The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Arkansas can force a prisoner on death row to take antipsychotic medication to make him sane enough to execute . In the majority opinion, Judge Roger L. Wollman wrote:

"Eligibility for execution is the only unwanted consequence of the medication."

...Judge Gerald W. Heaney, in dissent, ... would have allowed Mr. Singleton to be medicated without fear of execution.

"I believe," he wrote, "that to execute a man who is severely deranged without treatment, and arguably incompetent when treated, is the pinnacle of what Justice Marshall called `the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance.' " Judge Heaney added that the majority's holding presented doctors with an impossible ethical choice.

The "only" unwanted consequence? Can any other consequence, good or bad, matter after that?

"A jury awarded more than $11 million to a former hotel manager Tuesday after concluding he was fired by real estate maven Leona Helmsley because he is gay."

"The jury found that Charles Bell had endured a "hostile and abusive work environment" while running Helmsley's Park Lane Hotel. He was awarded $10 million in punitive damages and $1.2 million in compensatory damages."

"State Supreme Court Justice Walter Tolub had told the jurors to take into account the defendant's financial condition and said Helmsley's net worth is estimated at $3.2 billion to $4 billion."

Kudos to Mr. Bell and his lawyers...for their perserverence in taking the case to trial--undoubtedly Mrs. Helmsley had a battery of high powered lawyers from a big firm--this just goes to prove that the little guy can win too.

Thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing for e-mailing us about this decision from a divided en banc panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today. The Court ruled that the head of a public defender's office may be held liable in a civil rights suit brought by a criminal defendant for denial of effective representation of counsel. You can access both the majority and dissenting opinions here.

Howard explains here that "according to the plaintiff's complaint, the head of the public defender's office in Clark County, Nevada 'allocated investigative and defense resources based upon a defendant's performance on a polygraph examination and assigned inexperienced and untrained attorneys to capital and other felony cases.'" The decision pertains to whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's case at the summary judgment stage. The Court of Appeals allows the plaintiff/client's lawsuit to proceed against the chief public defender and the county.

Howard says "Circuit Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld's dissenting opinion does quite a persuasive job of explaining how this really isn't as bad as it sounds." Here's a condensed version of the sample of the dissent that Howard provides:

Maybe to those who haven't done any criminal defense, it isn't obvious why a polygraph examination would be used except to sort the innocent from the guilty. But to an experienced criminal defense lawyer, the distinction between lying and telling the truth is altogether different from (and much more important than) the distinction between guilt and innocence.... The biggest problem criminal defense lawyers face is that their clients often lie to them. Criminal defense clients lie a great deal to their lawyers....It is very difficult for a lawyer to prepare a good defense or negotiate effectively for a plea agreement when the client lies to the lawyer. The polygraph is a high-tech way to scare some of the clients into telling their lawyers the truth, and identifying other clients who won't....

We disagree. We would never polygraph a client for the purpose of determining whether he or she was telling us the truth. Even if we believed in the reliability of polygraphs, which we don't, we would not do that. To us, the public defender's policies are indeed as bad as they sound.

A federal court Friday handed down the largest award to date for defense legal fees under the Hyde Amendment (we'll explain that in a minute.) See, Aisenberg bill for feds: $2.9-million

That's the price the judge set for the legal fees of the couple once accused of lying about their baby's disappearance. Pre-Condit, you may recall, the Aisenbergs were once nightly fixtures on the cable news. Their baby Sabrina was taken from their Miami home, and the authorities suspected the couple had something to do with it. They advanced the theory that father did something bad and the mother was covering up. The couple were convicted in the court of public opinion in short order.

The feds decided to bug their bedroom. Then they indicted the Aisenbergs on federal charges. The charges were dismissed in a scathing opinion. Here's the current news:

The award is the largest in the five-year history of the Hyde Amendment, a federal law that protects defendants against prosecutorial abuses. ....Merryday also ordered the release this month of all grand jury transcripts. He said the unusual move is warranted because the pblic has a right to know how the case went so awry.

In the 94-page order, the judge painted a grim picture of an investigation that lacked credible evidence. He referred to parts of the indictment as "trivial," "gratuitous" and "misleading."

