Quantcast
Channel: Recent Criminal Law posts - Justia BlawgSearch.com
Viewing all 71824 articles
Browse latest View live

Gov. Christie Fires Back at NY Times and Wildstein

0
0
Gov. Chris Christie sent this email in response to the media flap caused by a letter written by the lawyer for David Wildstein, the former Port Authority official involved in the lane closure scandal who has been seeking an immunity deal and payment... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Circadian Rhythm and Field Sobriety Tests

0
0
Most drunk driving arrests take place at night, often well after midnight. One reason for this is that many police officers engage in "cherry picking" — that is, the illegal practice of staking out bars and restaurants from about 10:00pm to "closing time" at around 2:00am, pulling cars over on some pretext as patrons leave […]

LA4: Two vehicles driving in tandem in a high crime area is not reasonable suspicion

0
0
Two vehicles driving in tandem in a high crime area is not reasonable suspicion. State v. McClendon, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 226 (La.App. 4 Cir. January 30, 2014).* Defendant’s DNA matched DNA taken from him when he was in Georgia prison, and the taking of that DNA was constitutional. State v. Webb, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 221 (La.App. 4 Cir. January 30, 2014).* Defendant was stopped and gunpoint and handcuffed, and it was at least with reasonable suspicion, if not probable cause he was involved in an armed robbery. The search for a gun was reasonable. State v. Williamson, 2014-Ohio-325, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 314 (2d Dist. January 31, 2014).*

"Citing Catholic faith, family of victim seeks to keep condemned Cleveland killer from lethal injection"

0
0
The title of this post is the headline of this interesting recent Cleveland Plain Dealer article highlighting a notable set of voices expressing a faith-based disinterest in completing the next scheduled execution in Ohio. Here are the details: Irene Allain...

Connecticut Home Invasion & Burglary Arrests in Darien and Greenwich Highlight Need for Vigilance

0
0
This past week’s two high profile Home Invasion arrests in Darien and Greenwich highlight the need for homeowners not to let their guard down.  In both cases, it was the middle of the afternoon.  Front and back doors were unlocked.  No alarm systems were armed (even though both homes had them).  You would think in […]

2014 Hall County Rubber Duck Derby Sponsorship Opportunities

0
0
  John Breakfield has teamed up with his fellow board members at the Hall County Boy’s & Girl’s Club to [...]

What's up in the 8th

0
0
Our old friend Harmless Error stops by for a visit, and we acquaint ourselves with the Giggle Test, Judicial Nullification, and the Bad Man Doctrine.

NYT Editorial: Making Surveillance a Little Less Opaque


Super Bowl

0
0
My wagers: Pre-game - SUPER BOWL XLVIIi SPECIALS - Who will Barack Obama pick to win the game? Denver On the national anthem: SUPER BOWL XLVIII SPECIALS - How long will it take Renee Fleming to sing the official US National Anthem? Over 2... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Super Sunday of highlights from Marijuana Law, Policy and Reform

0
0
As some readers may already know, my Marijuana Law, Policy and Reform blog is really super interesting now that great set of guest-bloggers adding their insights and perspectives. And, as anyone who has been keeping up with the broader news...

Waffenverbot für türkische Staatsangehörige verstösst nicht gegen das Diskriminierungsverbot (BGE 6B.722/2013, NZZ vom 24. Januar 2014)

