Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 607

Thread: Supreme Court of the United States

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Administrator Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,515

    California must release prisoners, Supreme Court rules

    The US Supreme Court has upheld an order for California to free thousands of prisoners because of overcrowding.

    Federal judges had ordered 40,000 prisoners be released within two years. The state says it has 148,000 inmates, in jails designed for 80,000 people.

    California appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prisoners could pose a risk to public safety.

    But the court ruled the limit was necessary "to remedy the violation of prisoners' constitutional rights".

    Judges rejected the state's appeal by a 5-4 vote, and upheld the 2009 federal court order.
    Funding shortage

    The method for reducing overcrowding "is at the discretion of state officials," the Supreme Court ruling read.

    "But absent compliance through new construction, out-of-state transfers, or other means... the state will be required to release some number of prisoners before their full sentences have been served," it said.

    The ruling comes after at least two inmates were stabbed on Friday when 150 prisoners rioted at a maximum security prison in the state capital, Sacramento.

    Guards used pepper spray and fired a live round to gain control, prison officials said.

    California has the largest state prison population in the US, with 33 jails.

    But its prisons have been overcrowded and underfunded for many years.

    Among the remedies suggested, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed in 2010 that the state could reduce prison spending by housing undocumented inmates in Mexican jails.

    Source


    I should think about removing Cali from my 2012-holiday-destination-list. If the prisons had been underfunded I´ll bet most of the inmates to be released haven´t got some kind of training be integrated into the society. Another problem (in my eyes) are the large number of illegals. I think they´re are generaly the competitors for the released inmates in the struggle of work. So I expect a large number of the released ones back in prison after a short period.

  2. #2
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217



    Supreme Court Preview: The Roberts Legacy Term?

    The coming term will be one of the most challenging in decades -- and it may define the chief justice's career

    This is the first of a three-part series this week previewing the upcoming October term of the United States Supreme Court. Part II will look at what the justices did and said over their summer vacations. Part III will preview additional cases.

    Part I: This Term or the Next?

    After a long summer break during which they traveled the world, spoke proudly at length on matters large and small, and narrowly avoided disaster, the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court are officially back at their posts, one week before the heralded first Monday in October. They meet today in person at the court for their first conference of the new season, called the Long Conference, at which they'll add significantly to the number of cases and controversies (41) currently on their docket for the 2011-2012 term.
    And what a term it could be! Before it's through, nine rambunctious months from now, the justices may have decided the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. They may have begun to sift through the dust of S.B. 1070, Arizona's brazen anti-immigration law. By the term's end, they may be forced to confront the legality of same-sex marriage in California in the Proposition 8 case, perhaps even tackle the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and renew their tango with affirmative action standards.

    Speaking of the Davis case and its evidentiary failings, the justices will look in Perry v. New Hampshire at the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Depending upon the scope of the ruling, this case could turn out to be the most important of the term because eyewitness testimony is so prevalent in criminal cases all over the country. Has enough doubt been raised about the reliability and accuracy of eyewitness testimony to merit tougher evidentiary standards on its admissibility? How far will the justices be willing to go to change rules that affect tens of thousands of cases each year?

    Speaking of evidence in criminal cases, the justices will resolve Williams v. Illinois, a case that has tizzified prosecutors all over the country. When the results of DNA testing are introduced in criminal cases, does the state have to bring to the witness stand the scientist who extracted the DNA and conducted the testing? Or may it rely instead upon another analyst, not present at the time of the testing, to tell jurors about the test's conclusions. The Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that the original scientist didn't have to come to court. The folks at the Innocence Network disagree. It's another case with extraordinarily broad implications depending upon how it is decided.

