A murder conviction has been overturned by a California appeals court because the victim's family wore buttons with an image of the victim throughout the trial. The jury may have been swayed by the display.

This is an extraneous influence calculated to sway the emotions of the jury. It's justly prohibited by law. Blame this one on the trial judge and the prosecutors. The defense objected to the buttons during trial and the judge refused to tell the family to remove them. The prosecutors should have told the family this is inappropriate. They gambled that they'd get away with this display in this age of victims' rights and they lost.

by TChris

The Eleventh Circuit again (presumably for the final time) rejected an invitation to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case.

"Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper," the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. "While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty."

Judge Birch, concurring in the unsigned order, made clear his displeasure with the federal government's efforts to interfere with decisions made in the Florida courts.

[In] a scathing attack on politicians who got involved in the case, [Judge Birch] added that the White House and lawmakers "have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people our Constitution."

The decision is available here (pdf).

25 years to life is too long a sentence to impose on a sex offender who failed to register, a California appeals court ruled yesterday. The court termed the failure a "technical violation."

On Monday, Coleman Blease and Rick Sims overturned a 26-years-to-life sentence for Keith Carmony, calling it a violation of the state and federal prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. The defendant's failure to register, they held, was "completely harmless and no worse than a breach of an overtime parking ordinance."

"If the constitutional prohibition is to have a meaningful application," Blease wrote, "it must prohibit the imposition of a recidivist penalty based on an offense that is no more than a harmless technical violation of a regulatory law."

Now if they'd only apply that cruel and unusual punishment reasoning to three-strikes sentences, we'd be making progress.

Terri Schiavo has been without food or water for 11 days. The latest reports have her in her final hours. And the 11th Circuit has just agreed to consider a new hearing on her parent's request for reinsertion of her feeding tube. What's going on?

Early today, in a surprise move, a federal appeals court told her parents they could file a motion for a rehearing in their effort to have her feeding tube reconnected. The ruling gave them renewed access to the federal court system, though its ultimate significance was not immediately clear.

CNN reports it's a request for en banc review of the last denial.

In other Schiavo news, Jesse Jackson and Randall Terry are now on the same side. And the arrests continue, with police tasering the latest subject.

by TChris

A basketball coach in Alabama who believes he was fired for complaining that the boys' team was treated more favorably than the girls' team will be able to pursue his discrimination claim in court, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling today.

The 5-4 decision in favor of Alabama high school girls basketball coach Roderick Jackson is a victory for women's advocates who say the legal protection will prompt reports of bias that would otherwise go unsaid or unheeded.

The court held that Title IX -- the federal law prohibiting discrimination in educational institutions -- protects whistleblowers who complain about gender discrimination.

"Without protection from retaliation, individuals who witness discrimination would likely not report it, indifference claims would be short-circuited, and the underlying discrimination would go unremedied," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority.

Joining Justice O'Connor in the majority were Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Update: Here is the opinion.

The New York Times says MGM v. Grokster is not really a David v. Goliath story but one about the right of "individual creators of music, movies and books" to get paid. Sony's BMG Chief Andrew Lack presents that side here. Also opposing Grokster and the other P2P file sharing networks is the Recording Artists Coaltion. Here's its March 1 press statement (pdf).

Electronic Frontier Foundation has the other side. This site has it in plain English.

At issue is a 9th Circuit opinion holding vendors cannot be held liable users who use their products for copyright infringement provided the products can be used for significant noninfringing (legal) uses. The Times reports,

The technology community has rallied to Grokster's defense. Its most radical members argue that "information wants to be free" online and disparage the whole idea of intellectual property. A more modest argument, and one Grokster relies on in court, is that if it loses, there will be a chilling effect on technological innovation.

Here's more on the case. Here too. I'm torn. I'm on the side of the artists getting paid for their work. I'm not that worried about the chilling effect on technological advancement. But in analagous cases, like whether gun manufacturers should be held liable for deaths caused by people who kill using guns, I'm against assigning such responsibility to anyone but the individual perpetrator.

