home

Supreme Court to Hear Three Criminal Cases Today

By Jeralyn, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:54:26 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Scotus Blog, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three criminal cases today:

  • Chambers v. United States (06-11206), on whether failure to report to prison is a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminals Act.
  • United States v. Hayes (07-608), on whether federal gun laws require a domestic relationship between an attacker and victim to qualify as a misdemeanor crime of “domestic violence.”
  • Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (07-591), on whether the Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants a right to cross-examine forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports for use in their prosecution.

< Mueller Likely to Remain as FBI Director | When FDR Was Center Right >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court to Hear Three Criminal Cases Today | 6 comments (6 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    No right to confrontation (none / 0) (#1)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:06:35 AM EST
    If the government has declared the information against you "secret", you have no right to confront it. All we need to do is to extend this protection to the forensic analysts, so that the methods to derive the evidence are also secret.

    Or, we could simply forbid the government from ever using classified evidence or evidence derived from classified evidence.

    See rights aren't subject to "balancing tests" that drain their true meaning away. What are traditionally called "rights" in our legal system should in fact be called "privileges", as they do not emanate from the person (as our founding fathers believed) but emanate from the State and may be circumscribed at will (as our SCOTRP believes).

    Chambers vs. US.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM EST
    Not reporting to prison a violent felony?  I'd call it common sense, or a natural reasonable reaction to being sentenced to a prison term.

    I guess it has to be a crime, but a violent felony?  I'll never understand the law.

    Melendez Diaz (none / 0) (#3)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    comes form Massachusetts.  I know the defense attorney, Mary Rogers.  Very competent and zealous; judicial law clerk in Mass after graduating law school and now does exclusively appeals and post-conviction.    

    Boston papers carrying lots of covereage because arguing for the prosecution is Martha Coakley, our elected AG, in the flesh.  Practically no coverage of Mary Rogers.  Note, Cokely has announced she will run for Kerry's senate seat if he moves to Obama's cabinet, as predicted.  I don't recall Cokely trying many cases in Mass in the DA's office or arguing appeals.  Since the government's argument, no doubt, will hinge on necessity and $$ waste to call in the lab technician to testify I guess Cokely is well situated to argue. However, screw ups on state crime labs and ME's office are notorious here.  So cross examination is essential.    

    you don't remember (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    Louise Woodward, the Nanny case, that put her name on the map?

    Parent
    I recall it well (none / 0) (#5)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:52:06 AM EST
    The real prosecutor in that case was Gerry Leone. (He is now the elected DA in Middlesex County).   His closing won that case; he was stunnning and breathtaking.  It was perhaps the best closing I have ever seen from a prosecutor.  Cokely was like a technician and cold. Everyone in Mass knows that.

    Martha is a staunch Hillary supporter, by the way.  She is very articulate and very bright.  I bet she will be effective in the appellate argument since it is not about passion; it is a technical argument about right to confrontation.      

    Parent

    As an aside on Martha Coakley (none / 0) (#6)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:08:44 AM EST
    Mass has a blended indigent defense system meaning we are overwhelmingly appointed private attorneys with a quite small PD office as more or less administration.  We had not received a rate of comp. increase in 20 years until we stopped taking cases.  An Indigent Defense Commission was set up to make recommendations. Martha Coakley spoke, though she really did not have to.  She was incredibly harsh on private attorneys. You see, she has always been a government lawyer.  I was present for her testimony.  She argued against us and for an all PD system. She used the term "manage" as a kind of mantra during her testimony.  She thinks the best attorenys are all "managed."  Private council are not managed.  She is an institutional person.  She does not get it that Mass Indigent Defense System, as is, has been consistently ranked as one of the best in the country by the ABA, fullfilling all requirements except rate of compensation. She would have dismantled the whole system, putting in its place something more akin to Florida. I was a PD in FL.  Their caseloads are obscene.   Appellate attorneys never visit their clients; one would have to get special permission to do that. Also, they file an inordinate number of Anders briefs, a practice that is prohibited by the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court.

    Don't get me wrong, she may make a good Senator.  From a criminal defense perspective, my perspective, she was insulting to all the very fine, dedicated, talented private defense attorneys here.    

    Parent

    Supreme Court to Hear Three Criminal Cases Today | 6 comments (6 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment