Spectators let out audible gasps as Judge Lawrence Moniz announced the verdict for 20-year-old Michelle Carter, who was accused of encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself in 2014. On Friday, she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and could face up to 20 years in prison. The sentencing phase of her trial will begin on August 3.

It may have been the first trial of its kind–dealing with the question of whether someone can be guilty of another person’s suicide. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Robert Cordy said at the beginning of the trial that it was the first case where words alone were the evidence, at least in that court.

Audible gasps come from the gallery when Judge Moniz finds #MichelleCarter guilty.

— Bob McGovern (@BobMcGovernJr) June 16, 2017

Carter was 18 when she encouraged her 17-year-old boyfriend Conrad Roy III to kill himself. Reportedly she wanted attention as the “grieving girlfriend.” But their conversations all happened via text messages–they lived many miles apart–and Roy had been depressed and suicidal for some time. Roy took his own life by pumping carbon monoxide into his truck.

Despite many legal experts who expected Carter to be acquitted, the judge said that Carter’s behavior was both immoral and illegal. He pointed to the fact that Roy previously had tried to commit suicide, but reached out to his family for help. His family responded by getting him treatment.

The messages I’m getting from attorneys are ranging from “Holy crap” to “Told you so.” #MichelleCarter

— Bob McGovern (@BobMcGovernJr) June 16, 2017

On the day that Roy committed suicide, he texted Carter, explaining that he was having second thoughts. He called her, but she told him to get back in the truck. “He breaks that chain of self-causation by exiting the vehicle,” Moniz said. He added that by telling Roy to get back in, despite “his ambiguities, his fears, his concerns,” Carter created a situation that would most likely cause severe harm to Roy.

“She admits in subsequent texts that she did nothing, she did not call the police or Mr. Roy’s family. And finally, she did not issue a simple additional instruction: ‘Get out of the truck,’” Moniz said. According to legal experts, this case could encourage Massachusetts lawmakers to write laws that will hold people accountable for what they say to each other online.

The ACLU of Massachusetts issued a statement disagreeing with the verdict, saying it is a violation of free speech. Basically the organization said that it could lead to the criminalization of other conversations, like end-of-life care between family members.

Just in: @ACLU_Mass criticizes Michelle Carter guilty verdict as violation of First Amendment. pic.twitter.com/mgm14A5Yte

— Dan Glaun (@dglaun) June 16, 2017

Another facet of the case is that Carter has also struggled with mental illness herself. At the time of Roy’s suicide, she was on antidepressants that might have affected her actions. According to psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who testified in court on Monday, the medication Carter was taking could have affected her frontal lobe, impacting her ability to empathize with other people and make sound decisions.

“Someone who wouldn’t do anything outlandish or dangerous might when the frontal lobe is injured in some way,” Breggin said. He also claimed that Carter appeared supportive of Roy. He recounted that she tried to talk him out of committing suicide. But, when Roy claimed he didn’t want help, she supported him. “She’s not thinking she’s doing something criminal, she found a way to help her boyfriend,” he said.

No matter what, this is a tragic and complicated case. One young man lost his life, and one young woman could be facing a lengthy prison sentence. In the end, there is no winner.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michelle Carter Found Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter in Texting Trial appeared first on Law Street.

Canadian Judge Robin Camp has resigned after his comments during a 2014 rape trial when he asked the woman testifying why she didn’t “keep her knees together.” Camp’s language and comments during the trial implied that he thought the woman could have prevented being assaulted if she had wanted to. He faced backlash for his condescending and wrongheaded behavior pretty much immediately and a 15-month investigation by the Canadian Judicial Council began.

On Thursday, the council released its findings and stated that Camp was “manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence.” The council urged that he be removed from office, and a few hours later Camp announced that he would resign.

The case involved 29-year-old Calgary man Alexander Wagar and an anonymous 19-year-old woman, who accused Wagar of raping her in the bathroom during a house party. The judge’s behavior was also inappropriate; throughout the trial he acted as if the alleged rape victim was to blame. He repeatedly referred to her as “the accused” even though that was the proper term for Wagar.

Why couldn’t this guy keep his lips together? He was obviously asking for it. https://t.co/gZsU5j9Zgt

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) March 10, 2017

Camp also claimed that young women “want to have sex, particularly if they’re drunk.” He stated that for women, “some sex and pain sometimes go together,” which is not necessarily a bad thing.” He even went as far as telling the woman that she could have avoided being raped if she had moved her pelvis “slightly.”

As expected, Camp acquitted the man. But the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the decision and ordered a second trial with another judge. Judge Gerry LeGrandeur said that although neither the accuser nor the accused sounded completely reliable during their testimonies, he couldn’t say without reasonable doubt that a sexual assault had actually occurred. After his second acquittal, Wagar’s attorney claimed that he was “the true victim.”

Repeat, he is one person. We need to look at the systemic issues of victim blaming in the criminal justice system. https://t.co/EBgX07DH4g

— Farrah Khan (@farrah_khan) March 9, 2017

The woman in the case said that her experience throughout trial left her with suicidal thoughts, including Camp’s inappropriate questioning. “What did he get from asking that?” she said at a hearing during the inquiry into Camp. “He made me hate myself and he made me feel like I should have done something… that I was some kind of slut.” Camp, who had been nicknamed the “knees together judge,” showed remorse and admitted that he had been rude and had used “facetious words.” In the middle of an apology he had to correct himself, when he said, “The thing I feel worst about is the questions I asked of the accused.” He then quickly corrected, “the complainant.”

Camp’s daughter also took part in the hearing and said she is a rape survivor herself. She said that although her father’s comments were “disgraceful,” she claimed to have seen him develop an understanding and empathy for those who have experienced trauma. Camp also pointed to how he has spent a lot of time educating himself about sexual assault, met with feminist scholars, and underwent sensitivity training. But in the end, that was too little, too late. The council wrote in its report, “his apologies and efforts at remediation do not adequately repair the damage caused to public confidence.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Who Asked Rape Survivor Why She Didn’t “Keep Her Knees Together” Resigns appeared first on Law Street.

A South Carolina judge declared a mistrial Monday after jurors said they couldn’t reach a unanimous decision in the case of a white former police officer charged with killing an unarmed black man, Walter Scott.

The 53-year-old father of four had been stopped by North Charleston police officer Michael Slager because of a broken taillight in April 2015. According to Slager, a scuffle erupted and Scott took his stun gun. Scott then attempted to flee, and Slager shot him multiple times in the back while he was running away. He died on scene.

Feidin Santana, an eyewitness to the shooting, captured a video of the encounter with a cellphone and the footage soon went viral.

That THIS could not be declared “murder” in America should tell you EVERYTHING about our justice system. #WalterScott.

Just horrendous. pic.twitter.com/2mPnMXh84b

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) December 5, 2016

Slager was charged with murder and released on a $500,000 bond in January 2016. He was later indicted on separate charges by a federal grand jury for deprivation of rights under the color of the law, use of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and obstruction of justice.

Slager’s attorney argued that his client didn’t know whether Scott was armed or not and that he had acted out of fear for his own life. He said:

The officer never had a chance to pat him down for weapons, nor did he know the whereabouts of the passenger in the vehicle Scott was operating without a registration or insurance. Scott ran from a very minor traffic stop, and Slager had no knowledge why.

However, the cellphone video showed that Slager dropped a black object on the ground before firing. After shooting Scott, Slager is then seen picking up the object and placing it next to the lifeless body.

On Friday, the jury in the case said it hadn’t been able to reach a verdict, but the judge ordered them to keep deliberating until Monday. One juror in the case said he couldn’t make the decision to convict Michael Slager. Reportedly, he was the only member of the jury “having issues” and he wrote in a letter to the court, “I cannot and will not change my mind.” By Monday, the judge declared a mistrial.

The news left many people feeling hopeless.

My God #WalterScott. Feeling numb all over. It’s the ton of bricks one feels on their heart & head knowing we have been here before!

— Nina Turner (@ninaturner) December 5, 2016

#MichaelSlager killed a man who was no threat and ran from him, planted a Taser, LIED on the stand and still wasn’t convicted #WalterScott

— Scooby (@TheRealistDom) December 5, 2016

there are no words. #WalterScott‘s life mattered. if seeing him shot in the back wasn’t enough for a conviction how can we ever get justice?

— Franchesca Ramsey (@chescaleigh) December 5, 2016

Outrage erupted in North Charleston after the killing of Walter Scott, but residents’ anger intensified even more due to the racial imbalance clearly evident in the police force. Even though only 37 percent of the population is white, 80 percent of police officers are white.

Slager has reportedly been emotional and regretful during the trial.

“Going back 18 months later and looking at everything, things could have been different” he said. “My family has been destroyed by this. The Scott family has been destroyed by this. It’s horrible.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mistrial Declared in Case Against Officer Who Killed Walter Scott appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday morning, Dylann Roof, who is accused of shooting nine people at a church in Charleston in 2015, will be representing himself in court. Federal judge Richard Gergel called his request “unwise” but said that he would reluctantly accept it, since he has a Constitutional right to represent himself. “I do find [the] defendant has the personal capacity to self-representation. I continue to believe it is strategically unwise, but it is a decision you have the right to make,” Gergel said.

Judge Gergel and Roof’s lawyers advised him against dismissing them, but to no use. Jury selection in the case was also delayed in the beginning of the month after Roof’s lawyers had questioned his ability to understand the case against him, but it resumed on Monday as well. His former defense team will still be present during the trial and can assist Roof, if he wants help. Reporters present in the courtroom described attorney David Bruck as “frustrated.”

David Bruck now whispering emphatically to Roof. Can’t hear him, but looks frustrated. Bruck turns away and shakes his head. Roof smirking.

— Mike Hayes (@michaelhayes) November 28, 2016

In total, 516 jurors were scheduled to appear in court to be personally questioned by the judge to see if they qualify. After 70 are picked from that group, the lawyers can choose to strike the ones they don’t want until they have 12 jurors and 6 substitutes.

Juror has been qualified. 5 of 70 #DylannRoof

— Sam Tyson (@SamInteractive) November 28, 2016

Roof is accused of killing nine parishioners at the historic black church Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston in June 2015. He is facing 33 charges, including hate crime charges, murder, and obstruction of religion. He’ll represent himself, so he could end up questioning the victims’ family members if they are called to testify, creating a pretty unusual situation that spurred some reactions on social media.

#DylannRoof is setting himself up to be a martyr. For him to be able to question his victims families. Sickening!

— Makeda Nzingha Hill (@makedanzingha) November 28, 2016

Over the weekend, Judge Gergel held a hearing to determine whether Roof was mentally fit to be on trial, which included testimony from a psychologist. Because of that, the hearing was closed to both media and the public to prevent jurors from being affected by any statements or information. This caused some complaints from relatives of the victims, but according to the judge, this is one of the steps taken to make sure that the trial will be fair. According to attorney Chris Adams there are three reasons why defendants might want to defend themselves. He said:

They don’t have faith in their legal team, they want to die, and or they want to conceal their mental illness. In this case, Mr. Roof had a great defense team, so I don’t think there would be any sane reason to not trust them.

Adams believes that Roof wants to hide his mental issues and doesn’t wish to persue a non-death sentence. As his defense team includes Bruck, who is a renowned death penalty lawyer who has argued that the death penalty is excessive, and given that the team claimed that Roof might not be mentally fit for trial, it certainly seems like Roof has no interest in securing himself a lenient sentence.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dylann Roof Will Represent Himself in Church Shooting Trial appeared first on Law Street.

Have you just recently recovered from the creepy news story about the urban legend Slenderman? Not so fast. The Wisconsin case, in which two 12-year-old girls tried to kill a third girl by stabbing her 19 times in 2014, is far from over. And a new HBO documentary features the trial, which has picked back up again recently. The two girls, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier, are now 14 and are being charged as adults for first-degree homicide. This means they could serve 65 years in prison, if found guilty. But on Friday the court is scheduled to discuss psychological evaluations of the girls, which could give them a chance for a lighter sentence.

This comes at the same time that HBO is announcing its release of a documentary about the case, called “Beware The Slenderman.” It is said to focus on “the court’s deliberation whether the girls should be tried as adults or children.” The trailer is sure to send chills down your spine.

The first trailer for @HBO doc “Beware the Slenderman” is as creepy as the story it tells https://t.co/86ILbr9McI pic.twitter.com/2x18FNeGk5

— Paste Magazine (@PasteMagazine) November 11, 2016

The girls’ victim Payton Leutner was a classmate. They lured her into the woods reportedly convinced that they had to kill her, otherwise the tall, faceless man known as Slenderman would come and kill their families. According to the girls, they wanted to prove to people that Slenderman was real, and if they sacrificed a human, they would be rewarded with being his proxies and living in his mansion. Fortunately, Leutner survived by crawling out of the woods to the street, where a passing cyclist helped her to safety.

Geyser and Weier’s defense attorneys have tried to have their cases moved to a juvenile court, but the motions were denied in August due to the degree of premeditation. According to the state, they had planned the deed for months, lied to the victim by telling her to not move and that they would get help, and started to flee from law enforcement. As a last resort to try to get the girls a more lenient sentence, their defense attorneys entered pleas of not guilty because of mental disease or defect in the late summer. On Friday, the conclusions of the psychologists who have evaluated the girls will be discussed in court.

Anissa Weier appears via video, Morgan Geyser appears in person as the Slender man case moves ahead pic.twitter.com/mpoeNd7GyJ

— Myra Sanchick (@myrasanchick) November 11, 2016

Entering a plea of insanity essentially means that the defendant asserts that at the time of the crime she was affected by a mental disease that prevented her from knowing right from wrong. If found guilty under those conditions, the defendant would normally be sent to a state mental hospital for treatment. Geyser has already been diagnosed with an early onset of schizophrenia. According to doctors, she was traumatized after the attack and talked to hallucinations of Slenderman in her cell.

After a suicide attempt, Geyser has spent the past six months at a mental health institute where she doesn’t get to read, draw, or even wear her glasses, much to her mother’s distress. Weier is committed to a juvenile detention center on a $500,000 bail and has recovered from a ”shared delusional belief” since she was separated from Geyser. Both girls’ parents are trying to lower the bail so that they can go home and be under house arrest.

Reality is scarier than fiction in the trailer for HBO’s Slenderman doc https://t.co/4dSpivmn73 pic.twitter.com/Ln0zcUMBux

— The A.V. Club (@TheAVClub) November 11, 2016

A fact that could work in the girls’ favor is that they may have truly believed they didn’t have any other choice than to kill Leutner, since they thought their families would die unless they did. This, according to the defense, should mean that the girls only should be charged with attempted second-degree homicide. Lawyers have asked that the girls’ trials be conducted separately and with a jury from another county.

In the meantime, popular culture is still dwelling on the online myth of Slenderman that has affected so many young people and many believed the 6^th season of “American Horror Story” would feature the faceless character. That didn’t happen, but it is not far-fetched to think that he will show up somewhere else soon.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Slenderman Case is Still Going On and HBO Made a Documentary About It appeared first on Law Street.

Two former aides to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have been found guilty on all nine counts in the so-called Bridgegate trial. The officials knowingly closed the access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in September of 2013, creating an enormous traffic jam for four days–doing so only to punish a mayor who wouldn’t endorse Governor Christie in his bid for reelection. The recent verdict may also create some issues for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has made Christie an important member of his campaign team.

The aides are Bridget Kelly, former deputy chief of staff for Christie, and Bill Baroni, the former Deputy Executive Director at the Port Authority. The charges against them include conspiracy, fraud, and misapplication of public resources. Sentencing is scheduled for February 21, and according to NBC News, both face up to 86 years in prison if convicted. Although the actual sentences will likely be much shorter.