0
0
Im Urteil vom 14. Januar 2014 musste das Bundesgericht darüber entscheiden, ob das Waffenverbot für türkische Staatsangehörige gegen das Diskriminierungsverbot verstösst. Das höchstrichterliche Gremium kam zum Schluss, dass aufgrund des anhaltenden PKK-Konflikts ein sachlicher Grund für ein Waffenverbot gegeben sei und daher keine Diskriminierung vorliege. Ein türkischer Staatsangehöriger wurde aufgrund eines Vergehens gegen das Waffengesetz zu einer bedingten Geldstrafe verurteilt. Die Waffe wurde zudem eingezogen. In der Folge stützte das Obergericht des Kantons Solothurn den erstinstanzlichen Entscheid und berief sich auf Art. 7 Abs. 1 des Waffengesetztes (WG) i.V.m. Art. 12 Abs. 1 der Waffenverordnung (WV), wonach es türkischen Staatsangehörigen untersagt sei Waffen zu besitzen. Mit Beschwerde in Strafsachen gelangte der Betroffene ans Bundesgericht. Er rügte im Wesentlichen, dass das gegenüber den Staatsangerhörigen der Türkei geltende Verbot des Waffenbesitzes dem Diskriminierungsverbot gemäss Art. 8 der Bundesverfassung (BV) widerspreche und kritisierte, dass bedeutend instabilere Regionen wie Somalia, Afghanistan, Irak oder Syrien vom Waffenverbot nicht erfasst würden. Das Bundesgericht lehnte diese Sichtweise ab und argumentierte, dass die Aufnahme eines Staates auf die Länderliste zum Ziel habe Konflikte im Ausland nicht durch Schweizer Waffen zu unterstützen. Andererseits solle mit dem im Waffengesetzt verankerten Verbot der Gefahr gewalttätiger Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Konfliktparteien in der Schweiz entgegen gewirkt werden. Die Aufnahme eines Staates in die Liste von Art. 12 Abs. 1 WV führe nicht zu einer unzulässigen Diskriminierung. Die Staatsangehörigkeit sei zudem ein zulässiges Anknüpfungsmerkmal für rechtliche Unterscheidungen, solange diese auf ernsthaften Gründen beruhen. In der Türkei schwele nach wie vor ein bewaffneter Konflikt mit der PKK und die Spannungen zwischen kurdischen Aktivisten und dem türkischen Staat hätten sich nicht wesentlich entschärft.Es bestehe daher weiterhin die Gefahr, dass die Gewaltbereitschaft jederzeit auch innerhalb der türkischen Diaspora-Gemeinde in Europa wieder ansteigen könnte. Diese Überlegungen würden auf sachlichen Gründen beruhen und seien ohne Weiteres nachvollziehbar.Rouven Brigger

Freispruch vom Vorwurf des sexuellen Missbrauchs

0
0
Sexueller Missbrauch von Kindern (§ 176 StGB) wurde der 43-jährigen Angeklagten vorgeworfen. Sie soll ihren 13-jährigen Sohn sexuell missbraucht haben. Als Hauptbelastungszeuge sagte eine Bekanntschaft aus dem Frauenhaus aus. Der Zeuge, der zur angeblichen Tatzeit noch eine Frau war, wurde vom Gericht jedoch als unglaubwürdig eingestuft. Der Zeuge sagte aus, er habe bei einem . . . → Read More: Freispruch vom Vorwurf des sexuellen MissbrauchsÄhnliche Beiträge:Freispruch nach Vorwurf des schweren sexuellen MissbrauchsFreispruch nach RaubFreispruch im Missbrauchsprozess an StieftochterFreispruch wegen angeblichen Raubes nach ErotikannonceOLG Oldenburg: Weitere Anklage wegen sexuellen Missbrauchs…

FALL RIVER HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT IS ARRESTED FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

0
0
This Boston criminal lawyer will tell you that this type of crime is one of the most widening areas of danger for our youth today. Another one is in the area of “self-defense” but we will get to that another day. It involves the possession and dissemination of child pornography…by children! This past Friday, Fall River law enforcement arrested a 17-year-old kid (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) who now stands charged with having created a Facebook page featuring of nude pictures of High school students. The actual charges will include dissemination of obscene material harmful to minors, and possessing child pornography. While the theoretical jury may be out as to whether the Defendant was fully aware of the seriousness of his actions, the Commonwealth was ready and waiting. Less than 24-hours after complaints were received by the Fall River police department officials were able to trace the origin of where the account was created and with the help of several witnesses they were able to identify the suspect. The name of the Facebook page was “River Hooters”. Posted there were dozens of graphic and explicit images of high school girls from Fall River. The girls in the photos ranged in age, some as young as 16-years-old. The page came to the awareness of law enforcement when they were mortified by various females that they saw naked pictures of themselves and of friends on the page. According to Mayor Flanagan, some of the photos had been taken without the knowledge of the girl pictured; other photographs were self portraits…now known as “Selfies”, the so-called “word of the year” for 2013. The page had already been well known at Durfee High School, where students say they are not surprised because “sexting” among their peers is on the rise. Despite the apparent comfort the younger general public seems to have with taking such “selfies” and “sexting” one another, that public stands outraged at the Facebook page. "It is rude an[d] ignorant of the person to make the whole website. It is just so irresponsible," said one female student. "It definitely affects people but I mean they got there for a reason. They were probably sent to someone in a relation and got out onto the internet," said another student. "These types of actions are disturbing and horrific. And as mayor it saddens me to see our children being exploited especially via the internet," said Mayor Flanagan. The investigation will continue as law enforcement say that more evidence collection needs to be done. Both the Mayor Flanagan and Chief Racine are pleased that the Defendant is in custody. This particular website has, of course, been taken down. Do you think the problem has been truly addressed? Not on your life. Attorney Sam’s Take On Unsuspecting Children And Future Criminal Defendants Before I am misunderstood, let me clearly state that what the Defendant is charged with doing in this case is by no means a victimless crime. Even in cases wherein kids intentionally take naked photographs of themselves and send them to a more-than-friend, to then throw them on a public bulletin board like the internet is a very hurtful and terrible crime. You may further count me in on the argument that those kids who took such “selfies” were kids acting without maturity or sense (part of the job description of being a kid) and so they cannot really be blamed for making such stupid decisions. However, that presents a bit of a logistical problem, doesn’t it? If kids that age do not fully appreciate what they are doing…then I guess that would include the Defendant and his ilk who are of the same age, wouldn’t it? Unfortunately, the law does not really recognize that. The fact that a teen-age male with his hormones busting out all over the place reacts in such a reckless and stupid fashion to girls his age, perhaps for the same reason, taking nude photos of themselves and sending them hither and yon seems to be lost on our criminal (juvenile or otherwise) system. Instead of a “stupid kid”, the Defendant is treated as not only a criminal, but a sexual predator. In fact, if the Defendant is convicted as charge, he not only faces a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 10 years, but also a spot on the Sex Offender Registry. Need I add incidentals like what the charges will do to any hopes he may have had for higher education or some sort of career? In short we have added yet another one of our kids to the slot where we used to simply deposit the name of true evil doers like rapists, sexual slave traffickers and those truly involved in the industry of child pornography. “But, Sam, the law is the law!” Is it? Perhaps, then, you will explain why it is that those innocent young senseless kids who are possessing and trading naked photos of themselves and those close to them are never even subject to reprimand? Of course, we are not going to change any laws here. Before we get anywhere close to that, people are going to have to learn how they and their loved ones are at real risk when they doggedly toast the criminal justice system when the news-on-the-surface tells them that all is well and only the “bad guys” are being punished. Of course, getting the word out is part of the reason for this blog…which I fight harder and harder to get back to its once daily production. In the meantime, understand that these types of cases can be the death knell for all future plans for many of our kids. Tell your kids. Check your kids. Maybe some of them will even take you seriously. And, if you want to do anything real about it…think about it and then decide if it is worth your time to do anything about it! To read the original story upon which this blog is based, please go to http://www.abc6.com/story/24591196/graphic-images-of-fall-river-teens-show-up-on-facebook

Resistance is Futile?

0
0
Jakob Weberstaedt, English Alternative Business Structures and the European Single Market, Humboldt U. Berlin Working Paper (2013), available at SSRN.Amy SalyzynIn the last several years, alternative business structures (ABS) have been a top agenda item regarding the legal profession in the United States and Canada. Moves in Australia and England to liberalize legal markets—including the introduction of non-lawyer ownership of law firms—have inspired and influenced conversations about whether ABS should be introduced into the North American market for legal services. [...]

FDLE CHEMIST SCANDAL

0
0
Super Bowl: Boy was that a smack down. That was a super bowl beating of almost unprecedented proportions.  Seattle's great defense becomes a defense for the ages, earning the right to be mentioned with the 70's Steelers, 85 Bears, and 2000 Ravens. A great defense can and did (to our surprise) completely dominate a great offense in the 2014 NFL. If it's possible to feel sorry for athlete earning over $20 million dollars a year, we feel for Peyton Manning. He had arguably the greatest season a QB has ever had, and capped it with one of the worst performances a QB in a Super Bowl has ever had. Ironically, Manning set a record for super bowl completions while being less than a non-factor in the game. Manning was a detriment to his team. The "record" is insult to injury. Last year the Manning led Broncos had an epic collapse in the last minute of the AFC championship game against the Ravens. This year, from the first play, the team was obviously not ready to play in the super bowl. We're not sure how an athlete and a team recovers from such a thorough whipping. Many members of the Broncos were almost literally frozen from the fear of the big game. As unusual as it sounds after such a great season, the Broncos need to clean house and bring in new blood that is not traumatized from what happened on Super Bowl sunday. And thus ends the 2013 NFL Season. See You Next Year. FDLE CHEMIST LAB SCANDAL. The Orlando Sentinel reports that in over 2,600 cases an FDLE Chemist stole pain pills that he was responsible for analyzing. The chemist was working in the Pensacola lab and it's doubtful his actions affected cases in South Florida. That being said: Never trust the prosecution's expert without  doing a thorough independent evaluation. Never. Ever. FLORIDA BAR PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE:Florida Bar president Eugene Pettis has breaking news for members of the Florida Bar: in 2014 lawyers face increased competition and the challenges of harnessing new technology. A stunning revelation. President Pettis also warned that there might be some instability arising out of the Watergate investigation of President Nixon. The man is a visionary. See You In Court. Site Feed

N.D.Ohio: Failure to return SW papers is ministerial; def got it all in discovery anyway

0
0
Failure to comply with the “return” requirement is ministerial, and defendant suffered no prejudice because everything came to him via discovery. There was also consent involving the same search. United States v. Mack, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12197 (N.D. Ohio January 31, 2014). Defendant’s parole search was a walk through, without opening drawers or closets, and officers could smell unburnt marijuana in the basement. He fled from the house and was retaken later. The parole search was valid. Commonwealth v. Smith, 2014 PA Super 14, 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 21 (January 31, 2014).*

Can you Move From Virginia to New York if you Have Been Charged With Possession of Marijuana for the First Time?

0
0
This question involves several different issues that you’ll need to analyze to determine what’s going on in your case. The best way to get the correct answer for your specific case is to call me for a free consultation. If your case is pending in my area then I can hopefully give you a specific […]

Child pornography, the Password-Protected Folder and the 4th Amendment

0
0
After a federal grand jury indicted him on “charges of receiving and possessing child pornography” Shawn David Coulter filed a motion to suppress evidence.  U.S. v. Coulter, 2014 WL 229199 (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri 2014). The press release you can find here, and the news story you can find here, provide more information on the charges and the facts in the case.  The opinion does not cite the statute(s) under which he was charged, but I assume it was 18 U.S. Code § 2252A. The U.S. District Court Judge who has the case referred the motion to suppress to a U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 636(b), which authorizes a District Court Judge to “designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings . . . and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court” of motions of various types, including motions to suppress. U.S. v. Coulter, supra. The U.S. Magistrate Judge began his “Report and Recommendation” to the U.S. District Judge who has the case by outlining the facts that led to Coulter’s being charged: On April 5, 2009, Jane Crisp, with the assistance of her adult son, Justin, determined that Coulter, who was residing at Crisp's home, had downloaded images and videos of child pornography onto her computer, which was kept and used in her minor son's bedroom. Crisp's adult son Justin discovered the images on the computer hard drive, which he routinely checked at Crisp's request for downloaded material that might need to be removed or deleted. Although the file containing the images was labeled `Shawn's files,’ and was protected by a password, Justin was able to bypass the password security. Justin attempted to delete some of the images, which included a video of a thirteen-year-old girl performing oral sex on an adult male, who was identified as the girl's father. At the time of Justin's search, an external hard drive belonging to Coulter was present, but disconnected from Crisp's CPU tower. After Justin discovered the images, Crisp, Justin, and Crisp's minor son left the residence. When they returned, Coulter was in the house. Crisp contacted two friends, Kevin Sharp and Harold Sword. Both men arrived at the residence and advised Crisp to contact the police. She telephoned the Lebanon, Missouri, Police Department and reported that a male subject (Coulter) at her residence had downloaded child pornography on her computer. She requested that the police remove him from her residence and arrest him. U.S. v. Coulter, supra. When the police arrived, Crisp granted entry to Officers Wayne Merritt and Kendall Blackburn. Crisp's 13–year–old son, Sharp, Sword, and Coulter were also present. In the presence of the officers, Crisp confronted Coulter about the child pornography on her son's computer, but Coulter `did not say much.’ Crisp then permitted Merritt to enter her minor son's bedroom, where the computer was located. Merritt attempted to retrieve the images from the computer, without success. Sword, who was also present in the room, offered that he could probably find the images on the hard drive. Merritt agreed, and Sword found the same video clip of a 13–year–old female performing oral sex on an adult male. At the time of Merritt's search, the external hard drive had been reconnected to the CPU tower. Merritt testified that he perceived the external hard drive and the tower to be Crisp's `computer.’ U.S. v. Coulter, supra. Merritt then too the tower and external hard drive out of the house. Merritt's report notes that Officer Blackburn arrested Coulter for possession of child pornography and read him his constitutional rights. As Merritt was removing the computer, Crisp told him `the tower was hers,’ and she wanted it back. Merritt took the tower and the hard drive to the Lebanon Police Department. [Coulter] was read his Mirandarights. Robinson interviewed Coulter at the station and determined that the external hard drive was owned by Coulter. Coulter later gave written consent for police to search the hard drive. Forensic examination of the hard drive revealed over 120 images and over 60 videos of child pornography. U.S. v. Coulter, supra. The Magistrate Judge began his analysis of Coulter’s motion to suppress by noting that [t]he 4th Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. See U.S. v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit 2005). A 4th Amendment search occurs `when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed.’ U.S. v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984). Only governmental, not private, searches and seizures are protected by the 4th Amendment. U.S. v. Jacobsen, supra. Private intrusions to privacy do not violate the 4th Amendment unless the private party is acting as an `instrument or agent’ of the government, a question which turns on `the degree of the government's participation in the private party's activities’ which is resolved in light of the totality of the circumstances in the case. U.S. v. Wiest, 596 F.3d 906 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit 2010) (quoting Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989)). U.S. v. Coulter, supra.  For more on private searches, check out this prior blog post. The Magistrate Judge then found that Crisp’s original search of the files, with the assistance of her son, Justin, was not a governmental search because Crisp was not acting as an `instrument or agent’ of the government. She testified in state court that she periodically checked the computer, which was primarily used by her minor son, for downloaded material that needed to be removed. After viewing the pornographic video on her minor son's computer, she contacted the Lebanon Police Department and reported it. U.S. v. Coulter, supra.  As this article notes, the case was originally filed in state court but was later taken over by federal authorities. Next, he took up the issue of whether Crisp had the authority, under the 4thAmendment, to consent to the search of the CPU.  U.S. v. Coulter, supra.  The Magistrate Judge noted that since Crisps’s original search of the tower, or CPU, was a private, not governmental, search, the Court turns to the question whether Crisp had the authority to consent to the search and seizure of the CPU and [Coulter’s] hard drive. If a party consents to a search, no warrant is required. See U.S. v. Farnell, 701 F.3d 256 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit 2012). A third party having `joint access or control’ over mutually-used property may lawfully consent to a warrantless search of that property. See U.S. v. Clutter, 674 F.3d 980 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit 2012). U.S. v. Coulter, supra.  For more on authority to consent to the search of property, check out this prior blog post. Here, Coulter argued that Crisps’ consent to search the `computer’ did not apply to the password-protected folder called `Shawn's files,’ even though it was located on Crisp's CPU tower. [Coulter] maintains that the password protection of the folder `created an expectation of privacy for the person possessing th[e] password’. . . . Both Crisp's adult son and Crisp's friend Sword were able to override the password protection on the folder `Shawn's files’ without difficulty, and were able to access images stored therein. Crisp's adult son periodically checked the computer at Crisp's request to see if anything had been downloaded that needed to be removed. Crisp's ability to easily access the files supports a finding that Crisp had common authority over the files, even though they were password-protected. Both Justin and Sword were able to bypass the password protection over `Shawn's files’ with little difficulty. As owner and user, Crisp had authority to consent to a search of the CPU tower. Moreover, Merritt testified he was unaware that the files were password protected. U.S. v. Coulter, supra.   The Magistrate Judge then took up Coulter’s argument that “Crisp's authority to consent did not extend to the seizure of the external hard drive owned by Coulter, but used with Crisp's CPU.”  U.S. v. Coulter, supra.  He began his analysis of this argument by noting that a 4th Amendment “seizure occurs `when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property.’  U.S. v. Clutter, 674 F.3d 980 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit 2012) (quoting U.S. v. Jacobsen, supra).”  U.S. v. Coulter, supra.   The judge then explained that [n]o party, not even Coulter, who was in the home at the time of the seizure, made a meaningful distinction to the police between the CPU and the hard drive. Merritt testified that he believed the seized components were all part of the same computer system. Moreover, law enforcement had not been informed by anyone present that the external hard drive was owned by [Coulter] and the tower by Crisp. [Coulter] argues that Crisp's statement to Officer Merritt at the time of the seizure that she wanted `the tower’ back, was sufficient to indicate Crisp owned the tower, but not the external hard drive. [This judge] recommends rejection of this argument. Merritt testified that at the time he seized the CPU and hard drive he did not know the hard drive belonged to Coulter. After Corporal Robinson interviewed Coulter at the station, she informed Merritt that the hard drive belonged to Coulter and that he would probably need to get a warrant or [Coulter’s] consent before police could perform a forensic search of the hard drive. Merritt took a consent form to [Coulter] at the Laclede County Jail. Coulter signed it, indicating he consented to a search. U.S. v. Coulter, supra.   As to Crisp’s authority to consent to the seizure of the external hard drive, along with the tower, the judge explained that when a third party lacks `actual’ or `common authority’ to consent to a search of jointly-used property, it is reasonable for law enforcement officers to rely upon the third-party's `apparent authority; to consent. U.S. v. Clutter, supra. Law enforcement reasonably relied on Crisp's apparent authority to consent to the search. The computer was in Crisp's home, in her minor son's bedroom. Her minor son regularly used the computer. Crisp routinely had her older son monitor the computer for any inappropriate material. Crisp, with the assistance of her friend, showed Merritt the video depicting sexual relations between a 13–year–old girl and an adult male. This was the same video Crisp and her adult son Justin discovered prior to contacting law enforcement. Merritt testified that he was not aware that the files were password protected, or that they were contained in a folder labeled “Shawn's Files.” The record does not show that either Sword or Crisp advised Merritt that he would have to overcome a password protection. Moreover, at that time Coulter's external hard drive was connected to the CPU tower. Based upon the totality of the circumstances presented to Merritt, it was reasonable for him to conclude that Crisp had control over the computer, including the hard drive, and its contents. U.S. v. Coulter, supra.   The Magistrate Judge also pointed out that [a]s soon as Robinson learned, post-seizure, that the hard drive was separate from the CPU tower, she informed Merritt, who then obtained [Coulter’s] specific consent to search the external hard drive. It was reasonable for the officer to rely on Crisp's consent to take the computer, and it was reasonable for the officer to believe that the hard drive and the tower were part of the same computer system. U.S. v. Coulter, supra.   He therefore respectfully recommend[ed] that Merritt reasonably relied on Crisp's apparent authority over the entire computer system, which validates his seizure of both the CPU and the hard drive. Prior to search of the hard drive, officers obtained Coulter’s written consent to search.  Accordingly, the Court recommends that the evidence obtained from the CPU and external hard drive should not be excluded. U.S. v. Coulter, supra.   The U.S. District Court Judge who has the case later reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the motion to suppress be denied.  U.S. v. Coulter, supra.  