    Speaking again of the Davis case, the Court will hear an argument in November on another criminal law case, Smith v. Cain, which also touches upon the issue of URL="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/smith-v-louisiana?wpmp_switcher=desktop"]eyewitness identification[/URL] in a murder case. You don't have to look hard in Smith to see the echoes of Davis. In Smith, Louisiana prosecutors reportedly failed to disclose to defense attorneys at trial that:

    the key witness had made numerous conflicting statements to the police concerning his ability to identify any of the perpetrators. Their newly disclosed materials included statements by other witnesses casting doubt on the key witness' testimony, a statement by an apparent perpetrator seemingly denying petitioner's involvement; a statement by a firearms examiner that contradicted his trial testimony implying that petitioner was one of the shooters; and a confession from another individual.

    And what did the state trial court judge and the Louisiana Supreme Court do when confronted with this new evidence? Nothing. Even though Juan Smith was the only person ever tried for the crime, and even though the High Court in Brady v. Maryland requires prosecutors to share exculpatory evidence before trial, the state courts let Smith's conviction stand. Unlike Davis, Smith was not sentenced to death for his role in the crime. But if the justices want to do something about the systemic procedural failures which marked the Davis case, they will lend a hand to Smith.

    Finally, another interesting Fourth Amendment case worth mentioning here is United States v. Jones in which the justices will consider whether police can put a GPS tracking device on a person's car without a warrant and without the target's knowledge or consent. The oral argument in Jones, scheduled for November 8, ought to be fascinating as the Luddite-like justices take up a case at the intersection of technology and the Fourth Amendment. I can just hear Justice Antonin Scalia's rib-tickling hypothetical now. And I can picture in my mind's eye the 6-3 vote in favor of the government and against Antoine Jones, whose drug conviction and life sentence were overturned by the lower federal appeals court.

    We see in each of these cases the Court's perennial struggle to balance rights and responsibilities within the criminal justice system. One such early test comes today, when the justices during their conference take up the case of Duane Buck, the condemned Texas man whose execution they stayed two weeks ago. The justices now have to decide whether they will accept Buck's case for review, whether they will seek to hold Texas to its word a decade ago that Buck would get a new sentencing trial after his first one was tainted by unconstitutionally racial testimony.

    The justices may have been eerily silent last Wednesday night when they turned down Troy Davis' last appeal. But, as the early docket indicates, they won't be able to stay quiet for long on the legal issues he raised, at home and around the world -- the ones that didn't die with him, that is.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...y-term/245581/

  3. #3
    Banned TheKindExecutioner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,277
    There are 4 Dems on the SC and they ALL favored Troy Davis' execution and rejected his last minute stay request! WOW!

  4. #4
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    I get the distinct impression that all four Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court are personally opposed to capital punishment and will not hesitate to chisel away at the death penalty in cases where the federal circuit courts disagree. Having said that, they do still uphold the overwhelming majority of death sentences that come before them by simply denying certiorari. Moreover, none of them, so far, seems inclined to go as far as Justices Marshall and Brennan did in declaring that the death penalty was inherently unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. What's more, there have also been notable instances in which they have been a part of unanimous decisions overturning clearly erroneous prosecution-adverse capital-case rulings by lower courts (usually the Ninth Circuit). I do think, though, that things may well get hairy for proponents of capital punishment if President Obama gets another Supreme Court appointment.

  5. #5
    Banned TheKindExecutioner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,277
    But President Obama's appointment Sotomayor affirmed Davis' conviction and seems to have affirmed most all death sentences! They are not opposed in principle because if they were they could try and claim some stupid wimpy human rights crap and turn down all exections.

  6. #6
    Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    34
    Big cases await U.S. Supreme Court's 2011-12 term

    Washington (CNN) -- Outlined below are some key cases the Supreme Court is scheduled to tackle in its 2011-12 term, which starts Monday.

    Forty-nine appeals are on the high court's schedule. As many as three dozen more are expected to be added in coming months. The caseload for the term is usually settled by February.

    Other controversial appeals that may yet be added to the high court's docket cover issues related to religious symbols on public land, travel to Cuba and bogus military honors.

