|
|
|
Court: Calif. erred in new lethal injection regs
U.S. Court News |
2013/05/28 11:23
|
Executions in California will remain suspended after a state appeals court ruled that corrections officials made several "substantial" procedural errors when they adopted new lethal injection rules.
The 1st District Court of Appeals said the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation failed to explain, as required by state law, why it was switching from a three-drug injection method to a single drug.
The court's opinion, which affirmed a lower court ruling, also said the agency misled the public by not providing the documents and information it used to reach its decision.
Corrections spokeswoman Deborah Hoffman said in an email that the agency was reviewing the ruling.
"In the meantime, at the governor's direction, CDCR is continuing to develop proposed regulations for a single-drug protocol in order to ensure that California's laws on capital punishment are upheld," Hoffman said.
California has not executed an inmate since 2006, when a federal judge halted the practice, finding that the three-drug mixture amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The state was ordered to redo its capital punishment system.
Since then, California has built a new death chamber at San Quentin State Prison and trained a new team to carry out executions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court bars retrial of Michigan arson suspect
U.S. Court News |
2013/03/04 15:26
|
The Supreme Court has ruled that a Michigan defendant cannot be retried for arson even though his initial acquittal was based on a judge's mistake.
The court voted 8-1 Wednesday in favor of Lamar Evans, who was charged with arson after he was seen running away from a burning vacant house in Detroit with a gasoline can in his hand.
A judge acquitted Evans midway through his trial based on a mistaken interpretation of the law.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said for the court that the acquittal is final, even if granted in error. Justice Samuel Alito dissented |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma considers foreign law court ban
U.S. Court News |
2013/02/15 14:48
|
Oklahoma lawmakers are considering banning judges in the state from basing any rulings on foreign laws, including Islamic Sharia law.
A Senate panel on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the bill, which has broad support in the Republican-controlled Legislature. The bill would specifically make void and unenforceable any court, arbitration or administrative agency decision that doesn't grant the parties affected by the ruling "the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions."
"This is a way to protect American citizens ... where somebody may try to use any kind of foreign law or religious law to affect the outcome of a trial," said Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, who sponsored the bill. Shortey described it as "American Law for American Courts."
A handful of other states have laws aimed at keeping courts from basing decision on foreign legal codes, including Islamic law. Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that would have specifically prohibited courts from considering Sharia law, but a federal judge blocked its implementation after a Muslim community leader alleged it discriminates against his religion.
Shortey said he didn't know of an instance in Oklahoma where a judge has relied on foreign laws, but he said there have been cases in other states.
That prompted state Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, to describe the measure as a "solution that's looking for a problem." Crain was the only member of the Senate committee to vote against the bill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court weighs warrantless blood tests in DUI cases
U.S. Court News |
2013/01/09 20:04
|
The Supreme Court is considering whether police must get a warrant before ordering a blood test on an unwilling drunken-driving suspect.
The justices heard arguments Wednesday in a case involving a disputed blood test from Missouri. Police stopped a speeding, swerving car and the driver, who had two previous drunken-driving convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body.
The justices appeared to struggle with whether the dissipation of alcohol in the blood over time is reason enough for police to call for a blood test without first getting a warrant.
In siding with defendant Tyler McNeely, the Missouri Supreme Court said police need a warrant to take a suspect's blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
