El Blog de noticias sobre Derecho Anglo-Americano

El Gertrude Ryan Law Observatory ha creado un espacio dedicado al análisis y comentario de
temas de actualidad en el mundo jurídico de los Estados Unidos, orientado a promover y
fomentar la universalización del Derecho en todas sus áreas


sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2007

The Wall Street Journal: "Regulación federal v. Regulación estatal" ante el Tribunal Supremo

Supreme Court Is BattlegroundIn Pre-Emption Campaigns

By MARK H. ANDERSON
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, set to convene for a new term on Monday, Oct. 1, has become a central battleground in the corporate world's campaign to cut litigation costs by pushing aside state laws and regulations in favor of national standards under federal law.

Known as pre-emption, this class of business cases has long been a staple on the high court's docket. The 2007-2008 is no exception and already includes several pre-emption appeals affecting industries such as prescription drugs, medical devices, tobacco and shipping.

"Pre-emption is the single most important business area on the court's recurring docket," said Mark Levy, Washington-based appellate lawyer with Kilpatrick Stockton. "The federal government today regulates so many industries and so many companies, setting up a pre-emption argument. It affects almost every area of business."

Separately, the court this fall will argue and rule by early 2008 on high-profile cases for Wall Street, such as a major securities liabilities case known as Stoneridge and an appeal on the tax breaks most states give residents who buy in-state municipal bond products.

Two closely watched pre-emption appeals deal with whether Food and Drug Administration regulation of drugs and medical devices bar liability lawsuits under state laws against manufacturers of these products.

Later this year, the justices will hear arguments in a lawsuit against Medtronic Inc. filed by a New York man, Charles Riegel. He was injured when a Medtronic catheter burst during a 1996 angioplasty procedure. In that case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the FDA's regulation of medical devices bars state law tort claims for medical injuries from devices approved by the agency.

A trial court and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both, in rulings favoring Medtronic, threw the case out of court.

A separate case, Warner-Lambert v. Kent, involving Pfizer Inc.'s Warner-Lambert unit was granted by the Supreme Court last Tuesday. The appeal will review a Michigan product liability lawsuit brought by patients who used Rezulin, a diabetes drug removed from the market in 2000.

The high court will decide whether a federal appeals court properly revived the Rezulin lawsuit. The case is alive despite a Michigan law that, like several other states, restricts lawsuits against FDA-approved drugs unless the manufacturer committed fraud.

The justices could decide as early as next week whether to hear the tobacco industry's appeal to dismantle the remaining remnants of a Florida class-action smoker lawsuit. The industry in 2006 won a largely favorable ruling when the Florida Supreme Court refused to reinstate $145 billion in punitive damages that had been thrown out in the case.

The tobacco industry appealed to the Supreme Court, however, to stop the up to 700,000 individuals in the class-action suit from using findings from the extensive trial to bring new cases. The tobacco industry argued, among other things, that Federal Trade Commission regulation of cigarette advertising pre-empted state law claims in the case.

Companies named in the lawsuit include Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc., Brown and Williamson Holdings Inc., a unit of British American Tobacco PLC, Lorillard Tobacco Co., a unit of Loews Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a unit of Reynolds American Inc.

Yet another pre-emption appeal relating to the tobacco industry involves a challenge by trucking companies to a Maine law requiring shipping companies to conduct special handling procedures when delivering tobacco products in the state.

The high court has asked the federal government to comment on two additional pre-emption appeals pending at the court. One case concerns a $6.8 million judgment awarded against Wyeth to a Vermont woman who lost part of her arm after being injected with an anti-nausea drug the company sells. The other case is a U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenge to a California labor law.

Court to Hear Two Wall Street Appeals
Separately, the high court will hear two cases in October and November that are being closely followed on Wall Street.

The first case, Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc., will be heard on Oct. 9 and is one of the most publicized business cases to reach the court in recent years. The appeal raises questions about "scheme liability" cases brought by the plaintiffs' bar and could affect a separate pending case on compensation to shareholders in Enron Corp.
The lawsuit exposed disagreement in the Bush Administration on the appropriate standard for third party liability in securities cases. The Securities and Exchange Commission backed investors in this matter while the U.S. Solicitor General's Office took a business-friendly stance in filings with the high court.

In the Stoneridge appeal, the justices will decide whether third parties, including vendors, accounting firms and law offices, involved in accounting transactions can be held liable for fraud by a company or its officers.

Another important case for Wall Street delves into the tax breaks individual states give to in-state municipal bonds that are purchased by residents. This decision could impact the structure of the $150 billion single-state municipal bonds market. A Kentucky appeals court last year said the state can't exempt in-state municipal bonds from taxation while also subjecting tax-exempt bonds issued by other states to Kentucky taxes.

The high court will look at constitutional commerce issues in determining whether Kentucky, along with 40 other states, can continue favorable tax treatment for in-state products. Kentucky v. Davis will be heard on Nov. 5.

Law Blog WSJ: Iglesias de EEUU celebran misa para bendecir el nuevo término del Tribunal Supremo

Sunday’s Catholic Mass Has a Distinctly Legal Flavor

Posted by Peter Lattman
Some Catholic churches across the country will have a distinctly legal flavor on Sunday. It’s “Red Mass,” a tradition begun in medieval times and resurrected in the U.S. in 1928. In a number of archdioceses, the annual ritual is held on the Sunday before the Supreme Court’s fall session opens to pray for justices, judges and attorneys. Red Mass invokes the Holy Spirit’s guidance in the administration of justice for the coming year. Judges and lawyers of all faiths are invited. (The red, of course, symbolizes the tongues of fire that descended on Jesus’s Apostles.)

With Supreme Court justices in attendance, mass at St. Matthew’s in D.C. (pictured) has received the most attention and engendered some controversy in past years. Recently, homilies have been fairly uncontroversial, making general calls for peace and harmony, according to a 2006 Legal Times story. But in the 1990s “it was not uncommon for a homilist to speak of the rights of unborn children,” wrote Tony Mauro for the Legal Times.

After attending one of the more politically charged sermons years back, Justice Ginsburg reportedly never attended again. Indeed, the LT story quotes an exerpt from a book called “Stars of David” in which Ginsburg said: “Before every session [of the Court], there’s a Red Mass. And the justices get invitations from the cardinal to attend that. And a good number of the justices show up every year. I went one year, and I will never go again, because this sermon was outrageously anti-abortion. Even the Scalias — although they’re very much of that persuasion — were embarrassed for me.”

The Law Blog caught up with Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the D.C. Archdiocese, to get their position on the tradition: “The Red Mass has been held in Washington for more than 50 years and every year we invite all the members of the Court regardless of their faith. And that’s because the mass is about praying for them and their important work.”

viernes, 28 de septiembre de 2007

The Washington Post: Magistrados del Tribunal Supremo se excusan sin dar motivos

Supreme Court Recusals
The justices should explain the reasons when they remove themselves from cases.

Friday, September 28, 2007; Page A18
IN MARCH, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recused himself from what has been billed as the most important securities case to come before the Supreme Court in decades. Last week, he did an about-face, announcing that he will be sitting on the bench when the case of Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta et al. is argued on Oct. 9. Justice Roberts did not explain why he removed himself; nor did he offer an explanation of why he now believes that he can properly participate in the matter. Justice Stephen G. Breyer also recused himself last spring without explanation and remains off the case. This silence is unnecessary and could be counterproductive.

A justice must remove himself from deciding a case if his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." A financial interest or the significant participation of a close family member in a case could serve as triggers. Justices have traditionally declined to elaborate on why they've stepped aside. One reason: a legitimate concern that revealing the cause for a recusal could empower future litigants to manufacture conflicts -- such as hiring the spouse or child of a justice as a lawyer on the case -- to force the removal of a justice who appears philosophically hostile to their arguments.
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

The reason for the recusal of the chief justice and Justice Breyer in the Stoneridge case seems to be routine. As Tony Mauro explained in Legal Times, both justices listed in their 2006 financial disclosure forms an investment of between $50,001 and $100,000 in Cisco Systems, the parent company of Scientific-Atlanta. Mr. Mauro presciently reported that it was likely that one or both of the justices would try to "unrecuse" himself by selling off the Cisco stock.

If stock ownership triggered the recusals, why not say exactly that in a brief contemporaneous statement announcing the recusal -- especially since the ownership or sale of the stock would eventually be revealed in the justices' annual financial disclosure statements?

The court rightly demands absolute secrecy in its deliberations to encourage candid debate and fend off corrupting outside influences. It correctly guards opinions until their official release to prevent unscrupulous parties from using the leaked information for inappropriate gains.

Declining to provide immediate and simple answers to recusal decisions doesn't serve the same lofty public policy goals. Savvy appellate lawyers, many of whom make a career out of arguing cases before the Supreme Court, can easily figure out the unstated reasons for a recusal. Only the public remains in the dark

Editorial de The Washington Post

The Washington Post: Proyecto de ley contra la discriminación laboral por orientación sexual

A Civil Rights Law
Employment discrimination against gays and lesbians should be outlawed.


Friday, September 28, 2007; Page A18
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-Mass.) is set to introduce two versions of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in the House Education and Labor Committee. One would extend civil rights protections based on sexual orientation. The other would do so for gender identity, which would cover transgender people who have changed their sex, are living their lives as the opposite sex or who do not conform to traditional gender roles. This will be done because within the past few days it became clear that an inclusive bill would be defeated because of the transgender protection. Mr. Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, deserves credit for devising the plan that might well save the basic bill.

It requires time and patience to educate the public and lawmakers about how prejudice harms some people. That's what gays and lesbians have been doing in their quest for equality for nearly 40 years. And that's what transgender people will have to do. Delaying passage of ENDA, which was first introduced in the House in the mid-1970s by Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.), until the transgender community changes enough hearts and minds would be a mistake.
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

The last time Congress took up ENDA was in 1996, when it failed to clear the Senate by just one vote. It should have passed then, and it most certainly should pass now. The bill will not give "special rights" to homosexuals, as opponents claim. The reality is ENDA will give homosexuals basic civil rights on a federal level. If the legislation is passed, it would be illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee because of the person's real or perceived sexual orientation. The prohibition would apply to local, state and federal governments, private employers with 15 or more employees, labor unions and employment agencies. Religious institutions and the military would be exempt from the law. Already, 20 states, 276 municipalities (including the District of Columbia) and 433 companies of the Fortune 500 ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Passage of ENDA would send a strong and clear message that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong. Ultimately, those who work hard and play by the rules should not lose their jobs -- or be denied opportunity -- because of who they are.
Editorial de The Washington Post

The Washington Post: EEUU ofrece a 14 encarcelados en Guantánamo la posibilidad de acceder a abogados

U.S. to Allow Key Detainees to Request Lawyers 14 Terrorism Suspects Given Legal Forms at Guantanamo


By Josh White and Joby WarrickWashington Post Staff Writers Friday, September 28, 2007; Page A01

Fourteen "high-value" terrorism suspects who were transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from secret CIA prisons last year have been formally offered the right to request lawyers, a move that could allow them to join other detainees in challenging their status as enemy combatants in a U.S. appellate court.


The move, confirmed by Defense Department officials, will allow the suspects their first contact with anyone other than their captors and representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross since they were taken into custody.

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.


The prisoners, who include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, have not had access to lawyers during their year at Guantanamo Bay or while they were held, for varying lengths of time, at the secret CIA sites abroad. They were entitled to military "personal representatives" to assist them during the administrative process that determined whether they are enemy combatants.


U.S. officials have argued in court papers against granting lawyers access to the high-value detainees without special security rules, fearing that attorney-client conversations could reveal classified elements of the CIA's secret detention program and its controversial interrogation tactics.


Defense officials gave the detainees "Legal Representation Request" forms during the last week of August and the first week of September, and sources familiar with the process said at least four detainees have requested attorneys.


The form, referring to the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, allows the detainees to say whether they "wish to have a civilian lawyer represent me and assist me with filing a petition to challenge the CSRT determination that I am an Enemy Combatant." The Detainee Treatment Act, enacted in late 2005, gives Guantanamo Bay captives the right to challenge their enemy-combatant designations in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The form distributed to the high-value suspects also allows them to request that the American Bar Association "find a lawyer who will represent my best interests, without charge."
William H. Neukom, the association's president, criticized the use of the organization's name on the form, telling government lawyers yesterday that his organization does not want to "lend support and credibility to such an inadequate review scheme."


A Pentagon spokesman said this week that the detainees, like all others at Guantanamo, are provided information on how to request counsel.