    Cases already on the Supreme Court docket:

    TELEVISION INDECENCY: FCC v. Fox Television Stations

    AT ISSUE: Whether the government's current TV indecency enforcement policies violate the free speech and due process rights of broadcasters, over profanity and sexual content.

    THE CASE: Controversial words and images have been aired in scripted and unscripted instances on all the major over-the-air networks in the past eight years, dating to when the FCC began considering a stronger, no-tolerance policy. The changes became known as the Golden Globes Rule, for singer Bono's 2003 acceptance speech at the live awards show on NBC, where he uttered the phrase "really, really, f---ing brilliant."

    THE ARGUMENTS: The high court ruled two years ago in favor of the FCC over "fleeting expletives," but the justices refused at the time to decide whether the policy violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, ruling only on the agency's enforcement power. The justices will now hear the larger constitutional issue after the Justice Department, in its new appeal, lumped both the expletives and nudity cases together.

    THE IMPACT: The TV networks and its supporters have framed this case as a larger free speech dispute that could affect a range of expressive and artistic content. But the Obama administration and parents groups say the broadcast airwaves are a public resource deserving of tough, tight regulation, when networks fail to properly monitor their programming.

    ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE: U.S. v. Jones

    AT ISSUE: Whether the government violated a drug suspect's Fourth Amendment rights by installing a GPS tracking device on his motor vehicle without a valid search warrant and without his consent. Is movement in a private vehicle on city streets "public" in nature?

    THE CASE: The devices send an electronic signal to a satellite, allowing real-time plotting of someone's whereabouts. Jones was suspected of trafficking cocaine, and FBI agents covertly attached a GPS device to his Jeep without first obtaining a search warrant. He was eventually tracked to suburban Maryland, where law enforcement discovered nearly 100 kilograms of the illegal narcotic, along with about $850,000 in cash. He was sentenced to life in prison.

    THE ARGUMENTS: Jones calls his surveillance "Big Brother" intrusion, going far beyond traditional stakeouts and tailing of cars by police. The Justice Department cites a 1983 high court ruling allowing police to place an electronic beeper on a car without a warrant. That device, however, could be tracked only from a short distance. The justices ruled in 2001 that police needed a warrant before using thermal imaging technology to see whether anyone was inside a home.

    THE IMPACT: This is perhaps the most important search and seizure case at the high court in a decade. Growing sophistication of electronic devices to monitor the movements of suspects makes this issue ripe for review, since lower courts have disagreed on when such surveillance is permissible. While this case deals with public areas like roads, sophisticated electronic surveillance in the home may again be the next legal frontier for the Supreme Court.

    PRISON STRIP SEARCHES: Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, New Jersey

    AT ISSUE: A challenge to a New Jersey county's prison rules allowing suspicionless strip searches of everyone arrested for any minor offense, regardless of the circumstances.

    THE CASE: Albert Florence says he was arrested in 2005 for unpaid parking fines, despite having proof that he had paid the money. He tells CNN of then being subjected to a pair of strip and visual body-cavity searches at two correctional facilities, which he calls a "humiliating" experience.

    THE ARGUMENTS: Florence's lawyers say it is unreasonable under the Constitution for jail officials to engage in the "deep intrusion into personal dignity" of a strip search for every single individual, whatever the alleged crime. The state counters that such initial "intake" searches are justified, when applied consistently to every inmate and for proper reasons, including "both health threats and the increasing need to identify gang members upon their entry into the institution."

    THE IMPACT: Lower federal courts have been at odds in the past decade over the limits of these kinds of custody searches.

    DEATH ROW MISTAKE: Maples v. Thomas

    AT ISSUE: Whether a missed deadline to file a key appeal is justification to grant a death row inmate a second chance when the error was not the prisoner's fault and the result would mean a punishment as serious as lethal injection.

    THE CASE: Cory Maples was convicted in the 1995 murder of two companions. On appeal, Maples now claims two lawyers working pro bono for him eventually left their law firm without telling him or the state, leaving confusion over where required paperwork should have been directed. A state judge then refused Maples a chance to refile his appeals.

