Judgment Day

The Courier Journal had this story yesterday about the Becker Law Office, a Kentucky personal injury law firm, “giving back to the community” by offering 99 cent gasoline. The firm offered the deal to the first 250 motorists to arrive at a Chevron station, and applied a 15-gallon cap per customer.

The law office’s staff and employees of Peritus Public Relations were even kind enough to pump the gas. Cars began arriving at the gas station at midnight on the day in which the state increased its gas tax to 21.1 cents.

Interesting little marketing tactic here, to say the least. I can just hear those Becker employees now, while filling up a motorist’s vehicle:

Becker employee: Good morning, how are you today?

Motorist: I’m great, 99-cent gas … can’t beat that.

Becker Employee: Well, the Becker Law Office has always believed in helping the members of this community. In fact, we’ve been “helping injured people for over 20 years. Auto accidents, wrongful death, dangerous drugs, defective products, dog bites, hormone therapy, slip and fall, nursing home neglect, birth injuries, social security disability, medical malpractice, ADA compliance and sexual harassment … if you’ve been injured, we’d like to help. You can talk to us for free, with no obligation. We’re paid only when you’re paid. Here, take my card.”

Motorist: Okay … thanks.

I wanted to comment on this last week, but a lengthy appeal and a looming deadline have taken up nearly all of my time lately.

The LA Times had a story last week about two teens who, on several occasions, broke into an Orange County high school, stole tests and answer keys, and hacked the school’s computer system to change their grades.

The 2,800-student school in Las Flores, east of Mission Viejo, is academically well regarded and regularly earns a spot on Newsweek's list of best American high schools.

Omar Khan, of Coto de Caza, has been charged with 69 felonies and faces more than 38 years in prison if convicted. Tanvir Singh, of Ladera Ranch, has been charged with five felony counts and could face three years in prison. Singh will be arraigned today, and Khan will be arraigned Thursday at Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach.

High school administrators wanted to handle the matter in-house:

We're really sad and disappointed that the charges have been filed against these students," said Beverly De Nicola, spokeswoman for the Capistrano Unified School District. "We have been cooperating with law enforcement and we have taken our own serious disciplinary actions based on our own investigation. . . . I haven't seen a situation like this in our school district ever."

I’m not well versed in computer hacking law, and have no idea of the kinds of sentences imposed for those crimes. I’d imagine the breaking and entering charges carry hefty sentences, but 38 years? Of course, I don’t believe Khan will be convicted of all these charges, and he'll probably serve little, if any, time in prison. But just to be facing that many years seems completely ridiculous. A person with thousands of child pornography images will face less time than that. You can beat your wife and/or children, kill someone while driving drunk, or commit a plethora of other heinous crimes and face much less time. Has the practice of hacking into school computers and stealing grades become so prevalent that law enforcement needs to come down hard on these two young men? I think not. We have kids up here in the Hinterlands who bring guns and other dangerous weapons to school--clearly a bigger issue than changing grades--and none of them face a sentence of anywhere near 38 years. Just another example of how out-of-whack our system really is.

From the Austin American-Statesman:

The capital murder conviction of Charles Dean Hood, who is set to be executed Tuesday, should be overturned because the judge at his 1990 trial was secretly dating the district attorney, an appeal filed Thursday alleged.

Judge Verla Sue Holland, now retired, could not have provided Hood with a fair and impartial trial while involved in a long-term intimate relationship with then-Collin County District Attorney Tom O'Connell, the appeal said. O'Connell played an active role in prosecuting Hood for the double murder that put him on death row.

Appellate lawyers tried to verify that a relationship existed [in 2004 and 2005] without success …. This summer, with a new execution date approaching, Hood's lawyers caught a break when a former assistant district attorney signed a sworn statement June 3 calling the Holland-O'Connell relationship "common knowledge" in the prosecutor's office. Matthew Goeller, now a Plano lawyer in private practice, said the relationship was in existence in 1987, when Goeller joined the district attorney's office. Goeller also said it "existed during the trial of Charles Dean Hood" and ended in 1993.

Holland and O'Connell, now in private practice in Plano, did not return calls Thursday seeking comment. According to the Texas Constitution, judges cannot sit on cases where they have a personal interest or "where either of the parties may be connected with the judge."

I was happy to read this story today in the Pocono Record (via the AP) about Governor Ed Rendell pushing for major reforms to Pennsylvania’s dog laws. The legislation has drawn significant criticism from organizations representing professional dog breeders, farmers and hunters. I’m not a PETA member. I typically have more meat in my freezer than the grocery store has in its meat section. But few things infuriate me more than animal abuse, particularly when it involves dogs.

The bill is the Rendell administration's latest effort to rid Pennsylvania of its reputation among animal-welfare advocates as a haven for so-called "puppy mills" - large-scale breeding operations that house neglected and abused dogs in cramped, unsanitary cages. It would impose specific penalties for criminal convictions and make a host of other changes intended to provide better living conditions and adequate health care in larger kennels.

It’s about damn time. This industry has been allowed to operate with almost no oversight for far too long. Regulations are pathetic at best, and the sanctions imposed on those found in violation are laughable. One would think the professional dog breeder organizations would actually have an interest in the health and safety of these animals, but instead they’re more concerned with the money involved.

Under the legislation introduced in May, commercial kennels would be defined as ones that either sell any dogs to dealers or pet shops, or sell or transfer more than 60 dogs a year. Those facilities would be required to house dogs in larger cages with solid flooring instead of wire flooring, give the animals opportunities to exercise outdoors, and provide regular veterinary examinations, among other things.

[High-paid lobbyists] testified before the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee [and stated the] proposed changes would force all commercial kennels to close and also prove burdensome for smaller facilities.

Are these people serious? Kennel owners are challenging this bill because they’ll actually have to walk these dogs, provide clean cages, and regular veterinary care? These owners are mad because they may no longer be allowed to stack dogs in cages for 24 hours a day, let them urinate and defecate all over themselves, and then give them a quick clean up and send them to pet stores with a host of underlying health problems.

I don’t feel sorry for any of these owners claiming they’ll go out of business. That’s bullshit. Those who provide adequate care will not be affected. Those who buy a few dogs, breed them until they can no longer reproduce, and skimp on cost to maximize profits may indeed see less profits, but that’s just too bad. If they cannot meet the minimum standards and are forced out of business, they don’t belong in the business to begin with. Screw them. Scumbags.

From the History Channel's website:

On this day in 1966, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Miranda v. Arizona, establishing the principle that all criminal suspects must be advised of their rights before interrogation.

The roots of the Miranda decision go back to March 2, 1963, when an 18-year-old Phoenix woman told police that she had been abducted, driven to the desert and raped. Detectives questioning her story gave her a polygraph test, but the results were inconclusive. However, tracking the license plate number of a car that resembled that of her attacker's brought police to Ernesto Miranda, who had a prior record as a peeping tom. Although the victim did not identify Miranda in a line-up, he was brought into police custody and interrogated. What happened next is disputed, but officers left the interrogation with a confession that Miranda later recanted, unaware that he didn't have to say anything at all.

The confession was extremely brief and differed in certain respects from the victim's account of the crime. However, Miranda's appointed defense attorney (who was paid a grand total of $100) didn't call any witnesses at the ensuing trial, and Miranda was convicted. While Miranda was in Arizona state prison, the American Civil Liberties Union took up his appeal, claiming that the confession was false and coerced.

The Supreme Court overturned his conviction, but Miranda was retried and convicted in October 1966 anyway, despite the relative lack of evidence against him. Remaining in prison until 1972, Ernesto Miranda was later stabbed to death in the men's room of a bar after a poker game in January 1976.

Leave it home, grandma.Gun control laws have always been a controversial issue. On one side, there are those that believe the right to bear arms is one guaranteed by our Constitution. Others, who take an opposing view, believe guns have no place in our society, outside of those used by law enforcement officers. I fit somewhere in the middle—I don’t have a problem with people keeping licensed firearms in their homes, but I believe carry permits should be severely restricted. The truth is, there are very few people who actually need to carry a firearm. This story from the Associated Press illustrates that point:

A relative of a 4-year-old South Carolina girl who accidentally shot herself with her grandmother's handgun in a Sam's Club store said Tuesday the family expects the child to be out of the hospital by week's end.

The child was riding in a shopping cart and playing with a cell phone, then grabbed the gun from her grandmother's purse and shot herself in the chest.

Authorities said the [grandma], a South Carolina magistrate, has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The Sam's Club store does not have a sign prohibiting guns inside.

Chief Magistrate Rodger Emerson Edmonds said it's common for magistrates to carry guns for protection.

"Sometimes some of the judges have to make deposits at the banks," he said. "The other reason is for self preservation to protect yourself because there are some crazies out there."

There are "some crazies" out there, and this grandma who carried a loaded handgun into Sam's Club is one of them.  I don’t buy the Chief Magistrate’s reasoning here. First off, we all make bank deposits, and I hope to never see the day where every person who goes to the bank is armed. Regarding protection, many judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys receive threats from clients, prisoners, and friends and family members of those convicted. But how often do you hear about judges and/or attorneys actually being harmed? Almost never.  And what about doctors who perform abortions, the stock guy who picked the wrong symbol and lost his client a ton of money, and local politicians?  I'd bet they receive threats too--should they be armed as well?  At the end of the day, 99.9% of the population doesn't need to carry a gun.  If you're afraid someone might harm you, go get some pepper spray and/or a taser. 

I find it interesting how many kids theses days have cell phones, probably because I never had one until after college. Today, even elementary school kids are equipped with the latest mobile devices. I can understand the convenience aspect—i.e., parents can call and tell their children they’ll be a few minutes late when picking them up, children can tell their parents they’re taking the bus and no longer need a ride, etc. And if there is a real emergency, a cell phone is invaluable. Those of us who didn’t have access to such technology, however, managed to work it out. After all, there were always pay phones for the real emergencies.

The problem with kids using cell phones in schools is that most children spend all day using them to text message their friends, play games, etc. Teachers become frustrated and students miss out on what’s going on in the classroom.

And now, Crime Stoppers gives students another reason to text while at school.

The East Volusia News has this article about Crime Stoppers in Daytona Beach, Florida, instituting a new program encouraging students to send anonymous text messages to law enforcement.

Crime Stoppers wants to be able to reach children, said Suzanne DeWees, executive director. It's a user-friendly technology for teens that can be used safely at school. They can just walk down the hall and text (a tip).

Crime Stoppers will put posters in every classroom in Volusia and Flagler counties -- 6,372 total -- as well as on VOTRAN buses.

A really nice aspect of this program is that we can text back, keep it anonymous and ask questions, and the sender can find out if their tip led to an arrest.

So Crime Stoppers is recruiting a bunch of student investigators. What a dumb idea. Do your own investigative work, and leave the rest to the teachers and school administrators. This anonymous program is ripe for bogus tips, which, of course, will lead to wasted resources. Not to mention the disruption it will cause in the school environment:

Teacher (Mr. Smith): Mikey, I told you no texting in class.

Mikey: It’s okay Mr. Smith, I’m just sending a crime tip.

And law enforcement can text back to get more info? I text, and it isn’t the quickest mode of communication. But who cares if students spend time at school helping out the police—it’s not like they have better things to do while they’re there. The program may yield a few helpful tips, but at what cost?

Scott at Simple Justice had this post earlier today, discussing a post by David Bernstein at Volokh about a student note recently published in the Harvard Law Review.

From Simple Justice:

Described as "bizarre", Bernstein notes that "[i]f there is any traditional legal analysis in this Note, it's not obvious (though I admit that I didn't read the entire thing)." The note, by HLS student Phil Telfeyan, is a passion play on morality versus justice set within the wealthiest University in the world.

If Bernstein's damnation of this note seems harsh, it's nothing. The comments to the post rip the author to shreds. The readers are offended, outraged and predict the fall of Harvard Law School as a direct result of the publication of this screed for the poor. Who is this sanctimonious punk to litter HLR with this pap? How dare he besmirch the history and tradition of HLR with his political rant?

Whether Phil Telfeyan stood on a soap box in Harvard Yard, or published in Harvard Law Review, isn't nearly as important as the fact that we need the next generation of people who care about something other than themselves, their Biglaw job and their eventual Ferrari. It warms my heart to know that there is a Phil Telfeyan waiting in the wings to fill the shoes of social activists who came before him.

And the commenters to Bernstein's post, from former HLR editors to Biglaw pretenders, your castigation of this Note and personal attacks on its author reveal only how shallow and myopic you are. There is a disgrace to be found here, and it is your intolerance of anything that would defile your Bible, the Harvard Law Review. What a terrible shame that all that intellectual effort was put into beating up on this punk kid instead of doing something to help someone.

Scott’s post reminded me of something I read a while back—Adam Liptak wrote this piece last year, about how irrelevant law reviews have become to the those actually practicing law. Here are highlights:

“I haven’t opened up a law review in years,” said Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs of the federal appeals court in New York. “No one speaks of them. No one relies on them.”

Judge Jacobs and six of his colleagues on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said in a lecture hall jammed with law professors at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law this month that their scholarship no longer had any impact on the courts.

Articles in law reviews have certainly become more obscure in recent decades. Many law professors seem to think they are under no obligation to say anything useful or to say anything well. They take pride in the theoretical and in working in disciplines other than their own. They seem to think the analysis of actual statutes and court decisions — which is to say the practice of law — is beneath them.

In the 1970s, federal courts cited articles from The Harvard Law Review 4,410 times, according to a new report by the staff of The Cardozo Law Review. In the 1990s, the number of citations dropped by more than half, to 1,956. So far in this decade: 937.

Professors in attendance were offended—no doubt—to hear their work was so unimportant.

Some [professors] suggested, gently, that judges might not have the intellectual curiosity to appreciate modern legal scholarship.

That's laughable, and so typical.

“The claim by judges that they have no use for law review articles seems to me an anti-intellectual know-nothingism that is understandable but regrettable,” Professor Dorf said.

Hold your head up high Phil Telfeyan, even if David Bernstein didn’t like your article enough to give it a full read. Truth is, no one is giving any of his a full read either (and his website has a typo).

Bloomberg.com has this story:

Republicans are facing an uphill battle against a fresh-faced Democrat for a third term in the White House, and they are reaching for a familiar playbook: crime.

It worked in 1988; it will be tried again in 2008.

[Republican groups] are highlighting some of Senator Obama's positions during his eight years in the Illinois state legislature, from opposing extending the death penalty for gang members to supporting the decriminalization of marijuana and refusing to back restrictions on porn shops.

Tough on crime was cool in 1988, when crack was ripping through every major American city and cocaine-related deaths reached an all-time high. But in 2008, most [intelligent] people think there are better ways to address the nation’s crime problems. The war on drugs—the foundation of Regan’s “get tough” mantra—failed miserably. Drugs are still cheap, Meth use has skyrocketed, drug trafficking is as efficient as ever, and the prison population has exploded.  A lot has changed since 1988. 

And the death penalty?  Really?  STILL NOT a deterrent, and the costs associated with it are higher than a small country's GDP. 

“I would be amazed if crime was not used extensively to show how out of step this guy is with the mainstream of America,” said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican strategist unaffiliated with the campaign of the party's presumptive nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain.

I would be amazed if Mr. Fabrizio, a republican strategist, knows what mainstream America wants.

The Oregonian has this story:

On Wednesday the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled a person who, in the past, voluntarily entered an alcohol rehabilitation program does not lose the opportunity to enter a diversion program to avoid a record showing a conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, or DUII.

After successful completion of the state’s one-year diversion program, the driver’s record reads “diversion” rather than “DUII” and the driver keeps his/her license. Drivers are only allowed one diversion every 10 years.

The case before the court involved a driver who had entered rehab on her own eight years earlier but failed to finish the program, and now was seeking entrance into the diversion program. The court held failing to complete a rehab program does not prevent a drunk driver from entering the program.

The court heard two other cases and made the following rulings:

• A police officer can remain in the room when a suspect is making a phone call after an arrest.

A woman made a phone call to a friend who was an attorney while an officer was in the room at a police station. The attorney did not practice criminal law and recommended that she call another lawyer. The woman refused to take the breath test, resulting in an automatic license suspension. She appealed, claiming she was denied a reasonable opportunity to communicate with counsel.