"These counsel will be permitted to visit the detainee and engage in confidential written communications with the detainee once the counsel has obtained the necessary security clearance" and agrees to certain special court rules, said Navy Cmdr. J.D. Gordon. One Pentagon official warned that those lawyers will have to undergo especially thorough background checks before they are allowed to see the high-value captives.


Defense and intelligence officials said the decision to allow legal representation does not represent a shift in policy.


"It was the intent and the plan all along that they would have a right to counsel," said a senior intelligence official, who insisted on anonymity because many details of the detention program remain classified. The official said the concerns about protecting sensitive government information apply equally to the 14 men and the approximately 325 other detainees at Guantanamo Bay.


"The goal here is to have the trials open and public to the greatest extent consistent with protecting classified information," the official said.
But lawyers and advocacy groups pressing for legal rights for the detainees contend that there has been a change in tone since last fall, when Justice Department lawyers argued that the detainees might reveal details about their captivity that may "reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage" to national security, according to an Oct. 26 court filing.

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.


One of the 14 special detainees, Majid Khan, 27, who went to high school in the Baltimore area, filled out his form on Sept. 5. He signed the document and added a short handwritten note at the bottom of the page. That note and the fact that the U.S. military had him sign the document have riled defense lawyers who have been attempting to represent Khan for more than a year at the request of his family but who have been denied access to him.


In the note, Khan said that he believes he already has an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights but that he has never received any official correspondence from that lawyer. The lawyer, Gitanjali Gutierrez, said yesterday that she has written Khan letters over the past year that clearly did not reach him.


"Please send me a lawyer or representative who can brief me with my options," Khan wrote, according to a copy of the form provided to The Washington Post by the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Also please, if you can send me basic introduction criminal law books with all law terms, etc. Also I would like to know what has media said about me and full copy of tribunal CSRT about me, which was available on the Internet. (Thanks in advance)."
The government alleges that Khan took orders from Mohammed, and was asked to research how to poison U.S. reservoirs and how to blow up U.S. gas stations.


Gutierrez said she thinks the effort to connect detainees with lawyers is the Defense Department "trying to put some gloss on the idea that this review process is legitimate and the high-value detainees are being given access to the courts."
"Now it's their opportunity to turn it from a gloss to a reality," Gutierrez said. "But we'll see if they come through."


Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


Artículo del The Washington Post

FindLaw News: Supremo de EEUU revisará constitucionalidad de ley estatal que exige presentar DNI con foto para votar.

U.S. Supreme Court will decide constitutionality of voter identity law ahead of 2008 elections

MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer
(AP) - WASHINGTON-The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether voter identification laws unfairly deter the poor and minorities in the United States from voting, stepping into a contentious partisan issue in advance of the 2008 elections.

The justices will hear arguments early next year in a challenge to an Indiana law that requires voters to present photo identification before casting their ballots. The state has defended the law as a way to combat voter fraud.

The state Democratic party and civil rights groups complained that the law unfairly targets poor and minority voters, without any evidence that in-person voter fraud exists in Indiana. The party argued that those voters tend to be Democrats.

Courts have upheld voter identity laws in Arizona and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed a challenge to Georgia's voter identification law, saying the statute does not impose a significant burden on the right to vote.

Election law experts had urged the Supreme Court to take the Indiana case to instruct courts on how to weigh claims of voter fraud versus those of disenfranchisement. "The court better resolve this question before ballots start getting counted" in November 2008," said Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan.

The court is expected to issue a decision by late June, in time for the November 2008 general election.

The Indiana law enacted in 2005 was upheld by a federal judge and by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Before the law's passage, an Indiana voter had only to sign a poll book at the polling place, where a photo copy of the voter's signature was kept on file for comparison.

"The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes," Judge Richard Posner said in his majority opinion.

But in a dissent, Judge Terence Evans said, "Let's not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by folks believed to skew Democratic."

Bill Groth, an attorney who has represented the Indiana Democratic Party in the lawsuit, said he was thrilled that the highest U.S. court will take up the case. He said the appeals court made light of the right to vote in its decision, but the Supreme Court has guarded that right more seriously.

"The court has over and over stressed that the right to vote should be protected, and any state law that burdens that right should be carefully and meticulously reviewed," Groth said.
The voter ID challenge was among 17 new cases accepted by the court in advance of the start of its new term on Monday.

Noticia de FindLaw News

The New York Times: Tribunal Supremo de Alabama suspende ejecución por inyección letal

In Alabama, Rare Delay of Inmate’s Execution

By ADAM NOSSITER
Published: September 28, 2007

In a fresh sign that the use of lethal injection in capital punishment faces an uncertain future, the Supreme Court issued an unusual last-minute reprieve for a death-row inmate in Texas late last night.

Tommy Arthur, 65, an inmate on Alabama’s death row. Although the court gave no reason for its decision, the inmate, Carlton Turner Jr., had appealed to the court after it agreed on Tuesday to consider the constitutionality of lethal injection, the most commonly used method of execution in the United States. The decision suggests that until it issues a ruling on lethal injection, the court may be receptive to requests to delay such executions, at least for defendants whose cases raise no procedural issues.

“It’s an indication that the court believes there are real questions about what states are doing in this area,” said Bryan Stevenson, executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, which opposes executions. “What this signals is that the burden is now shifting to the states to do something about all these problems folks have been talking about.”
The vote on the stay of execution was not announced, but at least five justices needed to support it.


Earlier in the day, another rare stay of an execution came in Alabama, where Gov. Bob Riley said the state would not execute an inmate named Tommy Arthur while it came up with a new formula for lethal injection. State officials said they wanted to make sure prisoners were completely unconscious before they were killed.


The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision is not yet known, but it may interrupt what appears to be emerging as a patchwork, state-by-state response to its decision Tuesday to look at whether lethal injection causes unnecessary suffering.
Some states, even ardent pro-death penalty ones like Alabama, are slowing down. Others, like Texas, had been cruising at full speed; the state executed a prisoner a few hours after the court’s decision on Tuesday and was planning to proceed with its 27th execution of the year last night when the Court intervened. Eleven states have stopped lethal injections altogether, as litigation proceeds.


“It’s going to be a hodgepodge,” said George Kendall, a veteran civil rights lawyer in New York. “Some states will shut down, and in some it will be business as usual.”