    THE ARGUMENTS: Maples' current attorney says the criminal justice system has been turned on its head by allowing prisoners to suffer the consequences of their lawyers' mistakes or incompetence. But state attorneys argue that long-established rules on filing often complex paperwork must be strictly enforced to ensure that all parties -- including the courts-- get a proper chance to hear the claims in an orderly fashion.

    THE IMPACT: Among the 34 states with the death penalty, Alabama alone does not automatically give all its 200-plus current capital inmates taxpayer-funded legal assistance to file papers challenging their convictions, sentences and lethal punishment. Big law firms often step in and tackle the long and expensive appeals process. This is another case in which the high court will examine the procedural aspects of capital punishment and whether death row inmates are being given a full and fair chance to press their post-conviction claims.

    Cases that may be added to the Supreme Court docket in coming months:

    HEALTH CARE REFORM: Various pending appeals from Virginia, Michigan, Florida and two dozen other states

    AT ISSUE: Whether the sweeping congressional law reforming health care costs and services is an unconstitutional exercise of federal authority, particularly the "individual mandate" section, requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties.

    THE CASE: In 2010, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed -- and President Obama signed -- the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which among its 450 provisions would also expand the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. Twenty-eight states and dozens of private plaintiffs have sued to stop the law's enforcement. Appeals courts have split on its constitutionality, setting up an almost certain Supreme Court review in coming months.

    THE ARGUMENTS: Opponents argue that the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not give government the authority to force Americans to purchase a commercial product like health insurance, which they may not want or need. The states equate such a requirement to a burdensome regulation of "inactivity." The Obama administration counters that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market. Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs from the millions of uninsured people who receive health services, costs that are shifted to insurance companies and passed on to consumers.

    THE IMPACT: An expected election year-ruling will have enormous legal, political and social implications for decades to come and offer a sign of the strength and sweep of the shaky conservative-majority Roberts court.

    GAY MARRIAGE: Various pending appeals from New York and California

    AT ISSUE: Does a voter-approved state initiative defining marriage as only between one man and one woman violate the civil rights of same-sex couples? What happens when state or federal officials refuse to defend such laws?

    THE CASE: Proposition 8 was approved in a California 2008 ballot, setting up a federal lawsuit by various gay couples seeking to wed. State leaders including current Gov. Jerry Brown have refused to defend the law in court, setting up a "gateway" debate over who can defend Proposition 8. A separate appeal deals with the Defense of Marriage Act, a congressional law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages and mandating that states not be forced to recognize such marriages allowed in other states. President Obama ordered the Justice Department in February to cease defending the 1996 law, forcing House Republicans to pick up the legal challenge brought by homosexual individuals in New York and Connecticut.

    THE ARGUMENTS: Beyond the "standing" or jurisdiction issues, the larger constitutional questions have been hotly debated in recent years. A federal judge ruled that the California initiative "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." But the state says such voter-approved measures should be afforded great deference by state leaders and the courts.

    THE IMPACT: Same-sex marriage is currently legal in six states and in the District of Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in at least three other states. Any Supreme Court decision would quickly persuade other states and jurisdictions to act.

    IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: Arizona v. U.S.

    AT ISSUE: Whether states have any authority to step in and enforce immigration matters or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government.

    THE CASE: Arizona passed SB 1070, whose provisions include the requirement local police officers should check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. A federal judge had blocked the law from taking effect while it is under appeal. The law has sparked often-bitter protests and rallies from those on both sides of the issue.

    THE ARGUMENTS: Arizona says it is the nation's busiest illegal entry point, with many people streaming in from neighboring Mexico. They argue that its citizens "bear the brunt of the problems caused by illegal immigration." The Justice Department says federal immigration policy -- as well as America's standing in the world -- would be greatly undermined if individual states adopted their own separate immigration laws.