The court rejected her argument, ruling that an arrested driver's right to communicate privately with an attorney applies only in criminal proceedings, not to state Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division administrative proceedings, which include the automatic suspension.

• A reliable tip about a possible DUII is enough to stop a driver before leaving a restaurant.

In a Washington County case, the court overturned a decision by Circuit Judge Timothy Alexander, ruling that police were justified in stopping a woman from driving after restaurant workers reported she appeared to be intoxicated.

Alexander had ruled the stop was illegal, but the appeals court rejected his reasoning that police lacked reasonable suspicion based on the restaurant workers' observations.

"What those witnesses knew and whether their conclusions were reasonable is immaterial," the court said in its opinion. The police had more than enough information "to stop defendant based on a reliable citizen informant's report," the court said.

By now most have heard the story of Susan LeFerve. The former Michigan resident was arrested at 19 for taking $600 from an undercover officer during a heroin drug sting in 1974. She served about one year of a 10- to 20-year sentence before walking away from prison, saying she threw a coat over a barbed wire fence and climbed into a waiting vehicle where her grandfather and another relative were saying the rosary.

LeFevre headed for California and used a Social Security number belonging to someone who died in 1981, a number she says she made up, said Steve Jurman, the federal Marshal who arrested her. She obtained a California driver's license using a false date of birth but didn't renew it after it expired in 1999.

Her 32 years of freedom ended April 24, when federal marshals acting on an anonymous tip from Michigan arrested her at her home in Del Mar. Police described her home as a mansion in Carmel Valley, where she lived with her husband, two daughters and a son -- 15, 20 and 22.

Her husband of 23 years, Alan Walsh, said his family was blindsided and grief-stricken by the revelation that Marie Day, the woman he fell in love with and who bore his three children, had hidden a criminal past.

Enter Buddy Moorehouse, metro-editor for the Daily Press & Argus. Moronhouse has this column about the case, and to put it lightly, he’s an idiot.

Here’s what Buddy has to say:

So, the question is: Should LeFevre be in prison? My opinion: Yes, she should.

No matter how good a person she is now, and no matter how clean her life has been since escaping from prison, the fact of the matter is this: Back in 1974, she committed a crime, and she earned a prison sentence for it. Then she committed another crime in 1976 by escaping from prison.

We can't let the prisoners themselves decide how long they should be in prison. If LeFevre's sentence is commuted, the message to any other youthful offender will be this: "If you feel that you can live a good life from here on out, just escape from prison, keep your nose clean for a few decades, and everything will be fine."

Sure Bud, that’s what any other youthful offender will think. All those in prison will idolize LeFerve, and escape attempts will reach record highs. Prisoners will forget about all the other escape attempts that have failed—by far the norm—and stay awake at night and think, “Susan did it…so can I.” And because escaping from prison is so easy, we’ll have to lock our doors to stay safe from all the escapees.

Newsflash Moronhouse—prisons have changed a bit since the late 1970s, and throwing a jacket over the fence probably isn’t going to cut it anymore. Surely we would have more escapees if that was the case, but our wonderful prison system has prevented that by spending [wasting] an outrageous amount of money building some of the most secure facilities in the world.

Buddy continues:

Officials in Michigan say that it's pretty likely that if she does go back to prison, she'll probably be eligible for parole in 2013. This upper-class suburban mom — a pillar of the community who apparently hasn't had so much as a parking ticket in the past three decades — will likely be spending the next five-plus years in prison.

Is that fair? Is that right? Does that make any sense at all?

Unfortunately, yes. Marie Walsh has to pay for the crimes of LeFevre, because that's the way it works.

You’ll be paying too, Bud, according to this recent article in the Detroit News. The state will take $200 from you, and $200 from your wife. That’s how much it costs each Michigan resident to house an inmate for a year. Five years will cost your family $2,000. But hey, gotta deter those escape attempts! It will cost your state $31,325 per year to house LeFerve, and help maintain the $2 billion a year Michigan spends on incarceration. As if that’s not enough for a state that spends more on prisons than education, your state’s prison costs will continue to force it to cut jobs for police officers and firefighters so more money is available to keep prisoners from throwing their jackets over the fence.

Moronhouse goes on:

I had a long talk with my wife the other day about this case. She was extremely sympathetic to this woman's plight, and tried to put herself in Marie Walsh's shoes.

"She probably should have to go back to prison," my wife said, "but I'll bet that if you talked to her, she'd say that she doesn't regret a thing. She got to spend all those years building a better life for herself, and she has a husband and three kids because of it. But, yeah, I guess she should be back in prison."

At least we know if the Moronhouses were in this situation, Buddy’s wife would be packing her bags and turning herself in, doing the right thing. Yeah, I bet.

This case is ridiculous. LeFerve has been living a normal life in our society for 32 years. Evidence shows prisons are failing miserably at rehabilitation, and one cannot help but wonder if LeFerve would be leading such a normal life if she had served her full sentence. That’s not to say we should open all the cells and let prisoners out into society, but there are always exceptions, in every aspect of life. Moronhouse argues that we’d be setting a bad precedent and that prisoners must do their time. But if that’s the case, why don’t we remove the pardon power completely? Putting this woman back in prison will serve no legitimate purpose.

The Bemidj Pioneer reports here that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will consider a bill requiring criminal background checks for coaches. Opponents argue the bill, if passed, could eliminate many athletic and other programs, reasoning that the new provisions will deter some.

Bill sponsor Rep. Karla Bigham, DFL-Cottage Grove, said the background checks are needed in the light of several recent reports of improper contact by coaches and others.

It’s a shame that states have to resort to this kind of legislation, but lots of “improper contact” cases are making the headlines these days. On one hand, I can see the point of the opponents—the potential volunteer who got a DUI 15 years ago and has no other criminal charges will be forced either make his history known, or pass on the opportunity. On other hand, it’s important for schools, which are responsible for the well being of many children, to know who will be working with their students. While a big part of this is to ensure a safe environment exists, reducing liability also plays a role.

Snippets from the Associated Press:

Long portrayed as a white crime, Hispanics now make up the overwhelming majority - 60 percent - of federal offenders facing powder cocaine charges.

Until the last decade, when the price of cocaine dropped sharply, consumers were largely affluent and educated. That fed into the misperception - often reported by The Associated Press and other news organizations - that most powder cocaine offenders were white, experts say.

In fact, data show, more Hispanics than whites or blacks have been sentenced on federal powder charges as far back as 1992. Law enforcement officials say that's because federal agents almost exclusively pursue cocaine traffickers from South America and Mexico instead of end-of-the-line U.S. consumers.

By 2000, half of all cocaine traffickers facing federal charges were Hispanic, U.S. Sentencing Commission data show. Additionally, Hispanics made up 61 percent of traffickers smuggling in more than 5 kilograms (about 11 pounds).

The Oregon Court of Appeals, in two separate cases, expanded protection against witness tampering and strengthened protection against illegal interrogation. Here are highlights from The Daily Astorian article:

In a ruling Wednesday, the court rejected the appeal of a man who threatened to kill his daughter if she reported he was involved in the theft of all-terrain vehicles … [finding] it didn't matter that the threat came before the man was prosecuted - he knew his daughter would very likely be a witness.

In an opinion by Judge Darleen Ortega, the court noted that under Oregon law, it is necessary only that "a defendant tampers with someone who he believes may be called as a witness."

In a separate case from Washington County, the appeals court strengthened protection against illegal interrogation by overturning a search that found marijuana in a backpack in the trunk of a car during a routine traffic stop in April 2004.

Hyatt Robin Vondehn was a passenger in the car and was arrested on an unrelated charge when police learned a warrant against him was outstanding.

Officers smelled marijuana, and asked the driver for permission to search the car. When they found the backpack, police asked Vondehn for his consent to search it, and he granted it before officers advised him of his Miranda rights.

The court, in an opinion by Chief Judge David Brewer, threw out drug convictions for possession and delivery of a controlled substance because police found the marijuana only as a result of illegal questioning.

The court noted that during all of the questioning, Vondehn "was under arrest, handcuffed and in the back seat of a police car," and "there was nothing about the backpack itself that tied it to defendant."

The appeals court said that it and the Oregon Supreme Court both "have recognized that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive," especially without a Miranda warning.