All week, Texas officials had maintained that nothing had changed and that executions could proceed. Mr. Turner, 28, of Dallas, was convicted of having fatally shot his adoptive parents in 1998. Another execution is scheduled in the state next week.


Steve Hall, executive director of the StandDown Texas Project, which advocates a moratorium on executions pending a state study, said Tuesday’s execution might have come too soon after the high court’s decision to review lethal injection for the justices to want to intervene in that case. Mr. Hall said he would welcome a stay of all other executions until the court rules on the constitutionality of lethal injection.


The Supreme Court’s decisions this week seemed certain to at least slow the pace, particularly in Southern states. Death penalty lawyers in North Carolina and Virginia, for instance, are already asking for delays both in executions and the development of new procedures for them.
“I think it will hold up quite a few executions,” said Richard C. Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit group opposed to capital punishment.
In Alabama, where politicians rarely challenge the death penalty, the state is developing a “consciousness awareness test” for inmates being executed, but state officials maintained that the action was unconnected to the Supreme Court decision.


“Somebody would come in and do something to assess consciousness, after the anesthesia is delivered,” Assistant Attorney General Clay Crenshaw said. For now, he said, "the consciousness-awareness is being done visually by the warden.”


In a separate case next week, a federal judge in Alabama will hear arguments from two death-row inmates that lethal injection is unconstitutional.


Jeff Emerson, a spokesman for Governor Riley, said the change in injection procedures was not related to that case but to a federal judge’s ruling in Tennessee last week that lethal injection in that state “presents a substantial risk of unnecessary pain,” and could “result in a terrifying, excruciating death.”


The judge halted a scheduled execution in Tennessee. Mr. Emerson said Alabama’s execution procedure was similar to Tennessee’s, and thus needed to be altered.


The cases set to be heard next week in Alabama, filed by two death row inmates, Willie McNair and James Callahan, are similar to the Kentucky case that led to the Supreme Court decision. They argue that the condemned prisoner could suffer during the execution because of improper administration of the chemicals.


Ralph Blumenthal contributed reporting from Houston and Linda Greenhouse from Washington.


Artículo de The New York Times

The New York Times: Justicia federal inicia inusual proceso por delito de "obscenidad".

A Prosecution Tests the Definition of Obscenity


By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: September 28, 2007
PITTSBURGH — Sometime early next year, Karen Fletcher, a 56-year-old recluse living on disability payments, will go on trial in federal court here on obscenity charges for writings distributed on the Internet to about two dozen subscribers.

In an era when pornography has exploded on the Web almost beyond measure, Ms. Fletcher is one of only a handful of people to have been singled out for prosecution on obscenity charges by the Bush administration. She faces six felony counts for operating a Web site called Red Rose, which featured detailed fictional accounts of the molesting, torture and sometimes gruesome murders of children under the age of 10, mostly girls.



How Ms. Fletcher came to be selected for federal prosecution among the countless pornography purveyors is a vivid illustration of the fractured and uncertain state of the enforcement of obscenity law in the nation.

Most prosecutors are generally reluctant to bring obscenity cases, regarding them both as difficult and a diversion of resources better spent on other crimes. Moreover, the explosion of Internet pornography from sources around the world has convinced many law enforcement officials that it is all but impossible to have a significant impact on the issue.


The Fletcher case has been brought by Mary Beth Buchanan, the United States attorney for Western Pennsylvania, who is regarded by many people in the pornography industry and by outside analysts as the government’s most aggressive opponent of the spread of pornography in the nation.


Ms. Buchanan, the 44-year-old daughter of a steelworker who went through law school as a single mother, is disdainful of prosecutors who have avoided taking on obscenity cases. Unlike her counterparts, she said in a recent interview, “I’m not afraid of the challenges, legal or otherwise, here.”


What has attracted the attention of First Amendment scholars and lawyers is that Red Rose — which Ms. Fletcher says is an effort to help her deal with her own pain from child sexual abuse — was composed entirely of text without any images.


Although a narrowly divided Supreme Court said in 1973 that images were not necessary to label a work obscene, there has not been a successful obscenity prosecution in the country that did not involve drawings or photographs since then.


Courts have overturned or blocked convictions connected to other nonillustrated books, including the well-known “Fanny Hill: Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure,” on the basis that sexual images have a fundamentally different impact than words alone.


Prof. Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School, a leading constitutional scholar, said that although the court had not ruled out the possibility that text alone might be obscene, “the idea that the written word alone can be prosecuted pushes to the limit the underlying rationale of the obscenity law.” But Professor Tribe noted that even though the Fletcher case did not involve images, courts might view “patently offensive descriptions of sexual acts with children” as prosecutable under obscenity laws.


About the same time the Fletcher case goes to trial, Ms. Buchanan will be prosecuting a second obscenity trial in the same courthouse involving a large-scale producer of pornographic films called Extreme Associates, based in California. The company’s films depicted women being gang-raped and defecated on.


In addition to those cases, Ms. Buchanan said in the interview that she had several more in the pipeline.


Todd Lochner, an assistant professor at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Ore., who has written about prosecutorial decision-making in obscenity cases, said that Ms. Buchanan had established herself as the nation’s foremost obscenity prosecutor. “I can’t think of anybody who is as aggressive as she is,” Professor Lochner said.


Ms. Buchanan said she selected cases that she hoped would have deterrent effects on other pornographers.


“We want producers to know that these things are not tolerated,” she said. Ms. Buchanan said that the rarity of obscenity prosecutions during the eight years of the Clinton administration meant that the pornography industry had come to believe that law enforcement had tacitly “agreed to an anything-goes approach.”



Professor Lochner said he doubted Ms. Buchanan’s efforts would have much of a deterrent effect because they were so few that pornography producers had come to regard being prosecuted by her or anyone else as “being struck by lightning.”
While pornography by itself is not illegal, it can be prosecuted as obscenity if it fits the definition laid out by the Supreme Court more than 30 years ago. Under that ruling, Miller v. California, a work may be deemed obscene if, taken as a whole, it lacks artistic, literary or scientific merit, depicts certain conduct in a patently offensive manner, and violates contemporary community standards.


Despite stirring anti-pornography speeches by both heads of the Justice Department during the Bush administration — John Ashcroft and, more recently, Alberto R. Gonzales — there have been fewer than two dozen federal obscenity prosecutions that did not also involve charges of child pornography. The making and possession of child pornography, a separate category, has, however, been prosecuted widely. (Ms. Fletcher is not being prosecuted for any violations of the child pornography laws.)


Michael B. Mukasey, the former federal judge nominated to be the new attorney general, has no history of taking a position on the issue of obscenity, said lawyers from both liberal and conservative groups who have researched his record. Ms. Buchanan said the Fletcher Web site and the Extreme Associates videos were “way beyond patently offensive.”


Ms. Fletcher’s lawyers argued that courts should finally declare that text-only works are not obscene. But Judge Joy F. Conti of Federal District Court here ruled on Aug. 30 that a 2005 appellate court victory for Ms. Buchanan in the Extreme Associates case ruled out that possibility. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that trial judges are still obligated to follow long-established obscenity definitions until and unless the Supreme Court explicitly rejects it.


The Fletcher trial is likely to focus on the defense’s main argument, that Ms. Fletcher’s stories, however lurid, have some literary and scientific merit. Lawrence G. Walters, a Florida lawyer who is part of the defense team for Ms. Fletcher, argued in a court pleading that the stories had scientific value because they demonstrated the thinking of child predators.


In an affidavit, Ms. Fletcher described herself as a victim of child sexual abuse and said that writing her stories helped alleviate her torment.


Ms. Fletcher, who lives in Donora, Pa., in a ramshackle house, said she ran away from home at 14. She said she wanted her Web site to be a “safe place for cathartic writing, for people to express themselves and use their own imagery, not to have pictures to potentially excite and be suggestive to readers.”


The indictment, which has the potential for a long prison term, charges Ms. Fletcher with commercial involvement with obscenity because she charged people $10 to join her group. Jerome Mooney, another of her lawyers, argued in court that the fee barely covered her expenses and was imposed only because she believed using a credit card requirement would prevent minors from signing into the site. In the end, only 29 people subscribed, at least one of whom is likely to have been a police informant.


In their brief, the defense lawyers argued that the Fletcher stories, however lurid, were also comparable to many scenes found in literature and television. They cited the 1962 novel “A Clockwork Orange,” by Anthony Burgess, and episodes of the cartoon show “South Park.” They also cited a scene in a 1996 novel by I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, in which a 10-year-old girl is placed in a cage with a bear who forces himself upon her sexually to habituate her to sexual submission.


The lawyers argued that Ms. Fletcher’s stories were no more lurid than the novel by Mr. Libby.



Artículo de The New York Times

The Wall Street Journal: Juez federal critica el actual régimen penal corporativo de Estados Unidos

KPMG Judge Questions Laws,Tactics Used in Corporate Cases

By EVAN PEREZSeptember 28, 2007; Page A6

WASHINGTON -- The federal judge in the case involving allegedly fraudulent tax shelters marketed by KPMG LLP said it may be time to re-examine laws governing corporate criminal liability and the tactics used by prosecutors to investigate those cases.

U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, speaking at a National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers seminar, said the KPMG case and others, such as the government's prosecution of Adelphia Communications Corp. executives, raise questions about the government's practice of using the threat of criminal prosecution of companies in order to gain leverage in investigations of alleged wrongdoing by company employees.

He said the laws appear to give expansive power to prosecutors, lessening the oversight of courts and juries, at the expense of the constitutional rights of those accused. "I question whether placing virtually unchecked power in the hands of any branch of government" is the right thing, Judge Kaplan said.

The judge drew national attention last year when he ruled that prosecutors violated the constitutional rights of KPMG partners when the government pressured the firm to cut off legal fees for some of the defendants, comprising 16 partners and two others charged in what the government touted as its largest-ever tax-fraud case. In July, Judge Kaplan dismissed charges against 13 defendants. Justice Department officials next month are expected to file an appeal of the ruling.

The Justice Department denies its tactics were unconstitutional, but the ruling helped prompt an overhaul in the department's guidelines for white-collar cases. The department's McNulty memorandum, named for former Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, who oversaw the changes, was supposed to provide more oversight of prosecutors and, lawyers hoped, cut down on the practice of pushing companies to waive attorney-client privilege in order to aid investigations.

With the Justice Department on the defensive on various issues related to the tenure of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Congress has started work on possible changes to aspects of the McNulty memo. Judge Kaplan, in response to a question, said he didn't believe the McNulty memo changed "a whole lot," but said proposed legislation to alter Justice guidelines may not be enough.

Judge Kaplan's appearance yesterday at the defense-lawyers event, given that he continues to hear the KPMG case, raised eyebrows among some lawyers in attendance. In 2001, an appeals court reprimanded a judge handling a case involving Microsoft Corp. for making comments to reporters away from the bench.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney of the Southern District of New York, which is overseeing the KPMG case, declined to comment.

Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor, said Judge Kaplan's comments mirrored those already being raised by "serious legal commentators" and bear more discussion. John Moscow, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney's office turned defense attorney at Baker Hostetler, who didn't hear the judge's speech but has followed the issue, doubted the government would make any attempt to remove Judge Kaplan from the KPMG case or to use his comments to bolster its appeal of the judge's ruling.

--Paul Davies contributed to this article.
Write to Evan Perez at evan.perez@wsj.com

jueves, 27 de septiembre de 2007

The Wall Street Journal: Sobreoferta de profesionales de Derecho en Estados Unidos


Hard Case: Job Market Wanes for U.S. Lawyers
Growth of Legal SectorLags Broader Economy;Law Schools Proliferate
By AMIR EFRATISeptember 24, 2007; Page A1



A law degree isn't necessarily a license to print money these days.

For graduates of elite law schools, prospects have never been better. Big law firms this year boosted their starting salaries to as high as $160,000. But the majority of law-school graduates are suffering from a supply-and-demand imbalance that's suppressing pay and job growth. The result: Graduates who don't score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can exceed $100,000. Some are taking temporary contract work, reviewing documents for as little as $20 an hour, without benefits. And many are blaming their law schools for failing to warn them about the dark side of the job market.


The law degree that Scott Bullock gained in 2005 from Seton Hall University -- where he says he ranked in the top third of his class -- is a "waste," he says. Some former high-school friends are earning considerably more as plumbers and electricians than the $50,000-a-year Mr. Bullock is making as a personal-injury attorney in Manhattan. To boot, he is paying off $118,000 in law-school debt.