    THE IMPACT: The issue is one both sides agree requires swift Supreme Court review. In the first half of 2011, state legislatures in all 50 states and Puerto Rico introduced a record number of bills or resolutions relating to immigrants or refugees, according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Through June, states had introduced 1,592 such bills or resolutions, compared with 300 in 2005.

    COLLEGE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary v. Regents of the University of Michigan; Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

    AT ISSUE: Do school- or voter-approved policies on "preferential treatment" at state colleges and universities unconstitutionally favor or burden racial minorities? Do race and gender preferences continue to be a socially necessary step?

    THE CASE: Separate appeals from Michigan and Texas test the admissions policies at these state-sponsored schools.

    THE ARGUMENTS: The current controversy was sparked by earlier Supreme Court decisions. In two cases from 2003 at the University of Michigan, the divided high court said the university's law school could give preferential treatment to minorities -- as one factor in the admissions process -- but could not set quotas or use a point system. The majority said a "narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions" could be a justified compelling interest to ensure a diverse student body.

    THE IMPACT: Efforts over the past seven decades to create a diverse classroom have been controversial. The famous Brown v. Board of Education high court ruling in 1954 ended segregation of public schools but sparked nationwide protests and disobedience by states that initially refused to integrate. The issue in recent years is whether and when affirmative action programs, while constitutionally permissible now, would eventually have to be phased out as the goal of obtaining diversity is met.

    http://us.cnn.com/2011/09/30/justice...html?hpt=ju_c2

  7. #7
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Former Supreme Court Clerk Reveals The Most Stressful Part Of Law's Most Prestigious Gig

    The U.S. Supreme Court justices hand-pick four clerks each every year for what's arguably the most prestigious legal gig out there.

    High court clerks write "bench memos" to fill their justices in on a particular case, discuss cases with them, and even draft opinions that interpret the law for the entire country.

    It's a serious job.

    But perhaps the most intense part of clerking for the high court involved death penalty cases, former Supreme Court clerk Jay Wexler told Business Insider.

    Wexler, who's now a law professor at Boston University, clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsburg back 1998 and 1999, when he was married and worked mostly pretty normal hours.

    However, Wexler worked day and night whenever it was his turn to review last-minute petitions to halt executions and brief Ginsburg, he told BI.

    "The death penalty cases are the ones that keep you in the building the whole day, the whole night," Wexler said. "The death penalty cases go down to the wire all the time."

    The Supreme Court grants a tiny fraction of the petitions it receives to stop executions.

    "It's very, very hard to get an execution stopped at the end, but you have to read the arguments," he said.

    Ginsburg herself has hinted that reviewing death penalty cases is the most painful part of her job, SF Gate reported in September 2011.

    While she hasn't gone as far as to call the death penalty unconstitutional, she told a group of law students that reviewing impending executions was a "dreadful part of the business."

    http://www.businessinsider.com/whats...#ixzz2JyOCrHn4
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  8. #8
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Robert Bork, former Supreme Court nominee, dies

    Robert Bork, former federal judge and Supreme Court nominee, has died, his family confirms to FoxNews.com.

    Family members said Bork, 85, died early Wednesday morning. He had a history of heart problems and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a lung condition.

    His funeral is scheduled for Saturday.

    Bork was among the most polarizing figures in American law and conservative politics for more than four decades. When Bork was solicitor general in 1973, he fired Archibald Cox as a special prosecutor on the order of President Richard Nixon to help in the Watergate cover-up.

    President Ronald Regan nominated Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. In a 58-to-42 vote, the Senate rejected his nomination -- it was by one of the widest margins in U.S. history.

    Republicans have long said his defeat was a completely partisan move and have said Bork was one of the greatest conservative figures in history.

    Bork's grandson, Robert Bork III, recalled fond memories of his grandfather, in an interview with FoxNews.com Wednesday morning.

