supreme court Archives

Parkland shooter’s life sentence could bring changes to law

Posted on October 19, 2022October 19, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter Nikolas Cruz is escorted into the courtroom for a hearing regarding possible jury misconduct during deliberations in the penalty phase of his trial, Friday, Oct. 14, 2022, at the Broward County Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (Amy Beth Bennett/South Florida Sun Sentinel via AP, Pool)

Amy Beth Bennett

AP

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.

It wasn’t long ago that Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz would have been looking at a near-certain death sentence for murdering 17 people in Parkland, even if his jury could not unanimously agree on his fate.

Until 2016, Florida law allowed trial judges to impose a death sentence if a majority of the jurors agreed. With a 9-3 vote Thursday supporting Cruz’s execution, Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer would have likely sent him to Death Row for the 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High.

Now, however, a vote of anything less than 12-0 means an automatic sentence of life without parole — a standard the Stoneman Douglas families and the head of the state’s prosecutors association want changed. That would again put Florida in a distinct minority among the 27 states that still have the death penalty where almost all require juror unanimity.

Ed Brodsky, president of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, believes the Legislature will next year consider changing the law it passed after a pair of court decisions rejected the old law.

“When there is an overwhelmingly majority and sentiment about what the ultimate penalty should be, should one minority voice be able to dominate and hijack justice?” said Brodsky, the elected state attorney for Sarasota County and its neighbors.

Gov. Ron DeSantis at a Friday press conference criticized the sentence, but wouldn’t specify what changes he would support.

“We need to do some reforms to be better serving victims

… Read the rest

Alabama inmate endured ‘torture’ during execution attempt, attorneys say

Posted on October 14, 2022October 14, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

MONTGOMERY, Ala — An Alabama inmate said prison staff poked him with needles for over an hour as they tried to find a vein during an aborted lethal injection last month. At one point, they left him hanging vertically on a gurney before state officials made the decision to call off the execution.

Attorneys for 57-year-old Alan Eugene Miller wrote about his experience during Alabama’s Sept. 22 execution attempt in a court filing made last week. Miller’s attorneys are trying to block the state from trying a second lethal injection.

Two men in scrubs used needles to repeatedly probe Miller’s arms, legs, feet and hands, at one point using a cell phone flashlight to help their search for a vein, according to the Oct. 6 court filings. The attorneys called Miller the “only living execution survivor in the United States” and said Alabama subjected Miller “to precisely the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain that the Eighth Amendment was intended to prohibit.”

Alabama has asked the state Supreme Court to set a new execution date for Miller, saying the execution was canceled only because of a time issue as the state faced a midnight deadline to get the lethal injection underway.

“Despite this failed execution, the physical and mental torture it inflicted upon Mr. Miller, and the fact that the Defendants have now botched three lethal injection executions in just four years, Defendants relentlessly seek to execute Mr. Miller again—presumably by lethal injection,” attorneys for Miller wrote, referencing an execution that was canceled and another that took three hours to get underway.

“What then, in Defendants’ view, is a constitutional amount of time to spend stabbing someone with needles in an attempt to kill them?” his attorneys wrote.

The 351-pound inmate testified in an earlier court hearing that medical

… Read the rest

New abortion protections, legal services coming to CT

Posted on October 14, 2022October 14, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

HARTFORD — A network of volunteer private attorneys will help provide free legal guidance to both in-state and non-residents seeking access to abortion and other reproductive services under Connecticut’s “safe harbor“ law, Attorney General William Tong announced on Tuesday.

Tong, in a news conference in the State Office Building with about 30 advocates and lawmakers, said last spring’s US Supreme Court decision overturning 50 years of national abortion rights has changed the legal landscape in many ways, some of which might not be known until time passes and elections are decided.

Promising to “build a firewall” against the nationwide conservative campaign to prohibit reproductive rights, Tong will also appoint a new special counsel for reproductive rights in his office’s Civil Rights Unit to safeguard abortion access and reproductive care in Connecticut and nationwide.