"Unfortunately, some find the practice of law is not for them," Seton Hall's associate dean, Kathleen Boozang, said through a spokeswoman. "However, it is our experience that a legal education is a tremendous asset for a variety of professional paths."
A slack in demand appears to be part of the problem. The legal sector, after more than tripling in inflation-adjusted growth between 1970 and 1987, has grown at an average annual inflation-adjusted rate of 1.2% since 1988, or less than half as fast as the broader economy, according to Commerce Department data.

Some practice areas have declined in recent years: Personal-injury and medical-malpractice cases have been undercut by state laws limiting class-action suits, out-of-state plaintiffs and payouts on damages. Securities class-action litigation has declined in part because of a buoyant stock market.


On the supply end, more lawyers are entering the work force, thanks in part to the accreditation of new law schools and an influx of applicants after the dot-com implosion earlier this decade. In the 2005-06 academic year, 43,883 Juris Doctor degrees were awarded, up from 37,909 for 2001-02, according to the American Bar Association. Universities are starting up more law schools in part for prestige but also because they are money makers. Costs are low compared with other graduate schools and classrooms can be large. Since 1995, the number of ABA-accredited schools increased by 11%, to 196.


Evidence of a squeezed market among the majority of private lawyers in the U.S., who work as sole practitioners or at small firms, is growing. A survey of about 650 Chicago lawyers published in the 2005 book "Urban Lawyers" found that between 1975 and 1995 the inflation-adjusted average income of the top 25% of earners, generally big-firm lawyers, grew by 22% -- while income for the other 75% actually dropped.


According to the Internal Revenue Service, the inflation-adjusted average income of sole practitioners has been flat since the mid-1980s. A recent survey showed that out of nearly 600 lawyers at firms of 10 lawyers or fewer in Indiana, wages for the majority only kept pace with inflation or dropped in real terms over the past five years.

The news isn't any better for the 14% of new lawyers who go into government or join public-interest firms. Inflation-adjusted starting salaries for graduates who go to work for public-interest firms or the government rose 4% and 8.6%, respectively, between 1994 and 2006, according to the National Association for Law Placement, which aggregates graduate surveys from law schools. That compares with at least an 11% jump in the median family income during the same period, according to the Census Bureau. Graduates who become in-house company lawyers, about 9%, have fared better: Their salaries rose by nearly 14% during the same period.
Many students "simply cannot earn enough income after graduation to support the debt they incur," wrote Richard Matasar, dean of New York Law School, in 2005, concluding that, "We may be reaching the end of a golden era for law schools."

Meanwhile, the prospects for big-firm lawyers are growing richer. While offering robust minimum salaries, those firms are paying astronomical amounts to their stars.

Now, debate is intensifying among law-school academics over the integrity of law schools' marketing campaigns. Defenders argue that the legal profession always has been openly and proudly a meritocracy: Top entrance-exam scores help win admittance to top schools where top students win jobs at top firms. Even the system that is used to issue law-school grades -- a curve that pits student against student -- reflects the law profession's competitiveness.

David Burcham, dean of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, considered second-tier, says the school makes no guarantees to students that they will obtain jobs. He says it is problematic that big firms only interview the top of the class, "but that's the nature of the employment market; it's never been different."

For the majority of students and alumni, he says, Loyola "turned out to be a good investment."
Yet economic data suggest that prospects have grown bleaker for all but the top students, and now a number of law-school professors are calling for the distribution of more-accurate employment information. Incoming students are "mesmerized by what's happening in big firms, but clueless about what's going on in the bottom half of the profession," says Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles who has studied the legal job market.
"Prospective students need solid comparative data on employment outcomes, [but] very few law schools provide such data," adds Andrew Morriss, a law professor at the University of Illinois who has studied the market for new lawyers.

Students entering law school have little way of knowing how tight a job market they might face. The only employment data that many prospective students see comes from school-promoted surveys that provide a far-from-complete portrait of graduate experiences. Tulane University, for example, reports to U.S. News & World Report magazine, which publishes widely watched annual law-school rankings, that its law-school graduates entering the job market in 2005 had a median salary of $135,000. But that is based on a survey that only 24% of that year's graduates completed, and those who did so likely represent the cream of the class, a Tulane official concedes.

On its Web site, the school currently reports an average starting salary of $96,356 for graduates in private practice but doesn't include what percentage of graduates reported salaries for the survey.

"It's within most individuals' nature to keep that information private, unless it's a high amount," says Carlos Dávila-Caballero, assistant dean for career development at Tulane, who adds that his office tells prospective students to use the median figure as a guide because starting salaries vary widely.

Academics who have studied new-lawyer salaries say that the graduate surveys of many law schools are skewed by higher response rates from the most successful students. The National Association for Law Placement, which aggregates and publishes national data based on those surveys, concedes that it can't vouch for their accuracy. "We can't validate the figures; we have to rely on schools to report to us accurately," says Judy Collins, NALP's director of research.
A prospective student studying NALP data might conclude that the study of law is a sure path to financial security. For 2006 graduates who entered private practice, or nearly 60%, NALP shows a national median salary of $95,000, a rise of 40%, adjusted for inflation, from 1994 graduates.

The NALP data also show that the percentage of graduates employed in private practice has been steady, fluctuating between 55% and 58% for more than a decade. But in law schools' self-published employment data, "private practice" doesn't necessarily mean jobs that improve long-term career prospects, for that category can include lawyers working under contract without benefits, such as Israel Meth. A 2005 graduate of Brooklyn Law School, he earns about $30 an hour as a contract attorney reviewing legal documents for big firms. He says he uses 60% of his paycheck to pay off student loans -- $100,000 for law school on top of $100,000 for the bachelor's degree he received from Columbia University.

A glossy admissions brochure for Brooklyn Law School, considered second-tier, reports a median salary for recent graduates at law firms of well above $100,000. But that figure doesn't reflect all incomes of graduates at firms; fewer than half of graduates at firms responded to the survey, the school reported to U.S. News. On its Web site, the school reports that 41% of last year's graduates work for firms of more than 100 lawyers, but it fails to mention that that percentage includes temporary attorneys, often working for hourly wages without benefits, Joan King, director of the school's career center, concedes.

Ms. King says she believes the figures for her school accurately represent the broader graduating class. She says the number of contract attorneys is "minimal" but declined to give a number.