When Mark Sokolich, the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, did not endorse Christie in 2013, his town was punished with gridlock. Two out of three lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge were closed, jamming up traffic on the world’s busiest bridge. As a result of the closures, a commute that normally took 30 minutes ended up lasting four hours.

This caused extreme delays for emergency calls–one 91-year-old woman reportedly died because an ambulance didn’t make it to her in time. Children were stuck on the buses and couldn’t get to school. David Wildstein, a Christie appointee at the Port Authority who resigned due to his involvement in the scheme, said that Mayor Sokolich asked Baroni for help because kids couldn’t get to school. After learning that, Wildstein texted an unidentified person saying they were “children of Buono voters,” referring to Christie’s opponent in the election. Amidst the traffic, a toddler was lost and countless people were late for work and appointments.

Remember when Chris Christie led the “lock her up” chants at the GOP convention? #Bridgegate https://t.co/4wAHJVc8sF pic.twitter.com/xUDSEOup4z

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) November 4, 2016

While Chris Christie continues to argue that he had no knowledge of the scheme, both prosecution and defense attorneys presented evidence that he knew about it beforehand. Kelly and Baroni testified that they discussed the lane closings with Christie as they were happening and Wildstein said that he told the governor about it when he saw him at a 9/11 memorial service. Even Donald Trump, who appointed Chris Christie to serve as the chair of his Transition Team, has said Christie “totally knew about” the plans to close the lanes.

During the Bridgegate trial, Kelly’s defense painted her as a helpless scapegoat who just did as she was told. But the jury apparently didn’t buy it. Kelly was the one who infamously emailed Wildstein, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee” before the lanes were closed. And after hearing about school children who were stuck on buses, she texted Wildstein, “Is it wrong that I am smiling?” In exchanges revealed during the trial, Baroni and Wildstein also referred to Mayor Sokoloch as “Serbia,” although he is actually of Croatian descent.

While Chris Christie was never charged for any potential involvement, the episode will have very negative consequences for his political career. His approval rate in New Jersey currently stands at 21 percent, a record low.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bridgegate Trial: Two Former Christie Allies Found Guilty on All Counts appeared first on Law Street.

The incredible saga of the Bundy brothers continues. Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and the five other people who have been on trial for an armed takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge in January, were acquitted of all charges on Thursday. Even though the six men and one woman took over federal property for six weeks while armed, the Portland jury agreed that they are not guilty of impeding federal workers from getting to work, which was the official charge. The verdict has many people upset and comparing it to the ongoing Dakota Pipeline protest where Native American protesters have been attacked with dogs and pepper spray, while these white protesters were acquitted despite being armed.

Imagine if these defendants were black or Muslim… there would not have been a trial. https://t.co/AYAT9738Kk #crimingwhilewhite #Bundy

— Sara Elizabeth Dill (@SEDLAW15) October 28, 2016

Even the defendants’ lawyers were surprised at the outcome. “It’s stunning. It’s a stunning victory for the defense,” said Robert Salisbury, attorney for defendant Jeff Banta. “I’m speechless.” The Bundy brothers themselves will remain jailed awaiting another trial in Nevada for an armed standoff that took place in 2014. In that case, the charges are more serious, involving felony weapon and conspiracy charges. After hearing the verdicts from Judge Anna J. Brown, an attorney for Ammon Bundy, Marcus Mumford, threw a tantrum in the courtroom and yelled at the judge to release his client until guards tackled him to the ground using a stun gun. He was then also arrested.

Prosecutors argued that the group used threat of violence to occupy the wildlife refuge, which doesn’t sound that unbelievable considering they were armed and refused to leave. But the defendants said they were simply peacefully protesting government control–even though they urged others to bring their firearms and join them. The whole thing is believed to have cost taxpayers more than $3.3 million and ended dramatically when one participant, Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, was fatally shot by police during a chase when he refused to give up.

Bundy Brothers acquitted. Officially have no hope for this judicial system anymore.

— Max Winner (@maxxwinner) October 28, 2016

The National Wildlife Federation condemned the verdict in a statement:

This was not a peaceful protest; this was occupation by gunpoint and it assaulted the very foundation of our democracy, our Constitutional principles, and our shared public lands heritage. These criminals prevented Americans from enjoying the wildlife that belong to all of us, destroyed refuge infrastructure, degraded wildlife habitat, and desecrated archaeological treasures. In a democracy, disagreements must be resolved through collaboration, debate or the courts, not by brute force.

The question is how they could be found not guilty of preventing federal employees from accessing their workplace when that is precisely what they did. One of their key aims was to get the federal government to give up some of the land it owns to locals, another was to protest the conviction of two men who were found guilty of arson on government land. Those men, Dwight and Steven Hammond, turned themselves in to serve their sentences and said they didn’t want the Bundys’ help, but still became the catalyst for the whole armed standoff.

The next step is the Nevada trial for the Bundy brothers early next year, as well as another Oregon trial for seven participating defendants who chose to postpone their hearings until February.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bundy Brothers Acquitted for Armed Takeover, But Remain Jailed appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence is being criticized for his response to a controversial case in which a man was wrongfully convicted. Now the man is asking to go back to court for another trial since Pence, as Indiana’s Governor, won’t grant him a pardon until he has tried all other judicial options.

Keith Cooper spent almost ten years in prison for armed robbery, a crime he didn’t commit but was wrongfully convicted for in 1996. During the robbery a teenager was shot in the stomach but survived. When another man involved in the case had his conviction overturned because of new evidence that surfaced in 2005, authorities offered Cooper a new trial, which could take at least two years–or the chance to go home to his family but have a felony conviction on his record.

After being locked up for a decade, Cooper chose the latter. He could finally see his wife and three children again. But since it’s been next to impossible to find a decent job as a convicted felon, he later sought a gubernatorial pardon. In the spring of 2014 the parole board in Indiana unanimously urged Pence to grant Cooper a pardon. This would likely have been the first pardon based on actual innocence in Indiana history.

Mike Pence refuses to pardon an innocent and wrongly convicted man, yet GOP runs a willie horton ad attacking Kaine https://t.co/389BIxtBcQ

— geokaren (@geokaren) October 4, 2016

And according to DNA evidence, Cooper is innocent. The victims and original prosecutor believe in Cooper’s innocence as well. But despite that fact, Pence’s office said in a September 20 letter that Cooper must first try all other judicial options. Basically that means Pence doesn’t have to make a decision about granting a pardon before he leaves office in January.

Many of Cooper’s supporters wanted the case to be brought up at the Vice Presidential debate on Tuesday.

Mike Pence should be asked why he has not pardoned Keith Cooper, an innocent man wrongly imprisoned for ten years. #VPDebate #KeithCooper

— Mike Williams (@drummike2012) October 4, 2016

Can’t believe @mike_pence said this during the #VPDebate Actions speak louder than words! #PardonKeithCooper @ElliotSlosar pic.twitter.com/5WHwWC7at4

— Pardon Keith Cooper (@PardonKeith) October 5, 2016

Cooper’s attorney Elliot Slosar said:

The lack of courage displayed by Gov. Pence is shocking. Instead of using his executive power to change the life of an innocent man, Gov. Pence has decided to punt this issue to the next governor of Indiana and inform Mr. Cooper that he needs to head back to the same court where he got wrongfully convicted in the first place.

But Pence’s deputy of staff chief Matthew Lloyd replied:

The governor’s office believes this is a necessary and proper approach that will produce information the governor will need as he considers a pardon for Mr. Cooper.

Pence has only pardoned three people during his three years as governor, while his predecessor Mitch Daniels pardoned 60 people during eight years in office. The Cooper case has gained serious support on social media as well as on an online petition–we’ll have to see if it has any effect on Pence’s numbers.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Innocent Man Seeks New Trial After Governor Mike Pence Declined Pardon appeared first on Law Street.

The trial in the Bundy brothers’ Oregon standoff case–when armed activists led an occupation of a wildlife refuge for 41 days–is getting closer. On Wednesday jury selection started and the first statements are scheduled to begin on September 13. The case already has plenty of attention online.

They’ve been charged with conspiracy to impede federal officers and possession of firearms in a federal facility. In total 26 people were charged but only seven are going to trial now. Seven more are going to trial early next year and the rest have already pled guilty.

The Shoes

Journalists were live-tweeting from court on Wednesday, fascinated with the nature of the case. The Bundy brothers’ lawyer had argued that his clients need to be allowed to wear cowboy boots, because they are cowboys.

2a. Mumford first giggled a bunch about the jail issued shoes, calling them “urban loafers.” Jdg Brown: “I do not find it comical at all”

— Leah Sottile (@Leah_Sottile) September 7, 2016

2c. Ammon Bundy: “I prefer to be wearing boots.”

— Leah Sottile (@Leah_Sottile) September 7, 2016

The Background

It all started when two farmers, a father and son, were convicted for arson on government land in 2001. Dwight and Steven Hammond claimed they started a controlled fire on their land to get rid of weeds and brushwood that could cause wildfires, but that they lost control over the fire. They turned themselves in in January of this year and were given the minimum sentence of five years, but this caused some local supporters to start protesting. The leaders of the protests were the sons of Cliven Bundy, who had a separate previous standoff with federal authorities in Nevada. Bundy claimed the government was just trying to punish the Hammonds for not selling their land. The government, on their hand, said the Hammonds tried to cover up poaching activity with the fire.

Currently on trial (and pictured below) are Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta and Neil Wampler. Kenneth Medenbach is missing from the picture below.

Jury selection begins for #OregonStandoff trial #LiveOnK2 https://t.co/9swhvvHq6o pic.twitter.com/tLzyfXXsAR

— KATU News (@KATUNews) September 7, 2016

The protesters didn’t give up, and instead occupied a federal building until they got what they wanted. The group, led by the Bundys, started calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and one of their viewpoints was that the government owns too much land and misuses that land. The fact that the group was opposed to the government and was armed led some to call them domestic terrorists. But they continue to paint themselves as cowboys and freedom fighters.

A picture from the courtroom illustrates the jury selection.

NOW: 31 potential jurors vetted by Judge Brown. Asked how much media exposure they had to the case. #Oregonstandoff pic.twitter.com/V1kEyyP4LN

— Eileen Park (@EileenParkTV) September 7, 2016

Most of the arrests were made during a traffic stop on January 26, in which the spokesperson for the new movement, LaVoy Finicum, was fatally shot.

What’s Next?

The trial is expected to take even longer than the occupation did. The protesters claim they were just using their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest, and their Second Amendment rights to carry licensed guns. The brothers’ father, Cliven Bundy, is also facing trial in Nevada, because of another standoff near his cattle ranch in 2014. That trial will take place in February in Nevada.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Bundy Brothers’ Trial is About to Start: Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 podcast that captivated millions of listeners now gets its real life sequel–Adnan Syed from “Serial” has been granted a new trial after 16 years in prison. The judge in the case, Martin Welch, vacated the murder conviction on Thursday.

Adnan Syed, now 36, became a famous name when the podcast “Serial” aired two years ago. The podcast told the story of his conviction in the murder of his high school girlfriend Hae Min Lee. Prosecutors claimed he strangled and buried Lee in a park in Baltimore. Listeners were divided over whether he was guilty or not, and the journalist Sarah Koenig set out to find out the truth.

The main evidence that led to Syed’s conviction in 2000 was information from cell towers that showed where he was (or rather where his phone was) at the time of the murder. However, many people have questioned the reliability of that information. Syed’s former attorney Christina Gutierrez, who passed away in 2004, failed to cross-examine the state’s cell tower expert.

She also failed to contact and question an important witness who claimed she had been with Adnan Syed in the school library at the time of Lee’s murder. Asia McClain, the witness, recently gave birth to a baby and told ABC that she was shocked but excited to hear the news. This was her reaction on Twitter:

Wow…I'm speechless. New Baby, New Trial

— Asia McClain Chapman (@AsiaRChapman) June 30, 2016

As a result of the podcast’s success–millions of listeners tuned in, easily breaking previous podcast subscription records–and interviews with McClain, the case received new attention. Syed’s new attorney Justin Brown tried to get a new trial in place because of the potential alibi McClain’s testimony could provide. Judge Welch denied the trial request, but vacated the sentence because of the cell tower issue.

Syed’s friend Rabia Chaudry was the first to bring his case to Koenig’s attention.

People keep asking, no one has spoken to him. He did not have phone privileges yesterday! We expect him to call us today.#AdnanSyed

— rabia chaudry (@rabiasquared) July 1, 2016

Brown was happy about the news and said he will look into the possibilities for bail. But as of now, the conviction is gone. He told Washington Post:

“Think of it as the conviction is erased. It’s gone. So if the state were to retry him, essentially, we would be starting from scratch. The whole trial could potentially start again.”

Check out this clip from a press conference with Brown:

@CJBrownLaw shares more information about #AdnanSyed being granted a new trial during press conference!https://t.co/zs6uejEBEQ

— Undisclosed Podcast (@Undisclosedpod) June 30, 2016

Lee’s family has not spoken publicly about the case, but released a statement in February during a new hearing of Syed, reports the Baltimore Sun.

“It remains hard to see so many run to defend someone who committed a horrible crime, who destroyed our family, who refuses to accept responsibility, when so few are willing to speak up for Have,” the statement read.

People are still divided over Syed’s guilt in the killing of Lee. But the question remains—if he didn’t do it, then who did?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Adnan Syed of “Serial” Fame Granted Another Trial appeared first on Law Street.

The “Trial of The Century” is beginning—but to put on the show, you need an audience. That’s the role of jury selection—a process of making logical decisions about illogical things. It’s a racist, sexist, and biased part of the trial because the lawyers have to anticipate the racism, sexism, and biases of potential jurors. As a lawyer, you want to include jurors who are sympathetic to your narrative, considering factors like their sex, race, and marital status. Episode four of “American Crime Story” fills the 12 front-row seats for the nationwide event.

Jury Selection

The jury analysts contacted in O. J. Simpson’s case give simple advice: listen to the data rather than your own ethics. For someone like Marcia Clark, who strives to be racially fair and unprejudiced in the workplace, this advice may be hard to take to heart. Ordinarily, a woman being told to soften her appearance by dressing more femininely and changing her haircut would reek of workplace sexism. But in this case, it may be the only way Clark can get the jury on her side. As long as sexism and racism exist, the law will have to react to these very real prejudices.

“American Crime Story” paints Marcia Clark’s underestimation of race and its influence on the trail as her biggest mistake. She ignores what the focus group tells her about her poor rapport with black women because she has had great experiences with black-majority juries before. She’s content to allow the defense’s selection of black jurors because she sees them as logical and reasonable individuals. When her colleague accuses defense lawyers of playing the race card, our attention shifts its focus. At that point, the episode’s other central theme comes to a head—just who is in charge of O.J. Simpson’s defense team?

A Dream Team Divided

The dream team that we watched assemble in the previous episode is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare. They’re still a supergroup a famous and successful lawyers, but there’s only room for so many big personalities at the defense table. There are many rational reasons to debate whether Johnny Cochran or Robert Shapiro should be the lead attorney. Shapiro started with the case, knows O.J. personally, and has invested significant effort, time, and money into his strategy. He’s also known as a settler, and at one point proposes that O.J. adjust his charges to manslaughter and hope for a lighter sentence.

On the other hand, we have Johnnie Cochran who is the total opposite of a settler. He comes alive in the courtroom, persuading juries and presenting the facts like no one else can. He’s a showboat, but prosecutors are right to be scared of his dedication and savvy. The decision between these two attorneys didn’t exclusively come down consideration of their talent. In large part, Cochran was chosen because he is black and will be able to relate better to the jury.

The police department begins to bend to the same pressure when District Attorney Garcetti suggest that they spice up their lineup with a black attorney as well. Marcia Clark shows both heart and cunning when she chooses this as the opportunity to recognize Christopher Darden, who had previously been overlooked for his effort.

Showing Some Heart

Because so much of this episode, and the show in general, is centered on Marcia Clark’s humanity working against her, it’s easy to miss that the show has some heart. In Murphy’s previous work, such as the early seasons of “Glee,” the show excelled when exploring an emotion plainly and honestly with no sense of bombast or pandering. These moments were rare but touching. In this episode of “American Crime Story,” we explore the tragedy of a double homicide without the lens of irony. Meeting the father of Ronald Lyle Goldman and seeing how completely torn apart he is by the death of his son affects us. It shows us how the media obsession with the case’s drama and intrigue can cause real damage to the people affected. This show of unrestrained emotion helps to counterbalance the show’s habit of indulging the pulpy and fun aspect of the case.

Ronald Lyle Goldman’s father at his funeral and seeing how completely torn apart he is by the death of his son affects us. It shows us how the media obsession with the case’s drama and intrigue can cause real damage to the people affected. This show of unrestrained emotion helps to counterbalance the show’s habit of indulging the pulpy and fun aspect of the case.

The good news is the Kardashian children did not make an appearance in Tuesday’s episode. The bad news is that the material that replaced it was still over-steeped in irony and cheekiness. Episode four chronicles Faye Resnick’s “authorship” of a tell-all Nichole Brown Simpson biography in pure Ryan Murphy fashion. Actress Connie Britton hamming up her chance to play the “bad girl” so much that the scene can’t be deemed kosher. Resnick’s book did play a part in the voir dire process, but there are dense sections of the episode in which Britton’s monologs about Nicole and O. J.’s intimate past. Murphy can’t resist giving you the saucy details and then reminding you over and over how saucy they are.

Episode four of “American Crime Story” walks the fine line between what is ethical and what is effective. Clark’s team of prosecutors are focused on doing what is right while Simpson’s defense team is focused on whatever method will actually work. I suspect we’ll see the prosecutors fall further and further from their position on the moral high ground, as they find themselves unable to compete with their opposition’s cutthroat willingness to do whatever it takes to win. We already know how this ends—the ‘bad guys’ win. And we’re beginning to see the prosecution’s confidence chipping away.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Wants A Good Jury, Not A Fair One appeared first on Law Street.

If they introduce the attorneys in a case like they announce an NFL team’s lineup before the game, it would look a lot like episode three of “American Crime Story: The People v. O. J. Simpson.” One by one, John Travolta’s plastic-faced Robert Shapiro assembles the behemoth legal team behind O. J. Simpson. We’re given the sense that the show is done revving its engine now, and it’s ready to speed along into familiar territory. The key here, building further on the earlier background episodes, is the word “familiar.” Is this where fatigue sets in?

When you’re telling people a story they already know, there is additional pressure to make your telling fresh. Since the show was announced, it has lived under the shadow of the public’s own knowledge of the case. It’s like watching a movie after reading the plot summary online. Or catching up on a TV show after your friend has spoiled the plot twists for you. As dramatic and intense the production becomes, it can’t escape the fact that it is by nature a surprise-less story. Therein lies the trouble for high-profile true crime: getting an audience to care again. “Serial’s”  first season, and “Making A Murderer” both focus on relatively low-profile cases—viewers don’t know what to expect and are surprised by each new witness or piece of evidence. That’s the trouble faced by “Serial’s” second season, in which they took on the high-profile case of Bowe Bergdahl.

The Challenge of Familiarity

With “American Crime Story,” audiences can’t be shocked. This alone doesn’t devalue the show, in fact, it makes the show better. That’s because the Clark’s team of prosecutors faces the same problem. Their witnesses are gabbing on television about what they saw, and the 911 tape is playing day in and day out on national television. Their jury will have already heard the story, already seen the evidence. By the time they’re in trial, it’ll be double exposure.

Ryan Murphy, the show’s producer, is Marcia Clark, and we are his jury. That might be why Clark is given a much more empathetic position, as penance for the “dowdy,” “bitchy,” and “shrill” comments hurled at her at the time. So how do Murphy and his team liven up an over-exposed story?

Much like the lawyers in O. J.’s case, “American Crime Story” needs to decide on a fresh narrative angle and make it stick. In its third episode, the show does just that, cementing several through lines. We’ve got the race angle, which builds as scheming lawyers construct a defense; the failure-of-justice angle, as we follow a cocky prosecutor losing her confidence; and the repercussions of fame angle, demonstrated most clearly through the Kardashian family’s rise to notoriety. And there’s a glimmer of themes to come, as the focus on Marcia Clark’s home life suggests the show will address sexism in upcoming episodes.

The race angle is “American Crime Story’s” most evident effort to make Simpson’s case relevant. The vignettes and quotes in episode three continue the pattern of looking at Simpson as both an example of and an exception to racial biases. For every TIME magazine cover darkening Simpson’s appearance, there’s a barb from Clark saying, “Doesn’t Simpson deserve a jury of his peers, you know, rich middle-aged white men?” That’s the balance struck by the show: when Shapiro tells Simpson “We get one black juror, we get a hung jury, you’re going home,” Simpson responds, “I’m not black, I’m O.J.” We see Shapiro dance around the word “black” as he explains why he wants Johnnie Cochran to join Simpson’s team.

Making it Resonate

As the titular dream team drums up sympathy for a ‘racist police’ defense, they’re riding on the coattails of earlier tragedies such as Rodney King and the Christopher Commission. This begs a valuable question: does it cheapen or invalidate the true injustices they’re referencing? To compare the sham of a racist cop defense with actual atrocities might lump those events together, in a disservice to the truly innocent victims of police violence. “American Crime Story” stays fresh because it makes us ask these questions about a decades-old case.

As for the miscarriage of justice, Clark’s confidence has been steeled even further since Simpson’s arrest. “A star is born” we hear her say. “He practically did my job for me” she boasts to co-workers as she delivers high-fives. A hyper-confident Clark at the beginning of the series builds tension in the viewer, who knows that failure is looming for her. We know she’ll fall, but just how and when remains to be seen.

While it makes for gripping television, the actual Marcia Clark clarified in an interview with Vulture that she was nowhere near as confident as her character on the series:

I’m sorry, the truth is, we were not [confident]. We’ve got to look confident, though. I’m not going to go out to the press and say, Oh, we’re going to lose! I have to present a confident case.

And finally, fame. Fame has long been a favorite topic of Murphy’s, ranging from “Nip/Tuck” to “Glee” to “Scream Queens.” An obsession with celebrity, along with its perils, has always been on the forefront of his productions. As for “American Crime Story,” the show deals best with fame when it discusses its intersection with race and gender and justice. It falters when it delivers us scenes that feel like prequels to “Keeping Up With The Kardashians.” Like David Schwimmer’s professorial delivery of a diatribe to his children about the trap of fame exemplifies this issue. Saying, “We are Kardashians, and in this family being a good person and a loyal friend is more important than being famous” is so egregiously ironic that viewers may need to visit an optometrist to address eye-rolling-related strain.

As for additions to the already star-studded cast, some new faces get screen time in this episode. Nathan Lane provides a delightful and nuanced F. Lee Bailey, Evan Handler gives us Alan Dershowitz–the most lawyerly lawyer I’ve yet seen on television–and Selma Blair is handed a few lines, with which she plays Kris Jenner better than Kris Jenner could.

And now that the show has found its footing, confidently asserting exactly the story it’s telling and why you should be watching, we’ll be able to see the ensemble cast flourish in the part of the rich trial drama that America knows so well.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Hits its Stride as the Dream Team Assembles appeared first on Law Street.

On October 3, 1995, seven jurors announced to the world that they found Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of two counts of murder. The very next day, as the widely televised news was printed in the daily newspapers, I was born.

Being a newborn infant, I was painfully unaware of the media spectacle, racial tensions, cultural effects, and legal quagmires presented by this all-consuming trial. Even as I grew up, I barely knew that it had happened. Later in my life, I was able to experience my own equivalents of “the trial of the century,” when Michael Jackson went to court for child molestation, and later again when Casey Anthony was acquitted of the first-degree murder of her daughter. The fact remains that when it comes to the O.J. Simpson trial, I knew next to nothing. Up until I watched the first episode of “American Crime Story,” which aired on Tuesday night, I probably would have said that the most influential result of the trial was the rise of the Kardashians. That just might be the case for many people my age.

Creator Ryan Murphy, showing much-welcomed restraint in his handling of the material, knows very well that in addition to a public who was saturated with O.J. melodrama twenty years ago, he is courting a millennial audience. Along with his large production team, Murphy needed to make 1994 feel relatable to a host of young viewers. In a way, seeing the ’90s on screen is like watching another world. It’s almost unrecognizable for me to see a waiter approach Rob Shapiro, played by John Travolta, to let him know someone had called the restaurant to ask for him. I’m reminded of the Seinfeld generation gap, in which cultural touchstones once considered universal are lost on the next generation of consumers.

Still, the odd experience of watching a “period piece” set in the very recent past is offset by the themes inherent to the story–race, privilege, and fame–will never be relegated to a specific generation. The narrative is framed smartly around these issues, chock full of quips about institutional racism in the police department and the preferential treatment of the rich and famous. In the hands of the man behind “Glee,” these lines could have easily felt glib, but in today’s social atmosphere they only seem prescient.

The show opens with real footage of the Rodney King beating, verdict, and ensuing L.A. riots. I recognized the event after piecing together the soundbites playing alongside the footage. During this opening montage, I realized, embarrassed, that I had never seen the video before. I wouldn’t be surprised if that held true for many people my age, even those following the progress of Black Lives Matter and other movements.

I’m led to believe that there’s a gap in your understanding of history during the period right before you’re born. You’re able to take stock of what’s happening in the world around you, feeling the aftershocks of a cultural phenomenon, but everything you’re taught in school is from well before. The phenomenon of textbooks and teachers waiting for the dust to settle before teaching about something that happened only a few years ago leaves many students unaware of the immediate past. Although I never thought I’d say this about yet another true crime drama, it’s refreshing for people my age to take our time understanding this case. In a world as rapidly-paced as ours has become, we rarely take the time to look back on the past, in fear that we might miss something that’s happening now.

So I’ll continue tuning in, assuming the show won’t fall prey to Murphy’s tendency to overblow plot arcs and schmaltz-soak finales (advance reviews seem to paint a positive picture of the direction of the show). I’m interested in watching the modern-day parallels develop, reading about what the dramatization gets wrong, and maybe, finally have a sense of what I missed out on just before I was born.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Teaches Millennials A Much-Needed Lesson appeared first on Law Street.

Matthew Durham’s trial just began last week; he has been accused of sexual misconduct with children while volunteering at an orphanage in Kenya. The 20-year-old Oklahoma native has pleaded not guilty to 17 charges, including aggravated sexual abuse and engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places. He faces life in prison if convicted. But these disturbing allegations against Durham raise many questions about the ethics of American volunteerism.

Durham has been accused of engaging in sexual acts with children between April and June of 2014 while working as a volunteer at the Upendo Children’s Home in Nairobi, Kenya, which specializes in assisting neglected children. Durham began volunteering for the orphanage in 2012. According to court records, officials claim Durham raped boys and girls between the ages of six and nine.

The jury was selected last Tuesday, and opening statements began on Wednesday. The prosecutor, Robert D. Gifford II, began his attack in a particularly disturbing manner, reading Durham’s hand-written confessions which included, “I would take her to the bathroom at night and would hold her down and rape her.” Quoting another that pertained to a boy at the Upendo Children’s Home in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi, Gifford read: “at night I took him to the bathroom and had him perform oral sex on me.”

A court affidavit lists samples of Durham’s hand written and signed confessions of the alleged acts. They go into some detail of what sexual acts occurred. But when faced with these confessions, Durham now claims that he only confessed to the crimes because he was under duress. 

In fact, defense attorney Stephen Jones is arguing that the offenses never happened. During his opening statement he stated, “there is no demon, there are no multiple personalities, there are no crimes. That is the defense, it didn’t happen.” Jones claims that Durham was was coerced into confessing by orphanage officials who kept Durham in isolation and confiscated his passport.

“He’s in fear for his life,” Jones said. He described Durham as “an emotionally vulnerable teenager” who was struggling with his “sexual identity and development” as a devout Christian. Jones claims that when the orphanage learned of the allegations, they didn’t initially notify police, medical officials, or the U.S. Embassy. Others who lived in the Upendo home claimed to have never witnessed any wrongdoing.

But the manager and children’s care taker of the orphanage, Josphine Wambugu, made a number of allegations including that she witnessed Durham sleeping in one of the girls’ dormitory on June 12, 2014. Wambugu also claims to have questioned some of the girls about whether misconduct occurred, and several claimed to have had “bad manners” with Durham, a Kenyan phrase for sexual relations. Wambugu testified that when she confronted Durham, “He say: ‘Yes, I did it! Yes, I did it!'” She also claims that Durham told a group of Upendo officials that he had struggled with child pornography and homosexuality.

Whether or not Jones’ strategy of denying the incidents ever occurred will be successful will be up to the jury. But either way, this case creates some questions about the practice of sending young American students to volunteer abroad. It’s an incredibly common practice–there are so many alternative spring breaks, international volunteer abroad programs, and international service learning projects that provide options for students to volunteer. Both the programs that send students abroad and the organizations that accept them need to implement measures to make sure that the volunteers are properly supervised and vetted. Hopefully answers to some of those questions will arise out of this heartbreaking and disturbing trial. 

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Matthew Durham Trial: American Volunteerism at its Worst appeared first on Law Street.

The jury tasked with determining the fate of Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev decided on the death penalty last Friday, May 15, 2015. The jury found Tsarnaev guilty earlier this spring. Last week, the jurors determined that for six of the 17 counts for which he was found guilty, the death penalty should apply. That being said, how long it will take for the death penalty to actually be enacted remains unknown. Given the lengthy appeals process that is sure to follow, it may be many years.

Tsarnaev, along with his older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was responsible for making the bombs that went off at the finish line of the Boston Marathon in 2013. The bombs killed three people and injured hundreds more, and sparked a lockdown while the two perpetrators were found. While during the manhunt that followed other significant crimes were committed, including the death of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer, those six counts all related to the planting of the pressure-cooker bombs.

One of the most compelling grounds for appeal would appear to be the location of the trial–it was in Boston, where the atrocious events happened in the first place. The trial moved forward in this location despite the fact that the defense attempted to have the trial moved before it even began. The defense, led by notoriously anti-death penalty attorney Judy Clarke, argued that the case should not have been tried in Boston because it would be too difficult to find an unbiased jury there–after all, the events of the bombing were seriously disruptive and traumatizing to a city where the marathon is tantamount to a holiday. But the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., denied the move. That decision will most likely be one of the ones that Tsarnaev’s defense attorneys asks a higher court to examine.  Another likely avenue for appeal indicated by Tsarnaev’s defense team will be that they did not have sufficient time to present an argument against the death penalty.

Besides just the particularities of Tsarnaev’s case, such as the location and the timeline, there could be other grounds for appeal, including arguments over the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Any appeal arguments will be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, also located in Boston. Depending on that decision, the case could end up being appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Given that the appeals process is such a long road, Tsarnaev most likely won’t receive the sentence he’s been given–to die by lethal injection–for many years. As the Guardian summed it up:

Though the Justice Department could attempt to fast-track executions in the name of public interest, death penalty experts expect the very quickest timeframe from Friday’s sentence to Tsarnaev actually being put on a gurney and injected with lethal chemicals would be at least ten years.

So, while Friday’s decision may have seemed to have an air of finality, it’s far from over. Tsarnaev’s legal battle will probably be in the works for years to come, whether he’ll ever actually be put to death is certainly questionable.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Process May Stop the Government From Executing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

An unfortunate reality of the world in which we live is that new crimes are perpetrated and new victims are created every day. There’s a firmly carved out space in our justice system–and by extension, our society–for offenders. But what about the victims of crimes? What spaces do they occupy in our justice system, and what rights do they have? Read on to learn about the pressing issues in victims’ rights, and what progress is being made to advocate for victims within our justice system.

What are victims’ rights?

The newly developing field of victims’ rights law comes from the theory that there needs to be a place for the victim in the justice system and within the victim’s own legal process. Currently there are two players in our traditional criminal justice system: the prosecutor and the defendant. However, victims’ rights advocates argue that this construction leaves little or no room for the victim of the crime, and that instead the victim is treated as another piece of evidence or as an aside. Victims’ rights advocates work to create a space for victims in the court room, or any other part of the legal process.

Much of victims’ rights theory is focused on the concept of agency: victims are independent people who should be able to play their own roles in the discussion of the crimes perpetrated against them. Often victims don’t have access to lawyers or advocates; victims’ rights law provides appropriate channels for their voices, and can involve appointing legal representation to victims.

Victims’ rights law is broad, amorphous, and serves as an umbrella for different aspects of how victims interact with the legal system. According to the Department of Justice, victims’ rights include:

1. The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
2. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court or parole proceeding involving the crime, or of any release or escape of the accused.
3. The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
4. The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
5. The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the government in the case.
6. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
7. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
8. The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.

One particularly important aspect of victims’ rights law is enforcement, or the ability of victims to actually assert themselves into a criminal case. The National Crime Victim Law Institute is at the forefront of the push to train lawyers in this discipline and support crime victims in the justice system.

National Crime Victim Law Institute

The National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI), an institute housed within Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, is the foremost authority in victims’ rights law. Founded in 1997, the NCVLI “promotes balance and fairness in the justice system through crime victim centered legal advocacy, education, and resource sharing.” Among a variety of tools and initiatives, the institute trains actors in the justice system, from attorneys and judges to the victims themselves, on the scope and enforceability of victims’ rights. Additionally, the institute’s National Alliance of Victims’ Rights Attorneys provides a network of legal advocates who work for free on behalf of crime victims. The NCVLI also hosts the Crime Victim Law Conference, which is the only national conference of its kind that focuses on training and educating crime victim advocates. Watch the video below for more information on the conference.

Examples of Victims’ Rights

Right to Notice

The right to notice is a “gateway” right that needs to be afforded to victims, meaning that if a victim does not receive the right to notice, he will not be able to participate in the rest of the proceedings. The NCVLI sheds further light on this right. According to the NCVLI, the right to notice is the “right to advisement of the existence of crime victims’ rights and the right to advisement of specific events during the criminal justice process.” The right to notice can include that the victim receives notice for proceedings such as hearings, trials, or the possible release or parole of the person who perpetrated the crime against the victim. As with many of these rights, the ways to invoke the right to notice varies from state to state, and can sometimes require that a victim request notifications.

Right to Be Present

The right to be present, or the right of the victim to stay in the courtroom during the trial of the accused, used to generally be considered a given. According to the NCVLI, however, that changed in 1975 with the adoption of Federal Rule of Evidence 615 (and the adoption by many states in their rules of evidence as well), which allows for the sequestration of all witnesses, save a party representative from each side. If the victim is a witness, he will not be allowed to stay in the courtroom during the trial. While this rule prevents witnesses from having their testimony altered by what they observe in trial, it takes away the right to be present from victims. States have started to backtrack on this; many states now guarantee the right to be present, or leave it up to the states’ discretion, but there are still states where victims are excluded from proceedings.

Right to Be Heard 

The right to be heard deals specifically with victims’ ability to actively participate in the criminal proceedings of those who committed a crime against them. The right to be heard allows the victim to speak to the court at various stages, either verbally or through a written statement, although in many states how exactly this plays out is up to the court’s discretion. Points at which a victim may wish to address the court include release, plea, sentencing, and parole. In federal cases, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) allows the victim to reasonably address the court at proceedings such as parole, release, or plea hearings.

Right to Protection

A right to protection works to ensure that the victim will not be harassed or discriminated against because of his role in the proceedings, or for his status as a victim. This includes keeping the victim updated on the status of the offender, particularly when it comes to things like parole and release status, or if the offender escapes. Victims have the right to feel safe, even if they participate in the legal proceedings against the person(s) who wronged them.

Other Rights

There are significantly more rights that should be afforded to victims–the above list is not exhaustive. Other victims’ rights issues include the rights to due process, fairness, dignity, and respect; the right to information and referral; the right to apply for victim compensation; the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; the right to confer; the right to a copy of the pre-sentence report and transcripts; and the right to standings and remedies.

Victims and Attorneys

In a court case, the defendant is guaranteed access to an attorney, though whether or not he chooses to exercise that right is up to the individual. Victims, however, do not have the same right. Prosecutors are not attorneys for the victim–they are attorneys for the state, or the “people.” They don’t necessarily have to do what is best for the victim; they are required to do their job as sanctioned by the government.

On the other hand, attorneys for victims can advise them of their legal rights, and help them act upon them. These lawyers can advocate for the victims’ rights listed above in states where those rights are not guaranteed, fight for restitution in cases where victims owe medical bills or other related costs, ensure that a victim’s records are not allowed to be exploited, as well as many other ways in which a victim may need assistance.

Challenges in Victims’ Rights Law

Victims’ rights work is currently a rather small field of work. While the recognition of the need of victims’ rights law has grown over the last several decades, there are still very few lawyers, institutions, and funding available for the practice. In addition, victims’ rights law features some unique challenges, some of which are described below.

Changing the Culture

One of the largest problems to overcome for those working in the victims’ rights field is the current culture of our justice system, and the need for balance between victims’ and defendants’ rights. There are plenty of rights afforded by our constitution and other governing legal documents and procedures that protect defendants. For example, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in the Bill of Rights. However, rights for victims aren’t similarly ingrained in our society; moreover, there are concerns that granting rights to victims takes away from the rights of defendants. Countering that culture and finding an appropriate balance is a struggle for those who work in the field of victims’ rights.

Funding and Time

Given that victims’ rights law is a relatively small field and requires a lot of work, those who work in the field do have a problem gaining funding. According to Meg Garvin, Executive Director & Clinical Professor of Law at the NCVLI, there are very few people who work in victims’ rights law particularly, and funding is hard to come by. As NCVLI points out on its website:

Did you know the average amicus curiae brief requires 140 hours of attorney time? Some briefs, including those to the United States Supreme Court, require much more time, and most also require payment of filing costs. The fair market value of just the attorney time on the average brief is $36,400.

Arguments Against Victims’ Rights

Those who work in victims’ rights law also have to deal with the debate over whether or not a move toward more robust and protected victims’ rights is appropriate. Critics of the field of victims’ rights law point to the logistical difficulties of including victims in proceedings, and again cite the need for witness sequestration. There is also concern over how to deal with crimes that have multiple victims, particularly if the victims all want different things or have contrasting views that may further complicate the case.

Furthermore, there are worries about the ethics of advocating for victims before the offenders are actually declared guilty. As Wendy Kaminer of the American Prospect puts it,

The practical problems posed by the victims’ rights amendment are, however, less daunting than its repressive ideology. It attacks the presumption of innocence. When we identify and legally empower a victim before conviction, we assume that a crime has been committed, although that is sometimes disputed at trial (think of an acquaintance rape case); we also assume the veracity and reliability of the self-proclaimed victim.

Conclusion

Victims’ rights law focuses on an important, seemingly often forgotten person in any case–the victim. Victims’ rights encompass almost every aspect of the justice system, from allowing victims the right to notice, to granting them an active role in proceedings. Victims’ rights law isn’t just limited to the courtroom, either, but plays a role in policy discussions and advocacy throughout our legal system. Advocating for the victim to play an active role can ensure that our justice system is as fair, effective, and representative as possible.

Resources

Primary

Office of the United States Attorneys: Crime Victims’ Rights Act

National Archives: Bill of Rights

NCVLI: Fundamentals of Victims’ Rights: A Summary of 12 Common Victims’ Rights

Office of Justice Programs: Office for the Victims of Crimes

NCVLI: Victim Law Library

Additional

American Prospect: Victims Versus Suspects

National Association of Victims’ Rights Attorneys: Pro Bono

ACLU: Factsheet on the Proposed Victims’ Rights Amendment

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Victims in the Justice System: What Are Their Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I am a huge fan of going to the movies. I was one of those people who would go to the midnight showing of “Harry Potter” or “Transformers” and all the big blockbusters. Although I never had a real passion for the Batman franchise, it sticks with me to this day with these two thoughts: 1. Heath Ledger died too soon, and 2. The “Dark Knight Rises” movie theater massacre in Colorado.

It’s hard to believe that it has been two years since movie theater shooter James Holmes walked into that movie and killed 12 people, injuring 70, on July 20, 2012. It’s even harder to believe that he still hasn’t stood trial for his crimes. The new date for jury selection is January 20 — this will be his FIFTH trial date.

Why do they keep postponing a trial that seems so cut and dry? Because they keep wanting to evaluate him and find out if he is sane enough to stand trial and get the death penalty that he so rightly deserves!

There have been 22 hours of interviews to determine if this guy is sane. I would say that all signs point to yes! Not because of my personal belief in the death penalty, but because he knew what he was going to do long before he did it. There was a serious plan in motion. The guy even signed up for dating websites and put in his profile, “Will you visit me in prison?” He knew what he was doing and the prosecutors are planning to use that bit of information to prove he was sane. Holmes’ attorneys acknowledge that he was in fact the shooter but that he was having a psychotic episode at the time.

It is time to realize that James Holmes knew what he was doing and get through the trial.

 —

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt P. via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop Delaying Movie Theater Shooter’s Trial Date appeared first on Law Street.

The strange, long, and twisted tale that was the death of Reeva Steenkamp, girlfriend of Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius, has started to reach its close. Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide in the Steenkamp case.

Oscar Pistorius is a South American athlete who made history by being the first double amputee in the Olympic Games, and has an incredibly impressive Paralympics resume.

But on the morning of February 14, 2013, that all changed. Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp through the locked bathroom door. She was a South African model, and the pair had been dating for three months. Pistorius admitted from the beginning that he had shot her, but claimed that he had thought that she was an intruder.

The facts that came out during the subsequent trial were dark. In addition to the being put on trial for killing Steenkamp, Pistorius also faced two charges for illegal handling of his firearms, and a fourth charge for illegal possession of some of the ammunition that was found in his home after Steenkamp was killed.

During the trial, a break was taken so that Pistorius could be evaluated by doctors and receive a psychiatric evaluation. He has been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, which was used by the defense to explain his concern about an intruder in his home on the morning of February 14. Merryll Vorster, a forensic psychiatrist who testified during the trial, explained that Pistorious’ anxiety disorder was most likely why he always slept with a firearm under his pillow. Vorster also explained that Pistorius did not have his prosthetics on when he shot at the door, indicating that a fight mechanism may have been ignited in Pistorious — he literally could not flee.

Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa stated on Thursday that Pistorius was not going to be found guilty of murder, but left the other charges for Friday.

The culpable homicide verdict, announced Friday, translated into American justice system terms, essentially means that he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He acted negligently when he shot four shots through his closed door without knowing who or what was on the other side. He won’t actually be sentenced until next month, and what his sentence will actually end up being has a huge range. He could serve up to fifteen years in prison, or a sentence that is significantly shorter. Judge Masipa has received significant criticism for her ruling.

Given that no one will really ever know what happened in Pistorius’ house that fated Valentine’s Day morning, the verdict is understandable. Yet there is still a lot of backlash from those who believe it’s not quite enough. And Pistorious’ actions after receiving the verdict don’t do too much to help him. He has said that he’s going to write a book to tell his side of the story, and the South African Olympic Committee has said he is free to run again once he finishes his sentence.

However, the good thing about these much-watched celebrity trials is that occasionally they are high-profile enough to create a national conversation. As Steenkamp’s father put it:

This case in a very strange way has opened a window into people’s lives in South Africa, the way they feel they need to defend themselves with extreme force. People need to think about this.

The story was disturbing, the trial concerning, and the death of Steenkamp incredibly tragic. Yet trials like this do have the opportunity to say something for a nation; hopefully South Africa is listening.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pistorius Verdict Opens Dialogue About Defense, But is South Africa Listening? appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Ross Harris was indicted on September 4 by a grand jury on eight counts for the murder of his 22-month-old son, who was left in a hot car. The public anxiously waited for this verdict after Harris became public enemy number one after the incident in June. Cobb County District Attorney Vic Reynolds stated that he will decide over the next three weeks whether to seek a mandatory life sentence or the death penalty in this case. If Reynolds does seek the death penalty, it will be for the malice murder charge, which alleges that Harris, who has claimed his son’s death was an accident, premeditated the child’s killing.

There has been much debate over the outcome and potential sentence of punishment that Mr. Harris will receive. Some believe these charges are way too severe, considering there may still be a possibility that the death of Harris’ young son was in fact an accident. In my opinion, this all comes down to just how ethical the death penalty really is? The death of a 22-month-old baby is tragic, and what is even more heartbreaking is that this seems to be becoming the norm. I was reading the news today, and several newspapers have created sections in which ‘hot car baby deaths’ are featured. It is clear that enforcing the death penalty as a deterrent just does not work.

In the twenty-first century, I honestly believe if we were to live by the saying ‘an eye for an eye’ we would be living in chaos. In order to lead by example, as a country that punishes individuals who commit heinous crimes, we should rise above just killing them off by an injection. It costs more money to keep an individual on death row than it does to place them in prison on a life sentence. An eye for an eye means that equal amount of suffering should be received, and I ask you, do you really think a quick lethal injection can compare to some of the horrific murders and rapes these victims suffer? Would it not make more sense to sentence these individuals to life sentences in prison, forcing them to acknowledge what they have done, while being punished by depriving them of any normal life they once had? What I think a lot of people fail to understand is that although these individuals can be sentenced to death row, they will spend years awaiting their actual death while money is wasted on them sitting in a cell.

With ironic timing, after three decades on death row, this week 50-year-old Henry McCollum and his brother were released from prison in North Carolina due to DNA evidence after serving a sentence for the rape and murder of a female in 1983. As expected, social media jumped at the chance to voice their opinions on this case, and the death penalty in general. Many believe that if someone commits such a heinous crime they should also suffer, whereas others argue that killing them via the death penalty is the easy way out. I have done a lot of research in the use of DNA to exonerate individuals. The Innocence Project is an organization that dedicates itself to cases exactly like this in the hope of overturning wrongful convictions. The flaw with the death penalty is the fact that in most cases, with an absence of evidence or lack of investigative material, it is close to impossible to be 100 percent sure of conviction. The risk that an individual can be sentenced to death, and then be proven innocent is way too high to warrant any ethical justification for this form of punishment.