We are very saddened tonight by the news of the conviction of author and medical marijuana activist Ed Rosenthal in San Francisco. He will be sentenced Tuesday to a mandatory minimum ten year sentence. The maximum sentence is life.

Please visit Green-Aid for the details of the case and trial.

Hopefully this will be the galvinizing case for the need to reform our marijuana laws. The media coverage of the trial, prior to the jury's decision, has been nothing less than sympathetic to Ed and the need for a functional marijuana policy. From the above-linked AP article:

The verdicts were a victory in the federal government's battle against California's 1996 voter-approved medical marijuana law. Rosenthal's arrest last year was among a string of Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana suppliers in California.

Under strict orders from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, Rosenthal was never able to tell the jury that he was growing marijuana as "an officer" for the city of Oakland's medical marijuana program.

Oakland's program and others throughout California were authorized under Proposition 215. Eight other states also allow the sick and dying to smoke or grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

But federal authorities do not recognize those laws.

"There is no such thing as medical marijuana," said Richard Meyer, a DEA spokesman. "We're Americans first, Californians second."

Jury foreman Charles Sackett III said outside court that jurors were following federal law in finding Rosenthal guilty, but he personally hoped the verdict would be overturned.

"We had no legal wiggle room," Sackett said.

Our thoughts are with Ed and his family tonight. Ed remains free until his sentencing on Tuesday. See our prior post here.

48 year old Sal Magluta was wronged last week when he was sentenced to 205 years in federal prison for murders a jury found he did not commit.

Criminal defense lawyers Milton Hirsch and David Marcus explain why in this op-ed article in today's Miami Herald.

Miami's last cocaine cowboy rode into the sunset last week.

Salvador Magluta, considered one of Miami's most notorious narcotics dealers, was prosecuted in federal court for having witnesses murdered and for laundering millions of dollars in drug proceeds. A federal judge then punished Magluta with a 205-year sentence. Magluta, 48, will live in prison till the day he dies.

But Magluta was never convicted of the homicides for which he was sentenced. A jury of his peers found Magluta not guilty of the murders, and guilty only of the nonviolent money-laundering charges -- crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 20 years. The jury's verdict notwithstanding, the judge decided that Magluta was responsible for the homicides and sentenced him accordingly.

In a watershed 1997 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal judges, in imposing sentence, may ignore jury verdicts of acquittal and determine whether defendants have done wrong. The Herald applauded the punishment, and the new U.S. attorney claimed that such a sentence sends a message about justice. It does indeed: The message is that prosecutors can lose and still win, that a jury no longer stands between an accused American and a life sentence.....

We couldn't have said it any better ourselves.

Regina McKnight is a young African-American woman who was convicted of killing her stillborn baby by using crack cocaine and sentenced to twelve years in jail. Her sentence was upheld by the South Carolina appeals court yesterday.

For some sociological and medical reasons why her sentence is unfair, please read this by the National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

This has been a high-profile case, particularly in South Carolina. Here's some background, as sent to us by those in the know:

McKnight was charged with homicide by child abuse. This crime carries a penalty of up to life in prison and requires proof of "extreme indifference" to life. The state blamed the stillbirth on Ms. McKnight's use of cocaine although, in fact, there was no evidence that the cocaine did - or even could have caused this stillbirth. Nevertheless in the second trial, (the first ended in a mistrial) a jury convicted Ms. McKnight in less than 15 minutes of deliberation.

The state supreme court took the case on direct appeal. Her team of lawyers and amici were all optimistic about a victory after a compelling oral argument in the case and an extraordinary DPA and other amicus from a unanimous medical and public health community. (Not to mention clear law on our side) Here is a woman the State admits had no intention of harming her fetus -- yet the court has upheld her conviction for homicide by child abuse -- 20-years to life. Had she intended to kill the fetus she would have gotten 2 years in jail.

The primary evidence in the case was a doctor who said that one time use of cocaine was known to cause death. His only support for this was popular press about the Len Bias case. Apparently that was enough for this court too as they stated: "Given the fact that it is public knowledge that usage of cocaine is potentially fatal, we find the fact that McKnight took cocaine knowing she was pregnant was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury on whether she acted with extreme indifference to her child’s life."

You can read the full text of the opinion here.