“This is about law enforcement,” Tong said. “Enforcing the law of the state of Connecticut, right? And we’re going to put muscle behind that law enforcement, making sure that patients and providers are protected. Today is about making sure what our priorities are.”

Safety, access, affordability and protecting patients from prosecution, civil suits and professional sanctions are the main goals, in addition to a shopping list of possible legislation for the next General Assembly, especially targeting the high mortality rate for Black women in Connecticut, as well as deceptive advertising for so-called crisis pregnancy centres, advocates said.

The Connecticut-based lawyers will join a New York State advice system already in place at 212-899-5567. “It is an army of lawyers,” Tong said, crediting New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Abused women who want to assure their personal privacy, students and foreign-born women elements of the state’s law and other women in a variety of circumstances were encouraged to use the hotline, which will supplement the

… Read the rest

Roanoke lawyer calls for renaming federal building after civil rights attorney

Posted on October 13, 2022October 13, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

Attorney John Fishwick and Rev. Edward Burton campaign to rename the Poff federal building after civil rights lawyer Reuben E. Lawson during a news conference Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2022, in Roanoke.

Scott P. Yates

A prominent lawyer is calling for changing the name of Roanoke’s federal courthouse, which commemorates the late Richard H. Poff, a US Congressman who once supported segregation.

The building should be renamed in honor of Reuben E. Lawson, a civil rights attorney who fought for the very racial integration of schools that was opposed by Poff in the 1950s and 1960s, Roanoke attorney John Fishwick said.

“A federal courthouse is where our citizens go to vindicate their rights,” Fishwick said at a news conference Tuesday, “and it should be named after someone who reflected that principle.”

In a letter Monday to Southwest Virginia’s Congressional delegation — Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner and Republican Reps. Ben Cline and Morgan Griffith — Fishwick asked them to propose legislation to recognize “one of Roanoke’s undeservedly forgotten legal titans.”

Lawson was a Black attorney who filed the region’s first desegregation lawsuit in 1960, which led to a federal judge ordering Floyd County Public Schools to admit 13 students who had been excluded from the all-white student population, the letter stated.

Similar legal challenges followed in Roanoke and Lynchburg and the counties of Grayson, Pulaski and Roanoke. Together, the cases put an end to segregation in Southwest Virginia that was still carried out in the years following the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1954.

“Though quiet and soft-spoken, Mr. Lawson worked tirelessly and passionately for social justice,” the letter stated.

Although a number of public schools and other buildings named after Confederate generals have

… Read the rest

Delaware AG asking state Supreme Court to overturn vote-by-mail law

Posted on October 13, 2022October 13, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

Delaware’s Democratic attorney general is asking the state Supreme Court to overturn a judge’s ruling declaring a new vote-by-mail law unconstitutional and prohibiting voting by mail in the upcoming November election.

The justices heard arguments Thursday in a lawsuit challenging both the vote-by-mail law and another new law allowing same-day registration.

Vice Chancellor Nathan Cook last month upheld the same-day registration law. But he said the vote-by-mail law, the result of legislation Democrats rammed through the General Assembly in less than three weeks, violates restrictions on absentee voting in Delaware’s constitution.

Attorney General Kathleen Jennings appealed the ruling striking down the vote-by-mail law. Republican representing attorneys voters, a state House candidate and a Department of Elections employee appealed Cook’s decision upholding the same-day registration.

DELAWARE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS TO DECIDE IF STATE AUDITOR DESERVES A CHANCE AT RE-ELECTION IN NOVEMBER

Attorneys representing state elections officials argue that the General Assembly has broad powers to enact voting laws. Chief Deputy Attorney General Alexander Mackler also argued Thursday that opponents have no standing to challenge either law because they have not demonstrated any specific injury or any particular interest not shared by others.

The attorney general in Delaware is asking the state Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that declared the new vote-by-mail law to be unconstitutional.
(Fox News)

“These plaintiffs are not legally injured. They are politically aggrieved,” Mackler said. “They have a policy disagreement with the legislature that they want this court to legitimize.”

Justice Gary Traynor pushed back on Mackler’s assertion, asking why a candidate who wants to ensure that an election complies with Delaware’s constitution would not be allowed to challenge “a statute that arguably is in violation of the constitution.”

Justice Karen Valihura raised similar concerns.

“If people vote who are not entitled to vote,

… Read the rest

SC Supreme Court upholds civil asset forfeiture law, urges legislative reform |

Posted on September 30, 2022September 30, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the state’s civil forfeiture law in an order issued Sept. 14 but acknowledged the state Legislature could decide to change the law to make it more fair to those who’ve had possessions reserved by law enforcement.

The decision comes more than 20 months after the court heard oral arguments in a case that presented a constitutional challenge to the state law. The court ruled the case did not meet the high bar to strike down the state law.

“Several states have amended their statutory schemes to impose more stringent requirements on the government; however, the fact that certain states have legislatively altered their civil forfeiture laws provides no support for judicially changing ours,” the order said. “Legislative alteration might be a good thing, but we are not called upon to decide whether a change in the law would be wise.”

The case originated out of the 15th Circuit Solicitor’s Office in Horry County following the seizure of nearly $20,000 in 2017 from Travis Lee Green, a convicted Myrtle Beach drug dealer. Fifteenth Circuit Court Judge Stephen John placed a stay on all forfeiture cases in the circuit, asked for arguments for and against the constitutionality of the state’s law and then ruled the state law violated both the state and US constitutions.

The solicitor’s office appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the circuit court for a jury trial on the merits of Green’s forfeiture case.

The challenge drew attention from state and national advocates against forfeiture laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union, SC Appleseed Legal Justice Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Police Accountability Project. Attorney General Alan Wilson wrote an argument in favor of the

… Read the rest

SC Supreme Court upholds civil asset forfeiture law, urges legislative reform | Greenville News

Posted on September 24, 2022September 24, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the state’s civil forfeiture law in an order issued Sept. 14 but acknowledged the state Legislature could decide to change the law to make it more fair to those who’ve had possessions reserved by law enforcement.

The decision comes more than 20 months after the court heard oral arguments in a case that presented a constitutional challenge to the state law. The court ruled the case did not meet the high bar to strike down the state law.

“Several states have amended their statutory schemes to impose more stringent requirements on the government; however, the fact that certain states have legislatively altered their civil forfeiture laws provides no support for judicially changing ours,” the order said. “Legislative alteration might be a good thing, but we are not called upon to decide whether a change in the law would be wise.”

SC justices accuse attorney of dodging questions in challenge to civil forfeiture law

The case originated out of the 15th Circuit Solicitor’s Office in Horry County following the seizure of nearly $20,000 in 2017 from Travis Lee Green, a convicted Myrtle Beach drug dealer. Fifteenth Circuit Court Judge Stephen John placed a stay on all forfeiture cases in the circuit, asked for arguments for and against the constitutionality of the state’s law and then ruled the state law violated both the state and US constitutions.

The solicitor’s office appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the circuit court for a jury trial on the merits of Green’s forfeiture case.

The challenge drew attention from state and national advocates against forfeiture laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union, SC Appleseed Legal Justice Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Police Accountability Project. Attorney General Alan Wilson wrote an argument in favor of

… Read the rest

DNA allegedly points to former Nevada deputy attorney general as suspect in 1972 homicide

Posted on September 16, 2022September 16, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

RENO — A former Nevada attorney general who ran for the state Supreme Court and was later affiliated with the infamous Mustang Ranch brothel has been arrested in Reno as a suspect in a 1972 homicide in Hawaii.

Tudor Chirila Jr., 77, was being held Thursday in the Washoe County Jail without bail on a charge of being a fugitive from another state.

In a criminal complaint accusing Chirila of second-degree murder, Honolulu police said DNA evidence linked him to the fatal stabbing of 19-year-old Nancy Anderson.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser first reported that Chirila was arrested Wednesday — five decades after police say he stabbed the teen more than 60 times and left her body in her Waikiki apartment on Jan. 7, 1972. Anderson had moved to Hawaii in October 1971 and was working at a McDonald’s restaurant after graduating from high school the year before in Bay City, Michigan, the newspaper said.

