There's a lot of good reading on yesterday's Supreme Court decision to ban the death penalty for juvenile offenders. In addition to the editorials in our newsfeed on the left, there are these interesting reads:

• Major Victory for Minors...Chicago Tribune
• Less Fodder for Death Row....Los Angeles Times
• Sparing the Young....Houston Chronicle
• Justice Used Science to arrive at decision....Miami Herald

[hat tip to Rev. Mr.George W. Brooks, J.D.,Director of Advocacy, Kolbe House, Chicago]

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a proseuctor who was demoted after recommending dismissal of a case because he believed a deputy sheriff had lied on a search warrant affidavit.

At issue is the scope of the First Amendment, which protects government workers from discharge if their conduct involves a "public concern" rather than personal, job-related issues such as salary. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ceballos' speech was constitutionally protected and the district attorney's office didn't have immunity from Ceballos' lawsuit.

In a small but welcome step towards privacy protection, a Florida Court has barred a party from introducing into evidence the fruit of a spyware program that was secretly installed on the other party's computer. The Florida court ruled the state's wiretapping law covered spyware and precluded the admission.

The case is O'Brien v. O'Brien and the opinion is here. [Hat tip to Eric Sterling of Criminal Justice Policy Foundation and Allen St. Pierre of NORML]

The Supreme Court has refused to overturn a lower court ruling upholding Alabama's ban on sex toys. There is no right to consumer privacy in sexually stimulating devices.

A divided three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. It said in a ruling last July that siding with the sex toy merchants could open the door to the legalization of undesirable sexual behavior such as prostitution. "If the people of Alabama in time decide that prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter," the court said.

"On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases including, for example, those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like."

Doesn't this hurt Alabama businesses who sell the goods? Since it is lawful to possess them, just not to sell them, Alabamans will have to purchase them outside the state.

A related story here.

The LA Times has an update on the Bush Administration's attempt to block frozen Iraqi assets from being used to pay a judgment for $1 billion as damages to POW's in the 1991 Gulf War.

The case is now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The last hope for the POWs rests with the Supreme Court. Their lawyers petitioned the high court last month to hear the case. Significantly, it has been renamed Acree vs. Iraq and the United States. The POWs say the justices should decide the "important and recurring question [of] whether U.S. citizens who are victims of state-sponsored terrorism [may] seek redress against terrorist states in federal court."

This week, Justice Department lawyers are expected to file a brief urging the court to turn away the appeal.

Our background on the case from 2003 is here.

A New York Judge has ruled that lesbian and gay couples have a right to marry in New York. If upheld on appeal, gay marriage will be lawful throughout the state.

The opinion is available here.

by TChris

When a state legislature dislikes a court's interpretation of a state law, the legislature is always free to change the law. But is it free to pass a law that expressly "nullifies" a court decision without violating the doctrine of separation of powers?

The Delaware Supreme Court construed state law to require offenders who were sentenced to life to be released after 45 years. The decision applies only to offenders who were sentenced before the state changed its sentencing laws in 1990.

Before 1990, a sentence of life with parole was considered a 45-year term for purposes of calculating good time credit and setting a parole date. Prosecutors maintained that if an inmate was repeatedly denied parole, he could be held until he died.

Claiming that the court's ruling would require the immediate release of 200 (mostly elderly) inmates, the state legislature unanimously passed a bill that purports to declare the court decision "null and void."

The bill now goes to Gov. Ruth Ann Minner for approval. Minner acknowledged the state may be setting itself up for prisoner lawsuits in attempting to nullify the court ruling.

No kidding. The notion that a legislature can pass a law that nullifies any court decision it doesn't like is antithetical to a political system that relies on the checks and balances afforded by coequal branches of government. Legislatures have the power to change the law; they don't have the power to change (or ignore) court decisions, even decisions that are politically unpopular.

Scottish citizen Kenneth Richey has been on Ohio's death row for 18 years. Today his death sentence was overturned by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a decsion that blasted his incompetent defense counsel. The court said but for their incompetence, Richey might have been acquitted.

Richey, 40, who had been diagnosed with behavioral problems before coming to the United States to live with his American father, became a global cause celebre that elicited pleas for mercy from a British parliamentarian to Ohio Gov. Robert Taft.

Bump and Update: The Supreme Court decision in Illinios v. Cabales is available here (pdf.) Here are some links to news articles and web reaction:

Associated Press provides this quote from the majority opinion of Justice Stevens:

"A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment"

And this from the dissent by Ginsberg (Souter joining):

Under today's decision, every traffic stop could become an occasion to call in the dogs, to the distress and embarrassment of the law-abiding population," Ginsburg wrote, citing the danger that police could soon conduct "suspicionless, dog-accompanied drug sweeps" of parked cars or cars stopped at red lights.

A remedy is for states to enact their own legislation:

Some states, including New Jersey, have passed legislation requiring police to have valid grounds to use dogs during traffic stops partly because of the danger of racial profiling, in which minorities are singled out for traffic stops or other scrutiny.

FourthAmendment.Com has extensive analysis and commentary, including this:

Unbelievably bad writing from a luminary like Stevens (must have been drafted by a law clerk and not fully vetted for what it can lead to); an opinion full of holes for both sides....

by TChris

President Bush told anti-abortion protesters today that their "movement will not fail." So much for the President's recently-sworn oath to defend the Constitution.

David O'Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, opined that Chief Justice Rehnquist's anticipated retirement "would move the high court in abortion-opponents' favor." Since the Chief is not an advocate of the right to choose, O'Steen's reasoning is difficult to discern.

Meanwhile, the Court declined to review a lower court's holding that South Carolina's "Choose Life" license plates violate the First Amendment because the state denies abortion-rights supporters the same forum in which to express their opinions. The Court frequently reminds the public that its decision not to review an issue should not be seen as a signal that the Court agrees or disagrees with the lower court's result. In this case, the lower court's decision was so obviously correct that the Court had little reason to tackle the question itself.

by TChris

A former police officer convicted of negligent homicide for shooting a 14-year-old boy while placing him in handcuffs has been sentenced to five years of probation and 60 days in jail. The Houston officer was also ordered to write a letter of apology to the boy's parents.

Prosecutor Don Smyth asked the judge Thursday to give Carbonneau six months in jail, the maximum jail sentence allowed under probation. Smyth also suggested several other conditions the judge declined to impose, including an open letter of apology to the residents of Harris County. ''They think their police officers are gun-toting, trigger-happy fools," Smyth said after the sentencing. "He's put everybody in fear and he owes everybody an apology."

The jury recommended only probation.

Via Mark Godsey at Crim Prof Blog: The Supreme Court will hear oral argument today in two cases, including one which will determine whether a death penalty jury must be advised that if it rejects death, the defendant will receive life without parole.

Rompilla v. Beard, 04-5462, questions presented: (1) Does Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) require a life-without-parole jury instruction where the only alternative to a death sentence under state law is life without the possibility of parole? (2) Has a defendant received unconsitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel at a capital sentencing hearing where counsel does not review the defendant's prior conviction record which would provide mitigating evidence regarding the defendant's traumatic childhood and mental health impairments? More details here.