Her defense team is asking people to write Regina words of support, a postcard or letter, at the jail. If you are interested in doing so, post a comment with your email address and we will email you Regina's address. We don't want to post it here because we don't want people writing her hate letters, and we are well aware that there are people out there who can't understand why this is unfair.

Update: Here is an excellent article outlining the support of the medical community for Regina Mcknight , and includes this list of organizations that joined in the Amicus effort on her behalf.

Briefs amici curiae in support of appellant, Regina McKnight were submitted on behalf of:

South Carolina Medical Association
South Carolina Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors
American Nurses Association
National Association of Social Workers
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
Institute For Health and Recovery
The South Carolina Nurses Association
The American Society of Addiction Medicine
The American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry
The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals

More information on the case is available here.

"A federal appeals court dismissed hundreds of lawsuits Tuesday brought by World War II prisoners of war who alleged they were enslaved by Japanese and German companies."

"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld lower court rulings that said treaties signed by the United States barred prisoners from seeking restitution from companies accused of forcing them to work in mines, dig roads and perform other duties more than 50 years ago."

New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer announced Monday at a tribute for Martin Luther King, Jr. that he will file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting Michigan's admissions policy.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, also present at the tribute, said she would join with several other senators in filing a brief supportive of Michigan's policy.

Spitzer told the assembled crowd: "We are trying desperately to create institutions of higher education that are diverse, that bring in and include all people," Mr. Spitzer told the audience. "What did our president say? He said, `No, I'm against that affirmative action plan.' Shame on him."

"Well, let me tell you. I am your attorney general, and I represent the State of New York, and on your behalf, I'm filing a brief that opposes our president, that opposes what he is saying, because we believe in diversity and we will fight for it." Spitzer, a Democrat, is likely to run for Governor of New York in 2006. He's on the right track.

"A federal appeals court has ruled the Internal Revenue Service committed fraud and acted deceptively after giving secret deals to two pilots in return for their testimony against 1,300 other pilots who had bought into the same tax shelters."

"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overturned a previous ruling against the pilots who were found guilty of tax evasion and were ordered to pay more than $2 billion in penalties.
In order to remedy the IRS misconduct, the court ordered that all the pilots should receive the same deal that one of the pilots received."

The case is CIR v. Dixon and you can access the opinion here.

Condoleeza Rice's welcome statement on affirmative action and the President's Amicus Brief:

"When the President decided to submit an amicus brief, he asked for my view on how diversity can be best achieved on university campuses. I offered my view, drawing on my experience in academia and as provost of a major university. I agree with the President's position, which emphasizes the need for diversity and recognizes the continued legacy of racial prejudice, and the need to fight it. The President challenged universities to develop ways to diversify their populations fully. I believe that while race neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body." (Emphasis supplied by us)

The complete text of Ms. Rice's statement is available here.

In response to Rice's comments, People For the American Way Foundation President Ralph G. Neas released the following statement:

"It is very good news that Condoleezza Rice agrees with Colin Powell's longstanding belief that it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body. It also reflects precisely both what the law of the land has been for a quarter of a century and what a bipartisan majority of the American support."

In response to today's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing defendants who have received a life sentence to be re-subjected to the death penalty if the jury vote for life was not unanimous, Chris Adams, Death Penalty Counsel for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, issued the following statement:

"In an era where everyone acknowledges problems in the death penalty, the Supreme Court today took a step away from equal justice, a step away from fairness, and a swipe at the double jeopardy clause in the Bill of Rights.

"The result is that some wrongly accused people will not find competent lawyers willing to take their cases on appeal. Why? Because if they win they will subject their client to the death penalty after the client had previously been sentenced to life without.

"Now, in states with a sentencing law like Pennsylvania (and the federal death penalty has this scheme), an inmate whose capital jury is 11-1 for life, who appeals and wins his appeal, can be re-sentenced to death by another jury. Yet the inmate whose capital jury is 11-1 for death and does not appeal, or who loses his appeal, can never be re-subjected to a death penalty prosecution. These inmates, wrongly convicted or not, face death only if they win on appeal.
"Certainly the double jeopardy right was designed to protect people from being more severely punished for winning their appeal."

The decision entered by the Supreme Court today is SATTAZAHN V. PENNSYLVANIA, accessible here.