It wasn’t immediately clear if Chirila had an attorney or will be appointed one. Jail records don’t indicate when he’s scheduled to make his initial court appearance.

The criminal complaint filed this week in district court in Hawaii said police had reopened the cold case multiple times since the killing and received a tip in December that Chirila could be a suspect.

In March, police obtained a DNA sample from Chirila’s son, John Chirila of Newport Beach, California, that identified him as the biological child of a DNA sample found at the crime scene, according to the criminal complaint.

On Sept. 6, Reno police served a search warrant and collected a DNA sample from Tudor Chirila at his Reno apartment. Two days later he tried to commit suicide, and on Wednesday was booked into

… Read the rest

Whitman’s Geoff Diehl, Attorney General Maura Healey win gubernatorial primaries

Posted on September 12, 2022September 12, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

Click here for live election results.

Whitman’s Geoff Diehl, a former state representative endorsed by former President Donald Trump, has won the Republican nomination for Massachusetts governor over businessman Chris Doughty, who was considered the more moderate candidate in the race.

The victory for Diehl sets up a general election contest against Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey, who would be the first openly gay person and the first woman elected governor of Massachusetts if she wins in November. The state’s current governor, Republican Charlie Baker, decided against seeking a third term.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Geoff Diehl faces reporters outside the State House in Boston on Monday, March 21, 2022.

Republican voters made Massachusetts the latest blue state this midterm season to nominate a Trump loyalist in a high-profile race, potentially doming the party’s chances of winning in November. Voters in Connecticut and Maryland, liberal states where centrist Republicans have found some success in previous elections, also selected far-right candidates to go up against a Democrat in the general election.

Healey, whose only rival for the nomination dropped out of the race but remains on the ballot, will be the heavy favorite in November against Diehl in one of the most liberal states in the nation.

At her victory party Tuesday night before the GOP race was called for Diehl, Healey told cheering supporters that regardless of which candidate emerged as her opponent, “We know he’ll be out of touch with the values we stand for.” Speaking of both candidates, she added, “They’ll bring Trumpism to Massachusetts.”

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey takes questions from reporters during a news conference in Boston on Jan. 31, 2017.

Diehl, the favorite among state Republican Party delegates, has ties to Trump stretching to 2016, when he was co-chair for Trump’s presidential campaign in Massachusetts.

… Read the rest

I’m a professional who passed the bar, but Tennessee won’t let me practice law

Posted on August 26, 2022August 26, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

The Tennessee government won’t let me earn a living.

I worked hard to obtain a legal education, and I’m proud of my competency as an attorney.

But due to a tangled mess of red tape, the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners is refusing to grant foreign-educated attorneys like myself admission to the state bar — no matter our qualifications.

That’s why I’m challenging this arbitrary bureaucratic approach in the Tennessee Supreme Court — so that qualified professionals can do their jobs.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

I was educated in Canada and the US

Most lawyers in the US follow a typical path to practice law: bachelor’s degree, juris doctorate (JD) degree, then the bar exam. But some American law professionals, like myself, are educated abroad.

In 2019, pursuant to my undergraduate studies at an English college in the Canadian province of Quebec, I earned a bachelor of civil law degree and a JD from the University of Ottawa’s dual degree program.

I then enrolled in a masters of law, or LL.M, program at Pace University’s Elisabeth Haub School of Law in New York, graduated summa cum laude in 2020, then scored in the upper 90th percentile of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE), which is also used in Tennessee.

The New York Board of Law Examiners determined that my education was substantively and durationally equivalent to that of the traditional US law graduate, and granted me a license to practice in the state.

Sign up for the Latino Tennessee Voices newsletter: Read compelling stories for and with the Latino community in Tennessee.

The board exacted discretion before

But entering the workforce in 2020, especially amid the pandemic, was daunting, and I soon joined my significant other, a

… Read the rest

People are also reading…

I was educated in Canada and the US

The board exacted discretion before