As a country that bases itself on a constitution that protects the rights of the people and forbids cruel and unusual punishment, I struggle to see how sentencing someone to die by lethal injection for a crime that cannot be supported with 100 percent guaranteed proof is not in itself a contradiction of what we stand for. By sentencing Harris to death, I do not see how that can compare to the suffering of a young baby in a hot car. It is controversial to compare the suffering of ways to die for both the victim and the perpetrator, but I actually think the death penalty can sometimes be an easy way out.

Justice for victims who have lost their lives due to crime demands that their perpetrators be punished and made to understand and take responsibility for their actions. I am still unsure about where I stand in terms of rehabilitation for these types of criminals, but I genuinely feel like (and for this you can blame my criminology background and psycho analytic personality) if we do not try to understand why these things happen and why people do the things they do, we will not be able to prevent any harm done to us in the future, and more importantly to the next generation that will live in this exact same era of punishment.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Luigi Caterino via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Death Penalty is the Easy Way Out appeared first on Law Street.

According to a statement released by the Department of Defense on August 27, 2014, United States Army General Officer Michael T. Harrison was forced to retire recently with a reduced rank after being found to have mishandled reports of sexual assault. As I read the article published by The New York Times, I was expecting to find that some form of criminal action had also been taken and that there would be some recognition of sympathy for those victims whose cases had been mishandled. Instead, the consequences of this general’s actions were to retire as a one star general, as opposed to a two star. No criminal action was taken, and no justice to the victims was given.

If you have seen the eye-opening documentary ‘The Invisible War,’ then you know that it raised awareness for the appalling number of victims who are involved in sexual assaults in military settings, but also that it spurred legislation ensuring investigations of abuse were handled efficiently, and justice was given to the victims. As can be seen with Harrison’s case, these incidents are still occurring and as a woman myself, I still do not feel like enough is being done.

Susan Brownmiller, an American journalist, describes sexual assault in military settings as an unfortunate but inevitable by-product of the necessary game called war. Quite frankly, the punishment Harrison received is nothing short of a joke. After the amendment of federal policies regarding sexual assault in the military two years ago, I question Congress as to why this is still happening? This game we call ‘sexual assault in war’ is unacceptable. According to “The Invisible War,”

‘Since 2006, more than 95,000 service members have been sexually assaulted in the U.S. military. More than 86 percent of service members do not report their assault, and less than five percent of all sexual assaults are put forward for prosecution, with less than a third of those cases resulting in imprisonment.’

These figures should be enough to not only change punishment for the mishandling of reports of sexual assault, but to help victims come forward and receive justice for their traumatic experiences. As of 2014, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, federal law now defines Military Sexual Trauma (MST) as one of the most frequent diagnoses given to veterans of warfare. If we know that so many individuals suffer from such traumatic experiences, why isn’t policy being changed? Even more importantly, why aren’t those who are meant to protect us doing their jobs properly?

Each military force dominates the way reports and investigations of assault are handled. This ‘in house’ shambles of a system is essentially allowing officials to get away with their own wrongdoings. We are allowing individuals to commit acts without fear of punishment or consequence. In order to lower the rates of sexual assault in the military, the focus needs to be on controlling the environment, and providing an alternative system for report of misconduct. I am no expert in changing legislation, and I am no intellectual genius on the makings of policy, but I am certainly no fool to being aware that victims are suffering, and legislators need to wake up and realize that this type of consequence is normalizing military sexual assaults.

Our common coping mechanism for crime is imposing laws to regulate punishment to those who inflict pain and suffering. By imposing taking someone’s gold sparkly badge away and giving him or her a silver sparkly one instead because they essentially ignored someone’s suffering, is unacceptable. Sexual assault and abuse is not normal, regardless of the situation, regardless of the setting, and regardless of the perpetrator. In order to enable victims to report their abusers, and in order to protect future men and women from the pain and suffering so many veterans go through, something needs to change!

Now more than ever, I cannot wrap my head around the fact that our same country who is fighting to protect us from terrorism, our country who is fighting for the rights of the thousands of innocent individuals losing their lives in the Middle East, can also be the same country that contains individuals being sexually violated and then silenced by the same exact people who are meant to protect us.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Military Sexual Assault Remains a Major National Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

Journalist Mignon McLaughlin once said that “a sense of humor is a major defense against minor troubles.” However, in the legal world, the inverse is often shown to be true: a sense of humor is only a minor defense against major troubles.

When pleading insanity just seems too mundane, creative criminal defendants come up with some unusual defenses to prove their innocence; but, funny as these may be, do they actually work? Maybe sometimes, but let’s look at two such defenses that most likely will never lead to an innocent verdict.

Fat Men Can’t Murder

In 2006, the ironically named Edward Ates was accused of driving from Florida to New Jersey to kill his son-in-law. Even though the prosecution painted Ates as a competent marksman with some military experience, said he had been doing online research on how to kill, submitted a conversation he had with his sister in which they went over the timeline of events, and had his own sister testify that her brother had her lie to the police about where he was at the time of the murder, his attorney said Ates could not possibly be the killer.

But why?

Well, for one, the damning military experience turned out to be a desk job. Also, apparently people with too much time on their hands often pick up hobbies — up to and including researching methods to commit murder. Oh yeah, and did I mention he was really, really fat? Because that’s important.

You, like the defense, might be asking yourself how a man who weighed 300 pounds at only 5’8” could possibly drive for 21 hours straight, walk up four steps, and still manage to hold a gun straight. My guess is that it was just the adrenaline rush you get in exciting situations; instead of suddenly being able to lift a car off a child, perhaps this guy was able to make a short climb in order to get rid of someone who must have been — assuming guilt here — a real nuisance in his life. The defense, on the other hand, apparently wouldn’t have bought my potential solution. According to them, there was no way this man could have successfully completed such a physically taxing feat, and thus he must be innocent.

As it turns out, the jury at this trial didn’t buy the obesity defense and the fat man was convicted of first degree murder.

(This case actually made it on appeal to New Jersey’s highest court in States vs. Ates, 217 N.J. 253 (2014), but it got there on the merits of whether the admitted evidence of the wiretapped call between Ates and his sister was legal in the state of New Jersey — not on whether obesity is a legitimate legal defense. The high court concluded that the evidence was admissible, and the verdict stands.)

Good Jokes Aren’t Illegal

Did you hear the one about the man who “accidentally” poured gasoline on his nag of a wife and then pulled out a lighter and tried to light it — all while winking at his young son? Do you get the punch line? I don’t, but there must be one somewhere in there or otherwise the defense that this all happened “as a joke” just wouldn’t make sense.

I am the type of person who likes to find humor in life. I am always up for a good joke, whether knock-knock or practical. However, Khemraj Samlall’s recent “prank” just seems to have fallen flat.

This all started when Samlall got home really late, or rather really early, one morning and, as is not surprising, when he arrived, he was a little drunk. His wife was not thrilled. She berated him for his actions; he threatened her with a knife in front of her child, went and got a gas can, doused her in gas (not on purpose according to him), and then pulled out a lighter. Basically, tit for tat.

According to him, this was all done as a joke. Are you laughing as hard as he apparently was? As the events mentioned above only happened recently, there has yet to be a trial, though Samlall has been accused of “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill.” And while I normally try to keep my legal opinions to myself, I feel pretty confident that I know how this defense will work out for Samlall if he can find an attorney willing to try it: if nobody laughs at your joke, it probably isn’t funny.

Justice Scalia once said, “I don’t want a competent lawyer. I want a lawyer who’s going to get me off.” United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006). However, if your counsel — or intended defense — is neither competent nor likely to work, maybe you should move on to plan B.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashs) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [Divine Harvester via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dubious Defenses: When Humor and the Court Just Don’t Mix appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever been in a crowd of people that’s moving with a mind of its own? I’ve come close — various rallies in front of the White House, concerts, and the 2012 Inauguration all caused me to find myself in situations where I had basically no control over where I moved. I’m barely five feet and I’m petite — if someone wanted to move me or shove me they could do it with little effort.

Now luckily, none of those crowds that I’ve been swept up in turned into anything violent. I’ve always been able to push my way out, eventually. But I know that if a crowd I’m in ever does get violent and I’m forced to run, I have to be careful. I need to protect myself. And I would bet that most young women feel the same way–it’s a scary thought, but a realistic one.

I bet Cecily McMillan felt the same way.

Cecily McMillan was an Occupy protester in New York’s Zuccotti Park on November 15, 2011. Police were brought in to break up the crowd, and it turned to chaos. Those who were there that night described it as an “attack.” Many protesters had their clothing ripped and were pushed to the ground. At one point Cecily McMillan threw an elbow into a policeman’s face, and last week she was found guilty of second-degree assault. She has yet to be sentenced, but could face up to seven years in prison. She is currently being held without bail on Rikers Island.

At first glance the case seems cut and dry. A protester tangled with a cop and is now paying the price. But in reality it is so much more complicated than that.

Cecily McMillan has her own side of the story. She claims that she threw the elbow as a gut reaction to having her right breast grabbed by the police officer who later accused her of assault — his name is Officer Bovell. Here’s a picture of McMillan after the incident in Zuccotti Park:

Maybe we should ask #CecilyMcMillan about her #myNYPD moment. http://t.co/zle2kOHvDf pic.twitter.com/lDVFsWhOZN — Ⓐ ‏#GrumpyCuntSec Ⓐ (@brazenqueer) April 22, 2014

That’s a bruise from where Officer Bovell allegedly grabbed her. Despite the prosecution’s contention that McMillan caused the injury herself, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Officer Bovell, at the very least, grabbed her from behind, regardless of how she reacted or why he did so.

#CecilyMcMillan, activista de @OccupyWallSt declarada culpable de atacar a policía de #NY http://t.co/V8hyrp64UM pic.twitter.com/ncj3fLyoMa — Democracy Now! Es (@DemocracyNowEs) May 6, 2014

That’s Officer Bovell right behind her with his hand raised. It certainly looks like he’s going to grab her, and it really looks like she’s not expecting it.

There’s some other conflicting evidence, including a video of McMillan elbowing Officer Bovell in the face, but it’s really hard to see why, or what he’s doing. It could be on purpose, or it could be because he had grabbed her.

So the case went to trial, where it seemed even more convincing that something fishy was up — Officer Bovell had a hard time identifying which eye McMillan had actually so viciously elbowed. He got it wrong, multiple times. Clearly her crazy attack left him traumatized.

And there’s also evidence that McMillan was in pretty bad shape when the police grabbed her. There’s a sixteen minute video of McMillan having a seizure:

If you watch closely, for the first few minutes no one really does anything. Finally, at the eight-minute mark she gets some medical attention. The photos of her that night can be found here, and they’re equally disturbing. She’s being thrown around like a rag doll. In some of them her feet are barely touching the ground. In some ways that’s what upsets me the most. This woman did not deserve the kind of brutality that she received that night. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Especially when one of those wrongs is dealt out by the people who are supposed to keep us safe — the police.

I understand that the police needed to clear the area. I understand that things got messy. But now she might be facing seven years in prison. And that’s plain ridiculous. Even the jury that convicted her thinks so — nine out of the twelve sent a letter to the judge stating,

We the jury petition the court for leniency in the sentencing of Cecily McMillan. We would ask the court to consider probation with community service. We feel that the felony mark on Cecily’s record is punishment enough for this case and that it serves no purpose to Cecily or to society to incarcerate her for any amount of time. We also ask that you factor in your deliberation process that this request is coming from 9 of the 12 member jury.

Trials are bifurcated for a reason — the jury has no say in McMillan’s sentencing. But that they felt so compelled as to ask for a lighter punishment for her shows this case was never cut and dry.

So I want you to put yourself in McMillan’s shoes again. Imagine that you’re swept up in a crowd and have no control. You panic, and someone grabs you, and you flail to get away. It’s not a new story, and it’s not that hard to imagine. I know because I imagine it every damn time I’m in a crowd that size.

I could be Cecily McMillan. So could you. And the way this case was handled should scare you.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Timothy Krause via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Any One of Us Could Be Cecily McMillan appeared first on Law Street.

It seemed surreal when news broke that star NFL player Aaron Hernandez would be arrested for the mafia-style execution of local amateur football player Odin Lloyd. In the weeks following that report however, details from the case emerged that painted a very realistic image; the former New England Patriot may have actually committed murder. Ensuing news stories seemed to complete the picture of Hernandez as executioner. A motive for killing Lloyd surfaced. Rolling Stone made public his history of violence and drug abuse. But despite all the plausible connections made in the case, the prosecution was facing several hurdles in convicting the fallen football star. The murder weapon linked to the shooting has not been found and finding credible, cooperative witnesses in the trial has proved difficult for the prosecution. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts could be forced to convince a jury — using only circumstantial evidence —  that a local celebrity is guilty of murder.

This was true until recently, as the prosecution may have received a boost to its case. Last Friday, Hernandez’ alleged accomplices from the night of the murder, Carlos Ortiz and Ernest Wallace, were indicted by a grand jury for the murder of Odin Lloyd. Ortiz and Wallace were originally charged only as accomplices, but the failure of either party to cooperate in the Commonwealth’s case against Hernandez has forced the hand of the prosecution, and likely frustrated its’ attorneys.

The indictment of Ortiz and Wallace is helpful to the prosecution because if a murder was part of a joint venture, the judge presiding over the case may instruct the jury that they may render a guilty verdict without knowing who actually pulled the trigger. Joint venture liability doesn’t make the job easy, but it does allow for conviction if the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly participated in the commission of the crime charged.

Now its the defendants’ attorneys who are frustrated, and for good reason. If a jury didn’t believe Carlos Ortiz’s dubious story of ‘just going along for the ride‘ prior to the indictment, it meant he could be charged as an accessory. Now, he could do life. Prosecutors can also potentially use these new indictments as negative reinforcement to get Ortiz or Wallace to cooperate against Hernandez in a 2012 murder for which the former tight end has been investigated. Either way it appears the prosecution has gained an advantage, leaving Hernandez with even fewer teammates by his side.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Andrew Blancato

The post Hernandez Associates Charged With Murder: Big Break for Prosecution? appeared first on Law Street.

Thanks to petty politics, your local federal court may be lacking in the positions that it needs most to address citizens’ grievances: trial judges.

When it comes to federal court vacancies, the president has an obligation to respect senatorial courtesy, meaning that the president asks the senior senator of his political party to recommend a nominee for an open seat in the district court of his or her state. While this unwritten precedent usually does not extend to senators of the opposite political party, the president may also wish to consult senators of the other party so that their nomination is not blocked in the Senate, as senators have a de-facto power to veto nominees for a court in their home state.

However, many Republicans and even a few Democrats have begun a trend of failing to recommend nominees for vacancies on district court trial benches. These vacancies have significantly increased during Obama’s Presidency. By leaving seats in federal district courts unfilled, senators are undermining federal authority in the states. They are making a statement that demonstrates they would rather leave seats open than fill them with Obama’s appointees.

According to the Alliance for Justice, there are thirty-seven current vacancies and twenty-one future vacancies in federal courts around the country that currently have no nominees to fill these positions. The majority of these vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. And these seats have been open for quite some time. The most extreme example comes from Texas, where one vacancy has been left unfilled for 1,951 days.

There are so many reasons why this trend is troubling, but I’ll attempt to explain just a few:

It’s giving states less federal oversight, and it undermines the rule of law.

By leaving the positions open, senators are effectively limiting federal jurisdiction over states. A lack of enough judges on the bench means that judges cannot handle the amount of cases brought to the court, which slows down rulings and therefore curtails the extent of federal authority over the presiding cases in these states. And states that are more conservative and have more Republican senators are experiencing more of this restriction on federal oversight than Democratic states.

But this policy goes against the rule of law in the United States. Indeed, there are certain matters that can and should be brought to state courts if there is no federal law involved or at stake. However, there are many cases that require a suit to be brought to federal court, and the fact that senators are intentionally leaving open seats on the benches of federal courts goes against the rule of law. Courts need a certain amount of justices to operate, and withholding nominations unjustly limits the power of the federal judiciary. Additionally, there should not be an uneven balance of federal oversight among states. Red states must experience as much federal oversight as blue states, otherwise the level of independence from the federal government of the different states will be unequal.

It’s a prime example of partisan politics at its worst.

As previously said, the majority of federal court vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. Only eleven out of the total fifty-nine current and future vacancies with no nominees come from states with two Democratic senators. States with one Republican and one Democrat are having trouble coming to a consensus on a nominee. For example, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey (R) and Bob Casey (D) had trouble working together to fill the eight open seats on Pennsylvania’s federal courts. The fact that political differences are now limiting the function of courts is concerning to the operation of government institutions.

Ultimately, it just hurts citizens.

When it comes down to it, the political move of leaving vacancies open hurts citizens and can deprive them of the right to receive speedy justice. Litigants will have wait for long periods of time before their case can be heard and ruled on. And some business is extremely important, such as immigration rulings. It is extremely unfair to keep citizens in limbo over cases that can impact their lives and futures.

While the senators who are neglecting to suggest nominates may feel they are protecting their states from federal judicial oversight, the reality is that they are actually failing to serve their constituents’ needs. They are depriving citizens of their right to court and failing to help them receive justice by blocking appointments. To many residents of the affected states, it doesn’t matter whether judicial appointments came from Bush or Obama; they simply need their cases to be heard. The vast amount of federal court vacancies shows the worst of how partisanship can negatively affect constituents.

Perhaps the most unfortunate part about this problem is that it won’t be solved unless citizens physically take action and rally outside court houses. Senators clearly need a reality check if they feel their methods are helping their constituents.

[The Atlantic] [Alliance for Justice] [Dallas News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Sorry, Citizens: Senators Won’t Fill Court Vacancies appeared first on Law Street.

Eleven days of  evidence have finished in Oscar Pistorius’ murder trial and still it’s difficult to ascertain the track star’s guilt. Some speculate that the national icon will walk, while the public is reluctant to call him innocent. Will his fame influence the finding in his case? Attorneys and bloggers alike speculate that athletes skirt the criminal justice system because of their fame. But is that true? Let’s take a look at some examples.

Donté Stallworth tends to be exhibit A for those who believe athletes get off lightly in the criminal justice system.  In March 2009, Stallworth struck and killed a pedestrian in Miami Beach, Fla. after admitting he drank alcohol earlier in the night. Stallworth served only 30 days in jail as part of a plea bargain, a sentence inciting ire from many who say athletes live in a privileged world. But Stallworth’s sentence may have been the result of circumstances lacking the typical repugnance of a DUI manslaughter case, rather than the result of his fame. Sources claimed Stallworth’s victim, Mario Reyes, was running across the busy road when Stallworth made contact with him. Stallworth also stopped and immediately dialed 911. He reached financial settlement with Reyes’ family rather than drag out proceedings in civil court. Criminal attorneys would probably wager these facts were more integral to Stallworth’s plea deal than his fame.

Mark Ingram Sr. was a star NFL receiver in the 1990s, but has since been charged with money laundering and bank fraud. In January 2009, Ingram Sr. failed to report to authorities to begin his federal prison term, instead deciding to watch his son, former Alabama running back Mark Ingram Jr., play in the 2009 Sugar Bowl. The decision to watch his son play cost Ingram Sr. two more years in prison, although U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Platt seemed to issue the elongated sentence begrudgingly.

Plenty more athletes have earned both long and short sentences for committing crimes. The difference maker in many of these cases may be the factor that often coincides with their success: money. Higher socioeconomic standing has long been found to impact the criminal justice system, but the relationship may be more closely followed now than ever before following the Texas “affluenza” case and the growth of private prisons.

Pistorius’ case could be the latest example of how wealth aids criminal defendants. The “blade runner” has amassed a legal bill that few could pay, but fortunately for Pistorius, he and his family can afford it.

—-

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Countdown to Blade Runner Verdict: Will Money or Fame Make an Impact? appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, March 3, 2014 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments that charged Florida with failing to properly establish an inmate’s IQ before ordering the death penalty. In determining the level at which inmates are ineligible for capital punishment, Florida has drawn a strict line at an IQ of 70 or below. However, experts in the medical field as well as several justices feel that this policy does not take into account the five point margin of error in IQ testing in establishing whether or not someone is intellectually disabled. The five point error margin could be crucial in sentencing capital punishment; whether or not you agree with the death penalty at all, it is essential that the decision for a death sentence is justly made.

Here’s the breakdown of the case:

Freddie Lee Hall, a 68 year old, is facing the death penalty for the crimes of raping and killing a 21 year old pregnant woman as well as a police officer. Hall was given several IQ tests throughout his incarceration and received scores of 71, 72, 73, 74, and 80, all of which are above Florida’s 70’s point marker. However, studies have shown the five point margin of error is necessary, concluding that scores as high as 75 considered indications of intellectual disability. Even if you take the average of all Hall’s scores, a 74, he falls within the margin and could be deemed ineligible for the death penalty. Seth Waxman, a lawyer for the defense, stated that this matter “can only be properly diagnosed by professionals.” It seems that other justices shared Waxman’s concerns. Justice Kennedy questioned why states like Florida drew such a hard cutoff, when professionals acknowledged that the IQ test design includes a margin of error.

Looking back at prior verdicts:

The 2002 case Atkins v. Virginia established a precedent for establishing the eligibility for the death penalty based on an inmate’s IQ. The decision gave states a general guideline to follow in establishing proof of intellectual disability in inmates. It stated that in order to declare someone as intellectually disabled, it must be proven that the individual lacks practical and social abilities as well as possesses a low IQ score. The decision stated that low IQ scores are “typically under 70.” In discussing the Atkins ruling, Justice Scalia explained that the court did not make their decision primarily on the studies done by the American Psychiatric Association’s assessment of intellectual disability, but on the adopted policies of the states. But shouldn’t the opinions of experts in a particular field factor in significantly to justice’s decisions, especially in an area they personally are unfamiliar with?

It’s useful to take the precedent into account when determining how to rule in a case with a similar principle; however, the court’s previous decision only vaguely answers the question of whether establishing a hard line at an IQ of 70 is appropriate. The court should, therefore turn to experts on IQ measurements in order to make an appropriate judgement on the state a man’s life.

Furthermore, the case brings attention to the lack of focus on rehabilitation in Florida prisons and the United States in general. In this specific situation, Hall has spent over half of his life on death row, and the man is almost 70 years old! This situation is unfortunately not unique in Florida; as Justice Kennedy mentioned in oral argument, the last ten Florida inmates who received the death penalty spent on average 24.9 years on death row. Florida is not alone in keeping prisoners waiting on death row for longer periods of time, but the amount of years prisoners have spent in this status is concerning. Maintaining someone’s uncertainty over whether he or she will live or die for this long can cause anxiety and the general deterioration of his or her mental state. It is true that a factor involved in the lengthening of the time spent on death row is a more thorough appeals process, which is important in determining guilt and fair sentencing. Nevertheless, an average of 24.9 years is way too long to keep someone waiting on a question of life or death.

Indeed, Hall v. Florida’s significance will reach far beyond the determination of a man’s mental abilities. The case exposes that Florida’s justice system has failed to take into consideration an error margin and other factors in determining whether the death penalty is appropriate. Additionally, it allows inmates to wait extraordinary amounts of time on death row before a final decision. Capital punishment is serious, and the Florida justice system must change to treat those on death row appropriately.

[New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [Washington Post] [Death Penalty Info]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Jeff Kubina via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Hall v. Florida: What Will the Ruling Be? appeared first on Law Street.

It should first be stated that I personally don’t condone the practice of the death penalty at all; to me, the idea begs the notion of “an eye for an eye,” a facet of the ancient Hammurabi’s code. Nevertheless, regardless of one’s position on the issue, the fact remains that when the death penalty is used, efforts must be made to ensure that the method of capital punishment limits unreasonable pain and suffering.

The Constitution protects against unnecessarily harsh treatment in the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In United States history, many methods of capital punishment have been swept out of use for being considered inhumane methods of execution. Practices used in the American colonies such as burning at the stake, crushing, and beheading are now determined cruel and unusual. In most states, methods such as hanging, electrocution, death by firing squad and gassing are also considered cruel and unusual, and the most accepted form of execution in recent years has been lethal injection.

However, in the case of Dennis McGuire, the lethal injection that caused his death should also be considered cruel and unusual. McGuire was given a combination of two drugs: midazolam, a sedative, and hydromorphone, a painkiller. McGuire’s lawyer argued that the combination of the drugs could produce the effect of air hunger, an uncomfortable experience that causes a sufferer to gasp for air. Additionally, since McGuire has shown several symptoms of the condition, sleep apnea, the drugs were even more likely to lead to suffocation. David Wasiel, a Harvard Medical School professor, testified to the apparent terror McGuire would be subjected to under the effects of the two drugs. Nevertheless, District Judge Gregory Frost claimed that there was not enough compelling evidence to prove there would be a risk of extreme discomfort and pain.

What is further striking about the decision to allow the injection is the fact that the specific combination of drugs had never been used. Even if the amount of evidence pointing to the likelihood of air hunger was lacking, surely it would seem reasonable to allow for a period of experimenting and testing, since the injection’s exact effects remained unknown.

Despite all warnings and uncertainty about the drugs’ effects, on Thursday, January 16th, Dennis McGuire was administered injections of both midazolam and hydromorphone. After the first five minutes following the injections’ entrance into the blood stream, McGuire’s breath grew irregular and he began to gasp and utter strange noises for about ten minutes. His family members, who were permitted to witness the guilty man’s final moments, grew shocked and horrified as they watched McGuire’s clear discomfort and agony prior to his death. In total, the execution took over twenty minutes, one of the longest in Ohio’s history since it reinstated the death penalty.

Of course, McGuire’s actions that led to his execution certainly offer little cause for sympathy. In 1989, he raped and subsequently killed twenty-two year old Joy Stewart, a pregnant woman, by stabbing her to death. McGuire deserved to be brought to justice for his heinous crime. However, when a state pursues a method of capital punishment that also causes unnecessary suffering, how then is a state’s law above the actions of the perpetrator?

The use of an untested injection to put Dennis McGuire to death is despicable. Why, it must be asked, was the injection involving the combination of drugs allowed to be administered? Other than the judge’s poorly made decision that the lack of evidence to prove there was a great risk of pain and discomfort involved in the use of the injection. Another reason may exist; Ohio was all out of its usual lethal injection cocktail and simply, needed something to fill the void.

Previously, Ohio had been using a sedative called pentobarbital for capital punishment, which typically had caused a shorter and less painful death. However, pentobarbital’s manufacturer recently cut off Ohio’s  access to the drug, barring its use for the death penalty. Without supplies of its usual drug of choice, the state turned to its untried back up method, the combination of midazolam and hydromorphone.

Desiring to carry out the execution of McGuire on schedule, Ohio would not wait for possible testing of the drugs’ effects or research into potential alternatives. Lacking regard for the human dignity of prisoners, Ohio decided to administer the injection despite its uncertain consequences, giving the execution an air of experimentation. The state must now answer to the McGuire family’s cries for legal action and has earned a place in the nation’s spotlight for its blunder. In the situation’s aftermath, other states should learn from Ohio’s misjudgment to prevent similar occurrences from taking place in the future.

 [Cornell Law] [The Guardian] [DailyMail] [National Journal]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Piorskowski via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Cruel and Unusual: Never Before Used Injection Prolongs Dennis McGuire’s Execution appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat is a smartphone app designed to show timed pictures and videos that are not permanently saved to the recipient’s phone. The amount of time for which a recipient can view a photo is dictated by the sender, but is somewhere between 3-10 seconds. Usually the app is used for quick but relatively silly communication with friends–pet pictures, selfies, or just a life update in photo form.

Snapchat has received some criticism for possibly making “sexting,” the sharing of suggestive or explicit photos, easier. Because pictures automatically disappear after a few seconds, it may be easier for young people to send inappropriate photos without fear of later distribution. The problem is that it’s not that hard to save snapchats–there are apps to secretly save snapchats. Or for the more brazen, it is possible for a recipient to screenshot a snapchat, but the sender does receive a notification. You can easily take a picture of a snapchat on one phone with another phone or camera. For the most tech-savvy, there can be ways to access secret files on a smartphone. There have been dozens of cases of people posting their sexting partner’s compromising snapchats to the internet.

Now in all fairness, the trend has not been quite as widespread as feared. A recent poll found that only about 15% of Snapchat users admitted to using it for sexting purposes. The creators of Snapchat won’t reveal how many people have downloaded their app, but given its popularity, it’s safe to say that 15% of users is probably a fairly large group.

Now, if snapchat was just an app used by adults, this wouldn’t be too problematic. Moral and ethical issues aside, it is legal for adults to send nude photos back and forth, if they so wish. The problem that arises with Snapchat is that it may be being used by teenagers to send pictures back and forth, which can be considered distribution of child pornography.

There have been actual alleged cases of child pornography sent through Snapchat. In November, ten boys near Montreal aged 13-15 were investigated for peddling child pornography. They convinced their girlfriends to send them nude or partially nude photos, and then shared them among themselves. The girls did not know that the pictures were being distributed. The boys are due back in court on January 20th.

Teen-to-teen transmitted photos are one thing. But now an even creepier use of Snapchat has resulted in a new arrest. This week in Missouri, a mother has been charged with misdemeanor child endangerment after she sent snapchats of both herself and her 14-year-old daughter topless. She claims that she didn’t take the picture herself, but one of her other daughters did. That claim is contentious, because according to Prosecutor Tim Lohmar, it seems that the woman and her daughter are posing for the photo.

There have also been cases of adults sending explicit snapchats of themselves to minors, such as Joseph Johnson, a middle school teacher in Florida.

Snapchat might make sexting more guilt-free, but I can’t imagine it makes it that much so. It really is pretty easy to save a picture sent through the app. I think the bigger issue at play that warrants discussion is the use of social media to send inappropriate content. As children get smartphones, tablets, or computers at younger and younger ages, lines become fuzzier. The truth of the matter is that teens will always push the envelope, and science tells us that they’re quite not as good at making sound decisions as adults.

While snapchat is undoubtably fun, it can be dangerous, and teens sending pictures among themselves can have serious consequences. The Missouri woman being charged absolutely deserved it, but as for the teens, I think the issue is a little fuzzier. I know I’ve cautioned this before, but I truly think that as our technological abilities change, our laws need to keep pace.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Summer Skyes 11 via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dark Side of Snapchat appeared first on Law Street.

My most recent assignment at my current think-tank internship was to write a report on the 2008 book,The Execution of Willie Francis: Race, Murder, and the Search for Justice in the American South. In it, journalist Gilbert King told the story of Willie Francis, an African-American teenager who was convicted of the murder of a Caucasian man in the small Louisiana town of St. Martinville and survived a botched execution attempt in 1946. The book recounts the dark history of race relations in southern Louisiana, the murky circumstances surrounding the murder of popular local pharmacist Andrew Thomas, and the gross travesty of justice that was Willie Francis’ trial (particularly his lawyers’ refusal to provide him with any real defense). After Francis was scheduled for a second date with the electric chair, an idealistic local Cajun lawyer and a crusading Creole civil rights attorney intervened to try to save him. In the end, the Supreme Court affirmed his sentence, and the boy was finally put to death in 1947.

Frankly—and sadly—I found the most sensationally sordid aspects of the Willie Francis tragedy, namely the ugly racism and nauseatingly biased criminal justice system of mid-twentieth century America, to be old time religion. As an African descendant myself, I’ve been spurred by both upbringing and personal interest to familiarize myself with Black history in the United States and worldwide. Nothing about Francis’ treatment at the hands of the courts surprised me. As a student of the law, however, I was most struck by the middle section of the book, which detailed the backgrounds and deliberations of the Supreme Court Justices who ultimately put Willie Francis back on the path to his demise. What really seized my attention was the lamentable fact that when Willie’s case—Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber—reached the Court, the nation’s highest tribunal had not yet seen fit to “incorporate” the fundamental constitutional freedoms entrenched in the Bill of Rights against state and governments.

The law graduates among you will remember “incorporation” as the process by which courts have ruled that portions of the Bill of Rights constrain the states as well as the federal government. If this development has been a “process” rather than an obvious tenet of American constitutional law from the beginning, it is because the Framers drafted the Constitution with a view to limiting the power of the federal government, not the states. (Mind you, the Framers didn’t make this especially clear in the text of the Bill of Rights. Of all the pre-Civil War individual-rights Amendments, only the First explicitly targets Congress.) Yet the bloodshed of the Civil War and the intransigence of the former Confederate states in resisting equality for the freed slaves revealed the need for limits to the state governments’ powers as well.

One might think that the Fourteenth Amendment’s ringing declaration that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” would have addressed this problem adequately. Alas, one would be mistaken. The Supreme Court’s 1873 decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases held that the above-mentioned Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to the rights of U.S. citizenship and not of citizenship in particular states. This effectively foreclosed the use of the Clause to prevent state and local governments from riding roughshod over fundamental individual constitutional rights, right up to the present day. (Notably, Justice Hugo Black argued in 1947’s Adamson v. California that since the Slaughtehouse Cases addressed the unenumerated right to economic liberty, the cause of incorporating textually enumerated rights through the P-or-I Clause actually could have survived Slaughterhouse.) Although, as Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar has written, “Virtually no serious modern scholar—left, right, and center—thinks that [Slaughter-House] is a plausible reading of the [Fourteenth] Amendment,” the Supreme Court has never mustered the gumption to overturn this misbegotten precedent.

Some may dismiss this nicety as negligible, especially since the Supreme Court did eventually get around to incorporating most of the Bill of Rights through other, due process-based means. The story of Willie Francis suggests otherwise. As author Gilbert King writes, “Not once, not twice, but many times, the U.S. Supreme Court had held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to states. Thus, most of the rights in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, rights citizens decades later would take for granted, simply did not exist for litigants in a case originating at the state level—cases like Willlie’s. In other words, one’s right not to be tried twice for the same crime, for instance, could only be invoked if one was being tried in a federal court.”

So when Willie Francis’ lawyers prepared to argue his case before the Supreme Court, they had to face the daunting prospect of urging the Court to reconsider and overturn its previous rulings—rarely a promising strategy. The legal deck, then, was heavily stacked against the hapless youth from the beginning. Had the Court not stood the Fourteenth Amendment on its head a mere five years after its ratification—even in the face of statements from Congressman John Bingham, its principal framer, to the effect that it did incorporate the first eight Amendments to the states—Willie might have stood a real chance. Yet thanks to the obstinacy of the Slaughterhouse Court and the cravenness of succeeding generations of Justices, Willie Francis and countless others like him were subjected to grotesque miscarriages of due process—and suffered the ultimate injustice as a result.

When I was still but a lowly law student, I diligently read the online evaluation feedback for every course I contemplated taking before enrolling in it. I remember reading one evaluation from a student who opined that all constitutional law courses should be elective. The Execution of Willie Francis has reminded me why I have always held such attitudes in the utmost contempt—and why I carry a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution with me in my bag daily. No matter what field of legal practice one wishes to take up, constitutional issues—including seemingly arcane matters of constitutional interpretation—affect all of us as citizens of a democratic society. It’s not only a matter of right and wrong, or of justice and injustice; sometimes it’s a matter of life and death.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Nesnad via Wikipedia]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Constitutional Interpretation Matters appeared first on Law Street.

Joseph Hall’s life to date can be summed up in one word: tragedy. This January, at 13, Hall was  convicted in the 2011 murder of his father, Jeff Hall. This October, Hall received his sentence—approximately 10 years in a juvenile detention facility.

Joseph Hall was born into an abusive household with a neo-Nazi father and a mother who may have done drugs while her son was in utero. The Halls divorced when Joseph was very young, but the custody battle over him and his younger sister waged for years. Court filings during these proceedings indicate the extreme instability in the young boy’s life and a psychologist he saw as a boy determined that he had most likely been sexually abused. As a boy, he had some learning and developmental issues, such as ADD and PTSD. There were also instances in which he exhibited violent and inappropriate behavior towards other students. As a result, he was kicked out of a few different schools. Eventually he was homeschooled by his father, who had only completed 11^th grade himself.

Jeff Hall was a man with extremist beliefs. He was a part of the “National Socialist Movement,” or NSM, a neo-Nazi organization that has been labeled a hate group by institutions such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. They refer to themselves as a “white civil rights union.” They are active in the area in which the Halls lived: Riverside, CA. Riverside is located fairly close to the Mexican-American border, and is about 50% Hispanic. The city also had a very high unemployment rate—about 15%. Racism, desperation, and demographical changes create a fertile ground for a hate group like NSM. Jeff Hall used to take Joseph with him on “patrols” of the border when the boy was as young as 9. He taught his son how to operate a sophisticated gun with night-vision and a scope. He taught his son how to hate.

In addition to his position as a rising leader in the Riverside neo-Nazi movement, Jeff Hall was a neglectful and abusive father and husband. The house in which the family lived was full with empty beer cans, and according to police officers at the scene, multiple rooms smelled like urine. Joseph reported to the police that his father had recently broken a glass on his stepmother Krista, who he referred to as his mother. Evidence from Jeff’s phone shows that he was cheating on Krista and that the two had a rocky relationship probably headed for divorce. Joseph also claimed that his father had threatened to kill the family by setting a fire while they were all asleep.

The story about what exactly happened that night is shaky at best, but one thing is certain. After his father passed out on the couch, Joseph took the family’s loaded .357 and shot his father in the head. At times, Joseph has said that he just had the idea to scare his father the way his father scared Joseph and his siblings. He hoped maybe that would put an end to the abuse. He talked about seeing an episode of Law and Order: SVU in which a boy killed an abusive family member and was let off on the grounds of self-defense. At the same time, he didn’t seem to know exactly what he had done. He asked a police officer, Officer Foster, on the scene, “do people get more than one life?”; Officer Foster also stated, “he was sad about it. He wished he hadn’t done it.” During the trial, other possible stories also came out, such as the defense’s claim that Krista actually encouraged him to kill Jeff.

There’s no way to know exactly what happened that night. Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter. The conditions that put a 10-year-old boy in this position are significantly more important than the child’s motivations. The debate of nature vs. nurture is very important in this case. If Joseph Hall had been born into a more stable environment, would he still have the same kind of violent impulses? We can’t possibly know, we can just try to prevent this from ever happening again.

Joseph was found guilty in January of murder. This October, he was sentenced to juvenile hall for what will amount to the next ten years. (He was sentenced for longer, but you cannot remain in juvenile detention for more than 10 years.) He will be in the system with older, violent, children. He will have limited interaction with his family. Despite his defense team’s fight to place him in a group home or other institution that would be able to provide him with care and help that he needs, he will be in a juvenile institution for the next decade.

The prosecutor on this case, Riverside County Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Soccio, summarized this case best when he pointed out that it was less about blame and more about finding the right thing to do for Joseph. Soccio did believe that Joseph was dangerous and was guilty, but also recognized that how the next 10 years will determine whether Joseph can rise out of the tragedy into which he was born. After the conviction, he actually went over and apologized to the boy. He told him to be strong, but that, “you’re going to be in some places now that people are going to want you to be tough, and you’ve got to try to resist the worst part of being tough.”

There’s no winning this case. There’s no good side, no silver lining. There’s just a sad young boy who has been mistreated his entire life. The best that Joseph can hope for is that he is placed in a facility that is instructive, that provides structure his family claims he needs, and is filled with people who truly try to help him. But even if juvenile detention does work out for him, he will still leave as a young man who killed his father at 10. He will be a young man who was imprisoned his whole life, albeit it in different ways.  Again, Soccio put it better than I could hope to: “depending on where the courts puts him, he’s either going to be a predator or prey.”

There’s no winning this case, but maybe there’s hope for the future. Maybe this will spark a conversation about the awful juvenile judicial system in this country where a child must decide whether or not to be predator or prey. Maybe we’ll talk about gun control, and the ramifications of having a loaded gun in a house of angry, abused children. Maybe we’ll talk about the abuse inherent in exposing a child to a hate group. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to prevent a tragedy like Joseph Hall from ever happening again.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brian Stansberry via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Sad Story of Joseph Hall appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, October 29, the horrifying case that has consumed Penn State University came closer to completion. In recent years it has come out that Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach for the Penn State Nittany Lions, had waged years of systematic sexual abuse against young boys left in his care. To date, 32 young men have come forward with evidence of abuse: 6 have been dismissed and 26 have been deemed conclusive. While more are likely to come out, it was announced on Monday that these 26 men have concluded settlements with Penn State University.

The settlement dictates that approximately $60 million will be split among the 26 victims. That works out to about $2.3 million each, although some of that will obviously go to legal fees for each victim. As of Monday afternoon, 23 of the victims had signed their settlements and the others are still working on documentation but are expected to sign soon. A stipulation of these settlements is that the victims will not be able to sue anyone else, including Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, through which he became familiar with a large number of his victims.

Jerry Sandusky’s criminal case had concluded well before these settlements. On October 9, 2012, he was sentenced to 30-60 years in prison. At 69, he is almost guaranteed to spend the rest of his life incarcerated, and rightly so.

After the settlement was announced, the University President Rodney Erickson released a statement, saying “We hope this is another step forward in the healing process for those hurt by Mr. Sandusky, and another step forward for Penn State. We cannot undo what has been done, but we can and must do everything possible to learn from this and ensure it never happens again at Penn State.”

The finances that will pay for these settlements will not come from the University itself, but rather from various insurance policies that Penn State has in case there is ever a suit pursued against the University.

While this is another huge step forward in providing closure for the young men abused at Penn State University, the case as a whole is by no means over. Earlier this summer, a judge ruled to try former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz, former Penn State President Graham Spanier, and former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley. These three men will be charged with various crimes related to the cover-up of Jerry Sandusky’s actions. These trials are still forthcoming.

These young men who were abused by a man whom they trusted had their lives irreversibly and horribly altered as children. In reality, there is probably no amount of money that can make up for what happened to them. Technically speaking, they may have been able to get more money in court. The idea of a settlement is essentially a type of game theory—both sides settle on a compromise that is low-risk, and low-reward as opposed to pursing a high-risk, high-reward strategy.

As The Atlantic pointed out after news of this settlement broke, it makes sense that this case was settled out of court, as many sex-abuse cases are. If this case were in court, the victims would have to testify to a room of people about their abuse, reliving the most traumatizing experiences of their lives.

But worse, they would also be subject to cross-examination, one of the tenants of our justice system. They would be subject to questions on their bias and opposing attorneys would probe them with the aim of poking holes in their stories. Essentially, they would be questioned thoroughly about what happened to them for the purpose of disproving the abuse they suffered. That is one of the main reasons why this case settled quickly, out of court, and for fairly cheaply. The goal was to put at least this part of this abhorrent incident to rest for those involved. As impossible as it seems, hopefully some closure will develop from the conclusion of these settlements.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [drocpsu via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Penn State Settles With Some of Jerry Sandusky’s Victims appeared first on Law Street.

Harry Belafonte, now a well-known singer and song-writer, was a huge supporter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during his early career.  Belafonte provided for the King family both before and after Dr. King’s assassination.  He was able to partly finance many steps in the Civil Rights Movement, including the March on Washington and the Freedom Rides. He also bailed Dr. King out of jail a few times. After Dr. King’s assassination, he continued work as a political and humanitarian activist, and remained close to the family. However his connection to the King family seriously worsened after Coretta Scott King’s 2006 death. The last straw seemed to be when he was disinvited from Mrs. King’s funeral after he publicly spoke out against George W. Bush.

This week, Belafonte made headlines for a different reason. He has filed a lawsuit in the New York District Court against the children of the King family. The lawsuit stems from three papers that Belafonte claims were given to him by Dr. King, Coretta Scott King, and Stanley Levison—an aide to Dr. King. These papers include an outline of one of Dr. King’s speeches on Vietnam from 1967, a letter of condolence from President Johnson after Dr. King’s assassination, and an envelope from Dr. King’s pocket on the day of his assassination. Belafonte claims that the first of these documents, the speech outline, was given to him by Dr. King himself–in fact, the speech was supposedly written in Belafonte’s apartment. The letter was supposedly given to Belafonte by Coretta Scott King. And, finally, the envelope with Dr. King’s last written words was bequeathed to him by Stanley Levison’s will.

In 2008, Belafonte tried to sell these documents at an auction to raise money for charity. However the King family challenged Belafonte’s ability to sell these documents, claiming that he acquired them wrongfully and they belonged to the King estate. Belafonte has officially filed a suit to attempt to get himself declared the rightful owner so that they can officially be sold at a charity auction.

This is not the first time that an argument over Dr. King’s documents has made it to trial. In 1986, Coretta Scott King sued Boston University to return a large collection of Dr. King’s documents that he had given to the university 20-odd years before. In 2011, the King estate sued Dr. King’s former secretary, Maude Ballou to stop her from selling documents given to her by Dr. King before his death.

Belafonte’s lawyer is claiming that there is no evidence to suggest that Belafonte could have stolen or in any way wrongfully acquired these documents. Sources close both to Belafonte and the King family are somewhat dismayed with the actions that the King family have taken. In a recent New York Times piece, Clarence B. Jones, a former lawyer for Dr. King called the King family’s attempt to retake these documents as, “inconsistent with, and, really, a denigration of, the love and integrity that their dad had for the people who worked with him.”

The lawsuit offers an interesting question: what rights does an estate have to documents that have ended up in others’ possession? While it seems somewhat irrefutable that these documents belong to Belafonte and were given to him through legitimate means, will King’s estate have a leg to stand on?

[New York Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Lloyd Lee via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Old Friends Turned Foes: Harry Belafonte against the King Family appeared first on Law Street.

On April 11, 2007 in Pleasant Grove, UT, a woman named Michele MacNeill was pronounced dead of cardiovascular disease. MacNeill’s death came as a complete shock to her family. A former beauty queen who had just undergone a facelift procedure, MacNeill was a happy mother of eight, a devout Mormon, and married to a prominent Utah physician named Dr. Martin MacNeill.

For the MacNeill family, the years that followed were marred by lies, deceit, accusations, and tragedy. On Tuesday, October 15, Dr. Martin MacNeill’s murder trial will begin.

The story behind the MacNeill family and Michele MacNeill’s death is convoluted at best. According to different family members, there are many conflicting facts about what happened that day in the MacNeills’ Utah home.

Michele MacNeill had undergone a facelift surgery on April 3rd, 2007. She returned home on April 4th, and her daughter Alexis Somers , at the time a med-school student, stayed at home to tend to her mother. The morning after her mother returned home from the hospital, Alexis found her unresponsive in bed. According to Alexis, her father Martin stated that he might have overmedicated his wife.