The University of Richmond School of Law in the last couple of years started to be more open about its employment statistics; it now breaks out how many of its grads work as contract attorneys. Of 57 2006 graduates working in private practice, for example, seven were contract employees nine months after graduation. Schools "should be sharing more information than they are now," says Joshua Burstein, associate dean for career services who put the changes in place. "Most people graduating from law school," he says, "are not going to be earning big salaries."

Adding to the burden for young lawyers: Tuition growth at law schools has almost tripled the rate of inflation over the past 20 years, leading to higher debt for students and making starting salaries for most graduates less manageable, especially in expensive cities. Graduates in 2006 of public and private law schools had borrowed an average of $54,509 and $83,181, up 17% and 18.6%, respectively, from the amount borrowed by 2002 graduates, according to the American Bar Association.


Students taking on such debt may feel reassured by incessant press reports of big firms scrambling to hire and keep associates. Making headlines this year was a bump up in big-firm starting salaries to $160,000 from $145,000 in many cities.

And indeed, some law graduates of lower-tier schools do find high-paying private-practice law jobs. In recent years big firms have boomed thanks in part to the globalization of business and Wall Street deal making; firms have been casting a wider net for new lawyers, though they still generally restrict their recruiting at lower-tier schools to students at the very top of the class or on the law review. Some students have leads on a job at a family member's or friend's practice.
But just as common -- and much less publicized -- are experiences such as that of Sue Clark, who this year received her degree from second-tier Chicago-Kent College of Law, one of six law schools in the Chicago area. Despite graduating near the top half of her class, she has been unable to find a job and is doing temp work "essentially as a paralegal," she says. "A lot of people, including myself, feel frustrated about the lack of jobs," she says.

Harold Krent, Chicago-Kent's dean, said it's not uncommon for new lawyers to wait a few months to more than a year to find a job that's a good fit. He added that there is a "small spike" in employment after his school's grads receive their bar-exam results, several months after graduation, because some firms wait until then before hiring.

The market is particularly tough in big cities that boast numerous law schools. Mike Altmann, 29, a graduate of New York University who went to Brooklyn Law School, says he accumulated $130,000 in student-loan debt and graduated in 2002 with no meaningful employment opportunities -- one offer was a $33,000 job with no benefits. So Mr. Altmann became a contract attorney, reviewing electronic documents for big firms for around $20 to $30 an hour, and hasn't been able to find higher-paying work since.

Some un- or underemployed grads are seeking consolation online, where blogs and discussion boards have created venues for shared commiseration that didn't exist before. An anonymous writer called Loyola 2L, purportedly a student at Loyola Law School, who claims the school wasn't straight about employment prospects, has been beating a drum of discontent around the Web in the past year that's sparked thousands of responses, and a fan base. ("2L" stands for second-year law student.) Some thank "L2L" for articulating their plight; others claim L2L should complain less and work more. Loyola's Dean Burcham says he wishes he knew who the student was so he could help the person. "It's expensive to go to law school, and there are times when you second-guess yourself as a student," he says.

Some new lawyers try to hang their own shingle. Matthew Fox Curl graduated in 2004 from second-tier University of Houston in the bottom quarter of his class. After months of job hunting, he took his first job working for a sole practitioner focused on personal injury in the Houston area and made $32,000 in his first year. He quickly found that tort-reform legislation has been "brutal" to Texas plaintiffs' lawyers and last year left the firm to open up his own criminal-defense private practice.

He's making less money than at his last job and has thought about moving back to his parents' house. "I didn't think three years out I'd be uninsured, thinking it's a great day when a crackhead brings me $500."


--Mark Whitehouse contributed to this article.
Write to Amir Efrati at amir.efrati@wsj.com



Artículo del The Wall Street Journal

Grabación de la audiencia oral del caso: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

Oyez.org pone a disponibilidad del público la grabación del alegato oral del polémico caso Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. En dicho proceso los magistrados del Tribunal Supremo declararon inválida la política de integración racial adoptada por centros educativos de Seattle y Louisville.

La grabación se encuentra disponible en:

The New York Times: Juez americano declara inconstitucionales ciertas disposiciones de la Patriot Act

Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal

By SUSAN JO KELLER
Published: September 27, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that crucial parts of the USA Patriot Act were not constitutional because they allowed federal surveillance and searches of Americans without demonstrating probable cause.

The ruling by Judge Anne L. Aiken of Federal District Court in Portland was in the case of Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer in Portland who was arrested and jailed after the Federal Bureau of Investigation mistakenly linked him to the Madrid train bombings in March 2004.

“For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success,” Judge Aiken’s opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. “A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised.”

The ruling is a new chapter in a legal battle that began after the Spanish police found a plastic bag with detonator caps in a van near the bombings, which killed 191 people and left 2,000 injured in the deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since World War II.

Initially, the F.B.I. found no match for the fingerprints. But after reviewing a digitally enhanced set of the prints, the agency identified 20 possible matches, including Mr. Mayfield.

Though Spanish officials had doubts about the match, federal agents began surveillance on him and his family, using expanded powers under the Patriot Act. Mr. Mayfield was jailed for two weeks before a federal judge threw out the case.

Mr. Mayfield, 38, who was born in Oregon and brought up in a small town in Kansas, converted to Islam in 1989. He was a lawyer in a child custody case for Jeffrey Leon Battle, who had been convicted of conspiring to aid the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Mr. Mayfield said his religion and legal work had led investigators to be overzealous in connecting him to the Madrid plot.

Mr. Mayfield sued the government, which apologized and agreed to a $2 million settlement last November. The settlement included an unusual condition that freed the government from future liability with one exception. Mr. Mayfield was allowed to continue a suit seeking to overturn parts of the Patriot Act.

It was that suit on which Judge Aiken ruled Wednesday. Her opinion said the court recognized that “a difficult balance must be struck in a manner that preserves the peace and security of our nation while at the same time preserving the constitutional rights and civil liberties of all Americans.”

In examining the history of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, the opinion discussed a change by Congress in October 2001, under the Patriot Act, that allows surveillance and searches if the government declares that “a significant purpose” of that activity is gathering foreign intelligence. In the past, such searches and surveillance had been allowed if “the purpose” was to obtain foreign intelligence.
Congress’s intent, the opinion said, was “to break down barriers between criminal law enforcement and intelligence gathering.” Judge Aiken said a practical effect of “a seemingly minor change in wording” was to allow the government to avoid the constitutional probable cause requirement.