    "Even in his old age, he was just a great person to talk to. He was open to conversation, and I looked forward to seeing him," he said. "We were planning to see him for Christmas."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2FVk0eUVf
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  9. #9
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Senators Revive Demand to Put the Supreme Court on TV

    The Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts Tuesday took to the airwaves (webcast, that is) to weigh whether Congress should attempt to mandate that the U.S. Supreme Court televise its oral arguments.

    The bipartisan “Cameras in the Courtroom Act” bill was introduced Monday by senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois).

    Proponents say that the real-life consequences of Supreme Court decisions -- the 2000 Presidential election, abortion and death-penalty questions, as well as the upcoming health-care law debate -- demand that the institution provide far more transparency than the mere 250 seats available in the courtroom.

    Grassley said he urged the court to televise its deliberations of Florida recount case that decided the Bush-Gore race via a single justice’s vote. Though the court released audio recordings of its deliberations, Grassley said it was not enough -- especially since the court itself declared in 1947 that it is “public property.”

    Opponents, however, say the Constitution clearly spells out that each branch of government is responsible for its own rules. Also, cameras could adversely affect the behavior of those involved and the court’s ultimate decision.

    Previous attempts to force television cameras on the court have not progressed, and many observers predict the same fate for Grassley and Durbin’s bill.

    Republican Pete Sessions (R-Texas) claims that cameras will “undermine objectivity” and reduce the court’s moral authority.

    Maureen Mahoney, a former deputy solicitor general, cited former Justice David Souter who said cameras in the New Hampshire Supreme Court had led him to censor his questions while causing lawyers to play to the camera. Current Chief Justice John Roberts, said Mahoney, predicted an increase in attorney “grandstanding” if cameras were allowed in the court.

    Judge Anthony Scirica of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit testified that the court already offers lawyer briefs, opinions, transcripts and audio recordings of proceedings in a timely manner.

    But subcommittee Chairperson Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) pointed to Justice William Brennan’s words in a 1980 media access case that “the availability of a [court] transcript is no substitute” for being in the actual room with the justices.

    Former senator and Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter argued that congressional authority “had been eroded by Supreme Court decisions.” He said it was imperative the public have easier access to the court’s deliberations, which have become “ideologically driven at the moment.”

    The highest courts in the U.K. and Canada allow cameras, as do many states, noted Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady. Cady, whose court allows cameras, said he thought such transparency was essential, as a democracy requires a “well informed citizenry.”

    http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-pos...court-tv-33347

  10. #10
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    US top court allows murder retrial after jury deadlock

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a defendant can be retried on murder charges when the jury concludes it was hopelessly deadlocked after earlier telling the judge it voted against guilt on the most serious charges, including one that carries the death penalty.

    By a 6-3 vote, the high court held that the constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same crime did not apply in the case because there had been no official final verdict of acquittal returned by the jury.

    The ruling was a defeat for Alex Blueford, whose murder trial in Arkansas had ended with a deadlocked jury.

    The jury forewoman told the judge the jury voted unanimously against capital murder and first-degree murder. She said the jury was deadlocked on a lesser charge, manslaughter, voting 9-3 to convict, and had not voted on a negligent homicide charge.

    The judge told the jurors to keep deliberating, but they later reported they were hopelessly deadlocked, causing the judge to declare a mistrial.

    Blueford argued the forewoman's statement meant that he had been acquitted on the more serious murder charges. But prosecutors disagreed and said the statement did not mean the jury had returned an official verdict on the two murder charges.

    The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with the prosecutors and ruled Blueford can be retried on the murder as well as the other charges stemming from the death of his girlfriend's 20-month-old son in 2007.

    In the Supreme Court's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled Blueford can be retried, that the foreperson's report was not a final finding of acquittal and that the judge properly declared a mistrial.

    Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. Sotomayor wrote the court ruling wrongly gave prosecutors a "second bite at the apple."

    The Supreme Court case is Blueford v. Arkansas, No. 10-1320.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt...348,full.story
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •