recovering alcholic himself for the past 17 years, Skakel worked in a homeless shelter in the Bronx after meeting Mother Teresa. "He also has spoken to youths about substance abuse and formed a nonprofit group with the former manager of the band Aerosmith that traveled to Russia to educate and promote Alcoholics Anonymous."

"While working for AmeriCares, Skakel visited the Dominican Republican after a devastating hurricane helping deliver emergency medical supplies."

"A friend who is a teacher in New York described an incident in which Skakel quietly fixed the roof of a poor woman's house."

His cousin Bobby Kennedy, Jr. wrote among other things, "...Skakel attends Mass daily, carries a rosary and is one of the most spiritual people he has ever met"

He is a model father whose three year old son adores him.

Skakel was 15 at the time Martha Moxley was murdered. He underwent drug treatment, sobered up, and has had no criminal history as an adult. What's the point of throwing away his life and his son's life now? How has punishment come to be synonomous with revenge and retribution? The former is a legitimate sentencing goal in our criminal justice system, the latter two are not.

Had Michael Skakel been charged in 1977 when the murder occurred, he would have been tried in juvenile court and if convicted, received a sentence of no more than two years. That's how juveniles were treated back then in Connecticut.

Had Skakel not been related to the Kennedys, he probably never would have been charged and we doubt he would have been convicted. Be that as it may, he was charged and convicted and today will be sentenced.

We suspect the Judge will max Skakel out with 25 to life, instead of sentencing him to the lesser 10 to 15 year term his lawyers are asking for. If he does, he'll be wrong. That will be revenge, not justice.

This post gets a bump and an update:

Is there something in the water being served New Jersey Grand Jurors?

This just in the AP wire, the grand jury, on its own initiative, indicted the parents of a teen who died of a heroin overdose. The proseuctors had sought indictment of the other kids who gave the drugs to the kid who overdosed, and the grand jury indicted the parents as well. The article is sketchy but it seems like the grand jury thought that since the parents knew their son had a drug problem, they could have prevented his overdose.

We wonder how many of the grand jurors are parents of teenagers.

Update: Legal analysts are weighing in: The Grand Jury was out of line.

"Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said prosecutors will have a tough time proving the couple knew DiPasquale's heroin use would contribute to his death.

"Relatives living in the same home may have a legal duty to rescue each other if in trouble, like choking, for example," Thompson said.

"But people who take heroin don't normally die."

In recent years, some states have passed laws that hold parents liable for a child's crimes. But Thompson said courts have consistently declared those laws unconstitutional."

Word reaches us the parents may not have a lawyer yet. Defense lawyers, check back in later--we'll put the call out here for someone to help these folks pro bono if its needed. Thanks to NORML for offering to relay any help offers.