"Even though the reason for the arrest was not related to the subject of the questioning, those circumstances were sufficient to require Miranda warnings," the opinion said.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has this article today, about a New Jersey man who played video games while a 17-year old girl lay on his bed unconscious for 12 hours, and later died of a drug overdose. The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s dismissal of a reckless manslaughter charge against Michael Lisa, the man who supplied the drugs and never attempted to help the girl.

Lisa was indicted in 2005 in connection with the death of a 17-year-old girl, identified as A.R. in court papers, who came to his Howell Township home with friends early the morning of Oct. 19, 2003. Lisa, who was 19, still faces a charge of aggravated sexual assault and drug charges stemming from the encounter. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The high court found that the prosecutor's instructions to the grand jury were flawed because they introduced the concept of a duty to another. In an unsigned opinion, the court majority determined the case can be presented again "based on the totality of the defendant's conduct."

In dissent, Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto said the reckless manslaughter charge should be reinstated. He endorsed the finding of an appellate judge who noted that it would have been reasonable for Lisa to call for medical attention when the girl fell unconscious after using drugs he provided.

Instead, Lisa called a friend to his room about 5 a.m. and said the girl passed out after they had sex. When she remained unresponsive after being shaken and slapped, the friend suggested calling 911, but Lisa refused, according to the appellate ruling.

Lisa and the friend fell asleep on the bed - with the girl between them - for about seven hours until about 12:30 p.m. The girl was still unresponsive. Lisa purchased ammonia, which did not revive her. He called a nurse, but ignored her advice to call 911, the appellate ruling said. Instead, he and his friend stayed in the room, watching football and playing video games, propping the girl up when she slumped over to help her breathe … aid was finally summoned about 5 p.m.

A medical examiner determined that her chances of survival would have increased if she had gotten medical attention when she first lost consciousness.

The Honolulu Advertiser reports here that the state is considering a shield law that will protect reporters and bloggers from having to disclose sources and notes in court or before state and county governments. Here’s more from the article:

A compromise draft, endorsed yesterday by state Attorney General Mark Bennett and news media attorney Jeff Portnoy, would create a state shield law to help preserve news gathering from government intrusion. Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia have similar laws and a federal shield law is pending before the U.S. Congress.

Click to read more ...

Newsday reports a Nassau judge must determine whether it’s improper for court employees to give preference to people who say they are "willing to serve" on the grand jury. Defense lawyers and legal experts say giving preference goes against the legal requirement to select grand jurors at random. Here’s more for the article:

[Commissioner of Jurors] DeVivo said in his affidavit that asking people about their willingness to serve is just a way of trying to accommodate citizens who are giving up four weeks of their lives to perform their civic duty. Jurors who do not raise their hands to serve on the current panel will be called back later.

Click to read more ...

Okay, maybe that’s not exactly what a teacher in Indiana said to a student before physically disciplining her, but you know she was thinking it. Paula Fettig, a teacher at Beach Grove High School, was accused last year of slapping a student during gym class. Fettig stated she only grabbed the girl by her chin to get her attention. On April 15, 2008, The Indiana Court Appeals decided State of Indiana v. Fettig, and held that Paula Fettig’s actions fell short of being “cruel or excessive,” the standard in Indiana to convict for assault and battery. A few highlights from the decision:

The majority:

Our legislature has provided authority to school personnel to discipline students by stating in all matters relating to the discipline and conduct of students, school corporation personnel: (1) stand in the relation of parents to the students of the school corporation; and (2) have the right to take any disciplinary action necessary to promote student conduct that conforms with an orderly and effective educational system. I.C. § 20-33-8-8(b). Further, Indiana Code section 20-33-8-9 provides that teachers “may take any action that is reasonably necessary to carry out or to prevent an interference with an educational function that the individual supervises.”

Click to read more ...

The Washington Post has this article today. Here’s the intro:

The Senate moved yesterday toward asking the Justice Department for a criminal investigation of a $10 million legislative earmark whose provisions were mysteriously altered after Congress gave final approval to a huge 2005 highway funding bill.

In what may become the first formal request from Congress for a criminal inquiry into one of its own special projects, top Senate Democrats and Republicans have endorsed taking action in connection with the earmark that Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), former chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, inserted into the legislation.