“In place of the Fourth Amendment,” the judge wrote, “the people are expected to defer to the Executive Branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate.”

She said the government was “asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning.”

A spokesman for the Justice Department, Peter Carr, said it was reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.

A lawyer for Mr. Mayfield, Elden Rosenthal, issued a statement on his behalf saying that Judge Aiken “has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence and our nation’s most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one’s own home.”


Artículo del The New York Times

FindLaw News: La justicia tejana lleva a cabo ejecución por inyección letal

Texas executes another inmate despite sweeping Supreme Court review of lethal injections
MICHAEL GRACZYK Associated Press Writer

(AP) - HUNTSVILLE, Texas-America's busiest death penalty state executed another inmate, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would review whether the lethal injection method most states use is cruel and unusual.

Michael Richard, 49, was put to death Tuesday for the 1986 shooting of Marguerite Lucille Dixon, a 53-year-old nurse and mother of seven. Richard had been released from his second prison term eight weeks before Dixon was raped and killed inside her home.
news230();

Asked if he'd like to make a final statement, Richard said, "I'd like my family to take care of each other. I love you, Angel. Let's ride."

Another execution, the 27th in Texas this year, remained scheduled for Thursday, and officials said Tuesday's announcement by the U.S. Supreme Court would not affect the state's execution docket.

"We will go forward with our interpretation of the law," Gov. Rick Perry said.
After the Supreme Court's announcement, Richard's attorneys asked the justices to halt his execution in the meantime, but the court rejected that appeal.

Ten of the 37 states that use the three-drug cocktail under review by the Supreme Court have suspended its use after opponents alleged it was ineffective and cruel, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. But Texas is unlikely to halt lethal injections unless the Supreme Court issues a blanket stay.

"We are monitoring this, but until the court rules or gives direction, nothing changes from our perspective," said Allison Castle, a Perry spokeswoman.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott declined to comment.

If the three-drug cocktail were outlawed, it would not be the first time Texas adapted to changing rules on how to humanely execute inmates. Criminals who committed capital crimes died by hanging in Texas from 1819 to 1923, said Jason Clark, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

On Feb. 8, 1924, the state executed five people in the electric chair, the method it would use to kill 361 inmates through 1964.

Richard was convicted and sentenced to death in 1987. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals threw out his conviction in 1992 because jurors were not allowed to consider evidence that Richard had been abused as a child. In 1995, a second jury convicted him and sentenced him to die.
At least one psychological assessment put his IQ at 64, with 70 considered the threshold of retardation.

The U.S. Supreme Court turned down requests to halt the execution because of claims Richard was mentally retarded. Attorneys then asked for a reprieve because the court had decided to consider the lethal injection matter, but almost two hours later, the justices rejected the appeal.
---
Associated Press writers Jeff Carlton and Anabelle Garay in Dallas contributed to this report.2007-09-26T01:57:09Z

Publicado por FindLaw News

SCOTUSblog: Sigue la polémica judicial sobre Guantánamo

Detainees seek to block rehearing


Seeking to head off another round in the lower courts before the dispute goes on to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees argued that the D.C. Circuit Court has no need to re-examine the procedures it has laid down for civilian review of the prisoners' challenges to their long-term military captivity. The Bush Administration has asked for rehearing en banc of a July 20 Circuit Court panel decision on Detainee Treatment Act procedures, and told detainees' lawyers to respond. The opposition motion, filed Wednesday, can be found here. The combined cases are Bismullah v. Gates (06-1197) and Parhat v. Gates (06-1397).

To the Administration claim that providing full information about each detainees' status would pose major burdens, the detainees' counsel countered that it was Congress that imposed the requirement for court review of that information, and the Circuit Court "lacks the power to excuse the government from the burden of judicial review." Citing constitutional separation of powers doctrine, the detainees' brief said that "if a problem exists at all, it is for Congress, not the Court, to address."

And to the Administration claim, bolstered by strong statements from the top rank of intelligence officials, that forced disclosure of much of the information about detainees would imperil national security, the detainees' lawyers responded that the Circuit Court has already adopted a "protective order" that will assure confidentiality where needed. "There is no basis for en banc review, certainly not before the Court's safeguards have even to be tested," the brief asserted. Moreover, it added, detainees' lawyers already have higher security clearances than some of the civilian contractors who helped compile information for use against detainees.
The government has told the Circuit Court that, if rehearing is denied, it would then take this controversy on to the Supreme Court, seeking expedited review.

At the heart of this controversy are the roles of two institutions -- Combatant Status Review Tribunals, set up by the Pentagon to review whether detainees should be designated as "enemy combatants" and thus could not be released from custody, and the D.C. Circuit, given the assignment by Congress to review detainees' challenges to CSRT decisions. The government wants the D.C. Circuit's role to be significantly narrower than the Circuit Court has now decreed, and especially wants to be requried only to supply for judicial review what was actually put before the CSRTs to make their findings about detainee status.

The government has suggested that the Circuit Court's July 20 mandate, requiring disclosure to the Court and, to some degree, to detainees' lawyers, of all government information bearing upon a given detainee, is based on a flawed perception that the data is all kept in one easily reached file box when in fact it is spread widely over many federal agencies. The detainees retorted on Wednesday with their own metaphor: "The government and [the intelligence officials] act as though the Court has ordered a search of the Library of Congress, book by book, as if there were no card catalogue." In fact, the detainees' counsel said, there are many paper files at Guantanamo Bay, and there are other sites that detainees' counsel have pointed out to help the government search. The government, the lawyers argued, "simply advocates a rule that would ensure that the Court never learns" of what the government has about detainees.

The Circuit Court has ten active judges now. It would take the votes of at least six of them to grant rehearing en banc. The Circuit Court could act on the government request at any time; the government does not have a right to reply to the detainees' answer.

In another development on detainees, lawyers for a group that may include as many as 40 prisoners asked U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on Wednesday to reconsider his ruling last week ordering the dismissal of all of those habeas cases. In the motion, detainees' counsel argued that the Supreme Court's agreement to hear two detainee cases has put everything on hold, and that Judge Urbina thus lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the cases. The motion can be found here.

Among other reasons the detainees' lawyers want those cases kept intact for the time being is that their dismissal may scuttle court orders giving the lawyers access to their clients at Guantanamo Bay.

Fuente: SCOTUSblog