Friday, May 3, 2013

Texas Execution


This is Richard Cobb. He is a 29 year old convicted for a murder in 2002. More then eleven years ago in East Texas he shot Kenneth Vandever with a 20-gauge shotgun killing him and also shot two women who survived. Beunka Adams was his partner in the murder who was executed last year. “KWTX reported that Adams showed that he gave the orders during the holdup and carried out the abductions. Assistant Attorney General Ellen Stewart-Klein said that Adams had “total participation in a capital murder and the moral culpability required of one sentenced to death,” the station reported” “Mr. Cobb has never disputed his involvement in the crimes, but explained that he acted out of fear of Adams, who orchestrated the crimes,” a court statement reads, according to Reuters. This is the fourth execution in Texas this year. It must be seen as not out of the ordinary, considering no press was sent to report the event. Texas has performed 496 executions since 1976, making it the leader in capital punishment.

Cobb had an interesting last moment of life, his final words. Here is where things get weird. Initially his last words were, “Life is death, death is life. I hope that someday this absurdity that humanity has come to will come to an end. Life is too short. I hope anyone that has negative energy towards me will resolve that. Life is too short to harbor feelings of hatred and anger. That’s it, warden.” But moments after being injected with the lethal chemicals he turned his head looking up at the warden and said, “Wow! That is great. That is awesome. Thank you, warden!” he then slumped his head on the pillow and was officially declared dead about fifteen minutes later.

“The drug used in Texas is pentobarbital, a barbiturate that has been withdrawn by its Danish maker, which will not sell it for use in executions.  That decision has several capital punishment states scrambling for a new supply, but the Texas Department of Criminal Justice apparently stocked up before the ban.  According to Austin’s American Statesman, the agency may have spent as much as $50,000 on execution chemicals and supplies.”

Moncrieffe v Holder

     Moncrieffe is a Jamaican citizen who is legally here in the US and was arrested for having  1.3 grams of marijuana in his car. "He pleaded guilty under Georgia law to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The Federal Government sought to deport him, reasoning that his conviction was an aggravated felony because possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is a CSA offense, 21 U. S. C. §841(a), punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, §841(b)(1)(D). An Immigration Judge ordered Moncrieffe removed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Fifth Circuit denied Moncrieffe’s petition for review, rejecting his reliance on §841(b)(4), which makes marijuana distribution punishable as a misdemeanor if the offense involves a small amount for no remuneration, and holding that the felony provision, §841(b)(1)(D), provides the default punishment for his offense."
     "Under the categorical approach generally employed to determine whether a state offense is comparable to an offense listed in the INA, see, e.g., Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U. S. 29–38, the noncitizen’s actual conduct is irrelevant. Instead “the state statute defining the crime of conviction” is examined to see whether it fits within the “generic” federal definition of a corresponding aggravated felony. Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U. S. 183. The state offense is a categorical match only if a conviction of that offense “ ‘necessarily’ involved . . . facts equating to [the] generic [federal offense].” Shepard v. United States, 544 U. S. 13. Because this Court examines what the state conviction necessarily involved and not the facts underlying the case, it presumes that the conviction “rested upon [nothing] more than the least of th[e] acts” criminalized, before determining whether even those acts are encompassed by the generic federal offense. Johnson v. United States, 559 U. S. 133."




http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-702

Maryland Repeals the Death Penalty

Governor Martin O’Malley signed legislation today eliminating capital punishment in Maryland. Maryland is the 18th state to make this decision. O’Malley has been fighting for this decision for six years. The signing was witnessed by many who are opponents of the death penalty including the first person to escape the death penalty by DNA testing, Kirk Bloodworth.

Maryland’s last execution was in 2005. However, there are currently five men condemned to the death penalty. The legislation does do not go in effect until October 1st. The five men are not affected by this decision but O’Malley says he will consider commutation for them but in individual cases. "The notice shall be considered withdrawn and it shall be considered a notice to seek a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under specified circumstances," according to a press release from the office of Governor Martin O'Malley.

"Maryland has effectively eliminated a policy that is proven not to work. Evidence shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent, it cannot be administered without racial bias, and it costs three times as much as life in prison without parole," the office said in a statement.
"Furthermore, there is no way to reverse a mistake if an innocent person is put to death. Working together with law enforcement partners, Maryland has driven down violent crime and homicides to three decade lows."

Thursday, May 2, 2013

McBurney v Young

     In this case, Mark McBurney and Robert Hurlbert were denied VFOIA (Virginia Freedom of Information Act) because they were not citizens. The VFOIA states that “all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of the Commonwealth.” "After being denied, Petitioners filed a complaint against the respondents, the agencies which denied their VFOIA requests, with the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Petitioners argued that the VFOIA’s citizens-only provision violated their rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Hurlbert’s rights under the dormant Commerce Clause. The District Court granted summary judgment for the agencies, which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Petitioners now appeal, arguing that Virginia’s citizens-only restriction violates the dormant Commerce Clause because it discriminates against out-of state economic interests both facially and in effect, and also violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it creates an inequality in access to information. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact whether a state is required allow all United States citizens to access their public records. "
     "The decision in this case will determine whether the VFOIA’s citizens-only provision is unconstitutional. If it is, all states will be required to allow equal access of public records to citizens from other states. Both sides disagree as to whether the citizens-only provision contains sufficient loopholes and exceptions to allow everyone who needs public information to obtain it and whether prohibiting the citizens-only provision would be too costly for the state."

"In an unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that Virginia’s FOIA does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the dormant Commerce Clause."



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-17

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/mcburney-v-young-post-decision-scotuscast