Case Update

0
0
The death yesterday of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman of a heroin overdose was not an isolated event.  Heroin use has undergone a revival of late; last year, heroin overdose deaths exceeded homicides in Cuyahoga County.  

The Walther Files: Since when does illegally seizing 400+ kids qualify as 'minimal wrinkles' in Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup?

0
0
Grits has been complaining that the mainstream news media - while trumpeting the most salacious crime coverage they can find to maximize the number of eyeballs viewing their product - have virtually ignored the most important election in the state concerning the criminal-justice system: The race to fill three soon-to-be open slots on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals where three long-time members are retiring.Perhaps, though, I spoke too soon. If they're going to flat-out spread misinformation about the races, maybe it'd be better if they said nothing at all. The Dallas Morning News last week endorsed Barbara Walther, the judge who presided over the Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup, over Bert Richardson, a well-respected Republican out of San Antonio, in the GOP primary for Place 3 on the CCA. That's their prerogative, but the editorial said they endorsed Walther specifically because of her role in the YFZ Ranch fiasco, declaring, "It was an exceedingly complicated case involving 416 children, parents, Child Protective Services and hordes of lawyers. Her ability to keep a semblance of order and dispense justice with minimal wrinkles impressed us as remarkable, given the often chaotic scenario."That's simply ridiculous given that Walther's own judicial overreach created the "chaotic scenario" in the first place. The Third Court of Appeals ruled (and the Texas Supreme Court agreed) that Walther abused her discretion by ordering more than 400 children to be taken from their parents based on their religious views (a prospect that should worry every religious home-schooler in the state, btw). Since when does a judge abusing her discretion to order 400+ children seized count as "minimal wrinkles"?The appellate court ruled that Walther erred because she treated the entire 1,700 acre ranch on which many different families resided as a single "household" and failed to require that CPS demonstrate individual children had been abused before taking them from their parents, instead assuming their parents' religious beliefs in and of themselves justified rounding kids up by the busload and dumping them into the foster system. Readers will recall that the entire episode was based on a hoax phone call and Walther conspicuously avoided ever requiring the hoaxer - a woman named Rozita Swinton who called in her false allegations from Colorado Springs - to testify in court. As Grits wrote in 2010:To repeat what I wrote last year, "why hasn't Rozita Swinton been charged for her instigatory role in the Texas case? I think it's precisely because the last thing Judge Walther and the Texas Rangers want is for her to be cross-examined under oath about who knew what when and how she was able to pull off such a grand imposture." If that were to happen, I suspect it would reveal improprieties by authorities that would invalidate the search warrant used to get onto the property. I continue to believe officials were looking for any excuse to launch such a raid and knew or should have known at the time they went in that the call was a likely hoax.One of her supporters campaign consultants insisted in the DMN comments that Walther "rescued more than 400 children from sexual abuse," but that's an absurd claim given that the appellate courts reversed her decision and all but a handful of the kids were returned to their parents. They weren't "rescued" from anything, just traumatized by the state for a few weeks and then released. Indeed, a couple of the attorneys assigned as ad litems in the case have expressed to your correspondent that Walther's actions probably prevented saving a handful of children who really were abused because, by issuing such a sweeping order to round up everyone, she made it impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.The Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup is pretty much Walther's only claim to fame and it was a judge-created fiasco on a scale never before seen in the history of Texas jurisprudence. For the Dallas News to use that episode to justify her endorsement either bespeaks a lack of due diligence by the editorial aboard or an explicit ratification of judges abusing their power whenever they decide the ends justify the means.For fans of limited government and judicial restraint - which in a Republican primary surely should be the proper measuring sticks - Bert Richardson is clearly the superior choice in that race. It's disappointing the Morning News couldn't see that. Let's hope GOP primary voters do.
Viewing all 71824 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images