|
|
|
Court: Judges cannot indefinitely delay appeals
Court Line News |
2013/01/09 20:10
|
The Supreme Court says federal judges cannot indefinitely delay a death row inmate's federal appeals to see if the convict can become mentally competent enough to help his lawyer.
The high court unanimously ruled Tuesday against Arizona death row inmate Ernest Gonzales and Ohio death row inmate Sean Carter.
Inmates appealing state death sentences to federal court have a right to a lawyer. But the courts never said whether the inmates have to be mentally competent enough to help their lawyers with their federal appeals. Gonzales and Carter wanted the high court to say that federal judges have discretion to hold up proceedings indefinitely until the inmates are ready.
Justice Clarence Thomas says "at some point, the state must be allowed to defend its judgment of conviction." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another blow for state's anti-eavesdropping law
Court Line News |
2012/11/27 22:23
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered another blow to a 50-year-old anti-eavesdropping law in Illinois, choosing to let stand a lower court finding that key parts of the hotly debated law run counter to constitutional protections of free speech.
In that critical lower-court ruling in May, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law — one of the toughest of its kind in the country — violates the First Amendment when used against those who record police officers doing their jobs in public.
Civil libertarians say the ability to record helps guard against police abuse. The law's proponents, however, say it protects the privacy rights of officers and civilians, as well as ensures that those wielding recording devices don't interfere with urgent police work.
The Illinois Eavesdropping Act, enacted in 1961, makes it a felony for someone to produce an audio recording of a conversation unless all the parties involved agree. It sets a maximum punishment of 15 years in prison if a law enforcement officer is recorded.
As it drew the ire of civil liberties groups, state legislators endeavored to soften the law earlier this year, but those efforts stalled. The high-court's decision could prompt a renewed push to overhaul it.
But state Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a vocal opponent of the law, said court decisions hitting at its constitutionality could effectively nullify the most contentious aspects of the law and make further legislative action unnecessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court won't block early voting in Ohio
Court Line News |
2012/10/19 13:54
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for voters in the
battleground state of Ohio to cast ballots on the three days before
Election Day, giving Democrats and President Barack Obama's campaign a
victory three weeks before the election.
The court refused a request by the state's Republican elections chief
and attorney general to get involved in a battle over early voting.
Ohio is among 34 states, plus the District of Columbia, where people
can vote early without giving any reason. About 30 percent of the
swing state's total vote — or roughly 1.7 million ballots — came in
before Election Day in 2008. Crucial to Obama's win that year was
early voting in Ohio, North Carolina and Florida.
Obama won Ohio four years ago, but Republican rival Mitt Romney is
making a strong play for it this year. No GOP candidate has won the
White House without Ohio in his column.
Obama's campaign and Ohio Democrats had sued state officials over
changes in state law that took away the three days of voting for most
people but made exceptions for military personnel and Ohioans living
overseas.
Their lawsuit cited a recent study saying nearly 105,000 people voted
in the three days before the election in 2008, and they argued
everyone should have the chance to vote on those days. They also said
eliminating the opportunity for most Ohio residents to vote in person
on those days, while giving military or overseas voters the chance to
do so, leads to unequal treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pa. high court revisits juvenile life sentences
Court Line News |
2012/09/12 10:49
|
Pennsylvania's highest court is weighing how to resentence prisoners who were given automatic life sentences as juveniles.
A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling outlaws mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles.
There are nearly 500 juvenile lifers in Pennsylvania, half from Philadelphia.
The state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday morning in a pair of representative cases.
The defendants are Ian Cunningham, serving life for a second-degree murder conviction in Philadelphia, and Qu'Eed Batts, convicted of first-degree murder in Northampton County.
Cunningham's case concerns lifers who have exhausted direct appeals but want to invoke the Supreme Court decision in new filings.
In the Batts case, lawyers will debate what term is appropriate for those sentenced to life without parole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal court rejects GOP-drawn Texas voting maps
Court Line News |
2012/08/29 11:08
|
Stadiums and hospitals removed from the districts of black congressional members and country clubs newly drawn into those of white incumbents. A lawyer emailing "No bueno" to a Republican staffer about plans that risked leaving a paper trail and jeopardizing the legality of a voting map.
Those were among the evidence a Washington federal court used to determine that Texas Republican lawmakers discriminated against minorities while drawing new political boundaries, throwing out the maps as violations of the Voting Rights Act but likely not in time to affect the November elections.
The decision Tuesday by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is instead likely to reverberate in 2014, when some Texans could find their congressional and statehouse districts changed for the third time in five years.
The long-awaited ruling was hailed as a sweeping victory by minority rights groups that sued the state after the Republican-controlled Legislature pushed through new redistricting maps last year. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott called the decision "flawed" and vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge won't halt Pa. voter identification law
Court Line News |
2012/08/17 10:54
|
A Pennsylvania judge isn't stopping a tough new voter identification law from going into effect.
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson on Wednesday refused to grant an injunction that would have halted the law requiring each voter to show a valid photo ID. Opponents are expected to file a prompt appeal to the state Supreme Court as the Nov. 6 presidential election looms.
The law is the subject of a furious debate over voting rights. People challenging it include some who say they'll be unable to vote.
Democrats say the law will make it harder for the elderly, minorities, poor and young adults to vote, and is designed to help Republican challenger Mitt Romney beat Democratic President Barack Obama.
Republicans who control the Legislature and the governor's office say they think it'll prevent voter fraud. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