I haven't given much thought to the case before today, but its a biggie. Which side are you on?

Bump and Update: The Colorado Supreme Court has reversed Lisl Auman's felony murder conviction and ordered a new trial! The opinion is here (pdf.) It was authored by Justice Michael Bender.

The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday reversed the felony murder conviction and life sentence of 29-year-old Lisl Auman, who was found guilty of murder even though she was handcuffed and in a police car when an accomplice shot and killed a police officer.

The high court ruled that improper jury instructions may have deprived Auman of her right to a full and fair jury trial on a second-degree burglary charge, reversing her conviction for felony murder -- which was based on the burglary conviction.

Great news for Lisl Auman. However, as the Court upheld the felony murder rule, even when the crime occurs in flight, she will have to stand trial again, unless the Denver District Attorney and the defense can work out a deal. I would hope for time served. And that she be granted bail pending her new trial.

From the opinion:

I just received a media advisory that the Supreme Court's ruling in Raich v. Ashcroft on state's rights and medical marijuana is expected on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. The San Francisco Chronicle provided this concise explanation of the case last November:

The question before the court is whether individual patients -- and, possibly, some of their suppliers -- are immune from federal enforcement. The argument goes like this: The Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. But no interstate commerce is involved when patients, acting legally under state law, use marijuana that was grown within the state and supplied without charge.

Federal Judge James Whittemore has rejected the Schindler's latest lawsuit to reinsert Terri Schiavo's feeding tube:

In his 11-page ruling, Whittemore wrote that the Schindlers couldn't establish "a substantial likelihood of success on the merits" of their case. He also noted "the difficulties and heartbreak the parties have endured throughout this lengthy process" and praised the lawyers' civility, saying it was "a credit to their professionalism ... and Terri."

How Appealing has the judge's ruling here.

It looks like Jeb Bush is going to come out of this as the hero of the radical right:

Gov. Jeb Bush has ordered his legal team to scour state laws for a way to reconnect Schiavo's feeding tube. There were calls from a supporter of the parents for him to take further action.

Update: The New York Times has more on Jeb Bush's increased political capital resulting from the Schiavo case.

Bump and Update: The Supreme Court has denied Terri Schiavo's parents appeal to reinsert the feeding tube. It was a one sentence order, available here (pdf). CNN is talking about the "alleged anonymous Republican Talking Points Memo" and how it had a section saying that Rep. Bill Nelson's congressional seat could be affected.

A Reverend named Pat Mahoney is calling for the country to fast tomorrow on Good Friday in solidarity with Terri Schiavo.

Update: The Schiavo case has caused Tristero to resume blogging. He's been silent since Election Day when Kerry lost.

**********

Original Post: 3/23 9pm

Terri Schiavo's parents have lodged their appeal tonight with the Supreme Court. I suspect its rejection will be fast and tersely worded.

by TChris

Here's a surprise: President Bush actually promised to pay attention to the International Court of Justice. That court wants state courts in the U.S. "to consider complaints by 51 Mexicans held on death row that they were denied their right to have Mexican officials notified."

In a memorandum to the attorney general dated Feb. 28, President Bush said he had determined "that the United States will discharge its international obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice."

The administration will order state courts to review the 51 cases. This represents a change of position for the president, who until now has shown little regard for either the Vienna Convention (which requires a country that detains a foreign citizen to notify that individual of his right to seek the help of a consular officer) or the International Court, which ordered the review. The change of heart comes after the Supreme Court agreed to consider an appeal by Jose Medellin, a Mexican citizen sentenced to death in Texas. Background on the case is here, with links to information about the International Court's decision.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a state sentencing case that could put a dent in states' three-strikes laws.

The aspect of yesterday's decision that had legal bloggers buzzing was language in Souter's opinion that seemed to soften the court's previous holding that, while aggravating factors of a new crime must be proved to a jury, a judge on his own could lengthen a sentence based on the defendant's prior convictions.