Alexis’s story continues with a conversation with her mother; she testified in a pretrial hearing that Michele stated, “If anything happens to me, make sure it wasn’t your dad.” On April 11th, after Alexis returned to medical school, her mother passed away fully clothed in a bathtub in their home. Michele’s then six-year-old daughter Ada found her later that morning.

The coroner at first ruled her death as the result of a cardiac condition. However her children, particularly Alexis and her sister Rachel, were convinced that their father had something to do with their mother’s sudden passing. Finally in 2010, medical examiners took another look at the evidence and discovered that there was a possibly fatal combination of medications in Michele’s system. According to a CNN interview with Todd Grey, chief medical examiner of the Utah Sate Medical Examiner’s Office none of these medications were deadly on their own, but in combination they could have led to a cardiac death.

The MacNeills had one son, named Damian, who unfortunately committed suicide in 2010. However his girlfriend at the time, a woman named Eileen Hang, claims that Martin asked her to discard all of his wife’s medications after she died.

Martin tells a drastically different story that has been rife with contradictions. He has made numerous opposing statements to law enforcement, family, and friends. He claims to have an alibi, but it is largely unsubstantiated. His motive is, of course, at issue. The motive the prosecution will be presenting is of a philandering husband who fell in love with another woman named Gypsy Willis.

Gypsy Willis is being lauded as the prosecution’s star witness.  She had begun an affair with Martin in April 2004. From there, the story gets stranger. In the days leading up to Michele’s death, she exchanged many text messages with Martin. A week after Michele’s death, Gypsy moved in with the family to work as a nanny. She started pretending to be Martin’s wife and introduced her self as Jillian Giselle MacNeill. She pleaded guilty to identity fraud and related charges in 2011.

There are countless other confusing aspects of the story. The MacNeills had four biological children—Rachel, Alexis, Vanessa, and Damian—and then adopted four children from Ukraine. However the locations of three of these four children are essentially unknown—according to family members they may have been sent back to Ukraine. According to Alexis, before the facelift and subsequent death of Michele, Martin said he “no longer loved Michele and didn’t want their adopted daughters anymore.” Recently it has come out that the youngest, Ada, supposedly adopted, was actually Vanessa’s daughter and Michele’s biological granddaughter.

Since their mother’s death, Rachel and Alexis, along with the help of their aunt Linda, have crusaded against their father to face justice for what they believe was a murder. They have created two sites: and http://martinmacneill.info/ to attempt to inform the public about her death and his supposed involvement.

Currently, pretrial motions have been ruled upon, and jury selection will begin tomorrow. The facts will make for an interesting trial; any case so riddled with contradictions will be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It also comes a time when high profile cases have the ability to take the nation by storm. While the MacNeill case has not been as publicized as the Trayvon Martin or Casey Anthony cases, it has potential to become a media event. It will pitch a father against his daughters, a mistress against her former lover, and the truth against lies.

[CNN]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Smith via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stranger Than Fiction: The Martin & Michele MacNeill Case appeared first on Law Street.

The nightmare of the Steubenville Rape Case isn’t quite over for the small Ohio town. On October 7, 2013, another arrest was made in the case, this time of a 53-year-old man named William Rhinaman. Rhinaman is the director of technology at Steubenville High School. He has been indicted for tampering with evidence, obstructing justice, obstructing official business, and perjury.

Rhinaman was not the only adult in Steubenville to lie, refuse to talk, or tamper with evidence. As Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine told CNN, sixteen different adults refused to talk to investigators. A grand jury, formed on March 17, will determine if any of these others committed indictable crimes. They are mostly looking at whether any employees failed to report a rape they knew had occurred. Rhinaman was the first to face charges, but more may be to come.

AG Mike DeWine will not elaborate on what exactly Rhinaman covered up or what perjured statements he provided, but he did state that the charges are directly related to Rhinaman’s job as an Internet Technology employee. The indictment claims that Rhinaman’s involvement in the case began with the night that the rape occurred—August 11, 2012.

Immediately after being arrested, Rhinamen was held in a local jail without bond. He had a hearing on Wednesday, October 9 in which he was let out on a $25,000 personal recognizance bond.

The Steubenville case took the nation by storm. It was unthinkable—everyone who saw the news footage was horrified that two young men could sexually abuse a 16 year old girl, and that dozens of their peers could stand by and watch it happen. But in a lot of ways the media was more shocked by the way in which the rape was discovered. All of these young people who were present at the party in which the rape occurred took pictures, tweeted about it, texted about it, and generally communicated through social media.

The screen shots that some bloggers managed to grab of the blatant online conversations that these young people had were horrifying. But what is most horrifying is that they thought this was acceptable. Now the world discovers that not only did these teenagers feel this was acceptable, but also that the other adults in their lives perpetrated this despicable cover up. If any of these 16 adults who are being investigated by the grand jury did in fact help a group of young adults cover up the sexual abuse of another, they deserve to face the full force of the law.

[CNN]

—

Featured image courtesy of [John Perry via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Steubenville Continues appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a chance that we may see a familiar name in the news cycle in coming weeks. A woman named Zenaida Gonzalez is suing the now infamous Casey Anthony for defamation. During the 2008 investigation of the disappearance of Caylee Anthony, Casey Anthony’s two-year-old daughter, Anthony made a number of false statements about what exactly had happened to her child. One of these statements was the allegation that a nanny by the name of Zenaida “Zanny” Fernandez-Gonzalez had stolen her child while working for Anthony.

It was later determined that no nanny by the name of Zenaida Gonzalez ever worked for Anthony. During the 2011 murder trial, Zenaida Gonzalez herself testified that she had never even met or heard of Casey or Caylee Anthony. She also claimed that she had been having problems finding employment since Anthony’s false allegations hit the media. Anthony’s mother Cindy Anthony claimed that the wrong Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez had been found and asked to testify, but given the relative obscurity of the name as well as a complete lack of evidence to prove that Anthony had ever hired someone by that name, her statements were not taken seriously.

Anthony was acquitted of murder, manslaughter, and child abuse on July 5, 2011, but was found guilty of giving false statements to the police. Now Gonzalez is suing Anthony for the false statements that accused her of kidnapping a toddler she had never even met. Anthony is slated to be deposed by Gonzalez’s attorneys from the Orlando based firm Morgan & Morgan on Wednesday October 9^th. This deposition will be public.

Anthony’s attorneys have attempted to block this deposition on two grounds claiming first that they were not properly given notice to prepare and second that Gonzalez’s claims lack merit. Early last week, her attorneys filed documents asking that a judge grant a protective order so that Anthony will not have to answer questions under oath. They have also moved one step further, arguing that if she must testify, she should be able to answer questions remotely, and that the deposition should be sealed from the public.

If Anthony is forced to testify, she may have to answer questions about the disappearance of her daughter Caylee—Gonzalez’s attorneys are claiming that Anthony cannot plead the fifth to avoid incriminating herself in this case. This would be the first time that Anthony is forced to answer questions under oath.

This civil suit, or one of the other civil suits that Anthony is facing, could provide answers to questions that have never been fully answered since the disappearance of Caylee Anthony transfixed the world. Anthony is also being sued by Roy Kronk, the man who found Caylee’s body. Anthony accused him of being involved in her daughter’s death immediately after his gruesome discovery. In addition she is being sued by a non-profit called Texas Equusearch that spent resources searching for her daughter after, they claim, Anthony already knew Caylee was dead.

The situation at hand is in some ways eerily reminiscent of the 1997 OJ Simpson civil case. After Simpson was found not guilty in 1995 for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, the families of the deceased sued him for damages and won. Certain testimony made by Simpson during his criminal trial was proved to be incorrect. While this is obviously a slightly different situation, the ability of Zenaida Gonzalez and others to compel Casey Anthony to testify in a separate civil trial may give those who knew Caylee closure, much as OJ Simpson’s case gave some closure to Brown and Goldmans’ families.

[Tampa CBS Local]

—

Featured image courtesy of [FL Gov’t PD via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Casey Anthony May Be Deposed in Civil Suit appeared first on Law Street.

After evading authorities for nearly two decades, former mobster Enrico Ponzo will finally get his day in court on October 7, 2013. Ponzo, referred to by the Boston Globe as a “wannabe gangster,” is best known for attempting to murder Francis “Cadillac Frank” Salemme in 1989. In a superseding indictment released on January 31, 2013, he has been charged with 18 counts of racketeering, drug trafficking, witness tampering, as well as other charges. This indictment tacks more crimes onto an original 1997 indictment that includes attempted murder, intent to distribute drugs, extortion, and forfeiture.

This case will not garner nearly as much attention as the Whitey Bulger trial earlier this year, but it will offer a look into the life of a mobster—a subculture that has become so oddly romanticized by media darlings such as The Sopranos, The Godfather trilogy, and Scarface.

Ponzo’s case offers a completely different look at what it means to be a member of the mob scene. Unlike the household names of Bulger, Al Capone, or John Gotti, Enrico Ponzo was a mid-level lackey at best. In the 1980s, as a teenager, Ponzo was swept into the infighting that occurred in the New England Patriarca crime family. The Patriarca family, an almost exclusively Italian crime network based in Boston and Providence, rose to prominence in the 1950s and took on the nickname “La Cosa Nostra.”  Their leader, Raymond Patriarca died in 1984 and his second in command Jerry Angiulo was sent to prison in 1986. In the years that followed, the family suffered an organizational crisis.

“Cadillac Frank” Salemme, a prominent member of the Patriarca family operation, was one of the options to take over the network, but his partly Irish heritage and strong connections to rival Irish gangs worried some members. Put simply, two factions developed-one led by Joseph Russo, the other led by Frank Salemme. The fierce infighting that ensued almost led to Salemme’s death when he was shot outside an IHOP in 1989 by a group of armed men. Ponzo is accused of being part of that group.

According to the FBI, Salemme became the de facto head of the Patriarca family in 1991, but the war between his faction and Russo’s waged on. Ponzo was one of Russo’s loyalists, and under his tenure may have committed a number of nefarious acts. In 1994 Ponzo fled New England to avoid arrest.

Ponzo spent approximately the next 16 years on the lam, hiding in the town of Marsing, Idaho under the name Jay Shaw. In some ways, he was hiding in plain sight—in a town of just over 1,000 people, it’s impossible to stay completely anonymous. He worked as a cattle rancher, and his 2011 arrest sent shockwaves through the town. According to the Boston Globe, his 80-year-old neighbor Bob Briggs stated, “I don’t think anybody in Marsing could think he’d hurt anyone, not here anyway.”

After his trial in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts this week, Ponzo may also face charges in Idaho. When arrested, it was discovered that he had a firearm store of approximately 30 weapons in his Idaho home. The Idaho indictment also alleges other counts, such as identity theft. This case will not be dealt with until the Massachusetts trial has been finished.

In many ways, the Italian mafia’s real power has diminished greatly over the last 20-30 years. The FBI has cracked down on mob bosses in all the major centers of power: Chicago, New York, and Boston. But a different sort of Italian mafia has arisen since the turn of the century—one that exists purely in the sphere of pop culture. When James Gandolfini passed away in June of 2013, the nation mourned such a talented actor. The first sentence of a Washington Post blog post by Brad Hirschfeld read, “Mourning a mobster – a man whose life was predicated on intimidation, extortion and murder – may seem odd.  Odder still, when the mobster in question is a fictional character.  But with the sudden death of James Gnadolfini that is exactly what millions of people, including me, are doing.”

Romanticizing the mob—a network of organizations that survived on murder, extortion, drug dealing, and other crimes, has become the norm. But Ponzo’s case, the case of a petty criminal, reminds us that such a culture does not consist purely of plots, games, and critically acclaimed series finales.

[Boston Globe]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Wally Gobetz via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Friendly Neighborhood Mobster? appeared first on Law Street.

The jury will start its third day of deliberations on Thursday in the trial of James “Whitey” Bulger who faces 33 counts of racketeering.  The charges include committing or assisting 19 murders, money laundering, weapons charges, and extortion.  In order for a racketeering conviction to be made, the jury only needs to decide that he is guilty of two of the charges that happened within 10 years of each other.  Bulger’s charges focus on his time leading the South Boston Irish mob known as the Irish Hill Gang, which took place during the 1970s and ‘80s .

After several requests to clarify legal terminology like “aiding and abetting,” as well as the need for unanimous agreement on each charge the jury seems to be making progress on their decisions.  Judge Denise Casper urged the jury to not make findings on certain racketeering acts if they are unable to come to a unanimous decision.

[Huffington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Federal Bureau of Prisons via Wikipedia]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jury Deliberations Begin in Whitey Bulger Trial appeared first on Law Street.

After five years the Turkish court issued 17 life sentences to prominent figures among the government, military and media on Monday.  However, the final sentencing of the Ergenekon trial is only part of its significance for the government and the Turkish people.  In a country with a long history of military coups, this trial may represent the decline in the military’s influence in the political sphere.  Others contend that the trial is an example of government suppression of its opposition.  During the past five years there has been a significant change in people’s opinion of the ruling Justice and Development Party, with harsh responses to protests causing it to be perceived as increasingly more authoritarian.

The Egenekon trial is also perceived to be part of an emerging trend in the Turkish judicial system where people have frequently been prosecuted based on wide reaching anti-terrorism laws.  The government has been facing an increasing amount of criticism as free speech and expression has been significantly limited in recent years.  It is also important to note that government opposition has not been limited to one specific group within the Turkish populace, rather it has been spread throughout a never before seen mixture of people.  This trial marks another step towards authority consolidation within the government and has caused a dramatic backlash from the people.  As dissatisfaction continues, how far the Turkish protests will go remains to be seen, however an end to the demonstrations does not appear to be coming any time soon.

[BBC]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Dawid Krawczyk via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unrest Continues in Turkey After Verdict in Five-Year Corruption Trial appeared first on Law Street.

The George Zimmerman trial has been one of the most hotly debated topics in the news recently, and with public outrage resulting from the verdict people question whether or not the federal government will step in with charges of its own. Although it is technically possible for the government to pursue federal charges against Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin, there are several challenges that federal prosecutors would face.  Because the state and federal governments are two separate spheres, the concept of double jeopardy does not apply and Zimmerman can be charged in both state and federal court for the same crime.  However, federal charges can only be filed if the state prosecution did not satisfy a significant federal interest, and if the federal government believes sufficient evidence for a conviction exists.

Federal civil rights laws were enacted to ensure proper enforcement of the law, allowing for the federal government to intervene in the event that the state left federal interests “unvindicated.” Additionally, civil rights cases are rarely prosecuted at a federal level after having already been tried in state courts, but it has happened.  The most notable example of this is the case involving the police officers accused of beating Rodney King Jr. in 1991.  All four officers were initially acquitted in state court, but the subsequent federal trial led to two convictions.  In that case, and the argument could be made for George Zimmerman as well, federal charges furthered-a government interest in bringing racially-motivated criminals to justice.

Lastly, the application of federal law to the Zimmerman case could create a problem for prosecutors.  Many laws relating to racial violence and hate crimes deal with state authority over acts committed in public areas.  Because Zimmerman was not an actor of the government nor did the altercation take place on public property, a new statute that deems any racially-motivated violence a crime would most likely be used by the prosecution.  In order for federal prosecutors to convict Zimmerman they will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were motivated by race.  Doing so would not be an easy task, as there were no witnesses and Zimmerman has previously claimed self-defense.

Although there are many challenges that prosecutors would face, federal charges are not completely out of the question, especially as public outrage continues.

[Reuters.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Werth Media via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Zimmerman Face Federal Charges? appeared first on Law Street.