My Final Words

I would like to take this time to reflect on all the previous time I have worked on this blog. I am very proud of my work and I really enjoyed participating in such a different activity. I have expanded my knowledge on some very important cases dealing with what American citizens have to deal with each day. I hope that those who have read this appreciate the thought put in to each of my postings. Law is my passion and I try to be subjective and fair, just as how they try to teach lawyers. What you need to understand is that the law is such an important aspect of living here in the United States and that you should embrace the beauty behind it. I find that when you delve into a topic it just keeps getting more and more interesting. So here are my final words. I hope you try to learn more about your rights as a citizen and I hope you understand why some precedents are the way they are.

Current Issues: Court takes prosecutorial immunity case (March 22, 2010)

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a district attorney's office can be held liable for the actions of prosecutors in the case of a former death row inmate who accused them of withholding evidence to help convict him of murder.The case concerns John Thompson, who was convicted of attempted armed robbery in 1985, shortly before he was scheduled to stand trial in an unrelated murder case. He did not testify during the murder trial. Prosecutors used Thompson's conviction in the robbery case to help secure the death penalty in the murder case.In 1999, an investigator working on Thompson's case discovered a crime lab report that prosecutors had not turned over, indicating Thompson's blood type did not match the perpetrator in the attempted robbery.A state appeals court set aside Thompson's murder conviction in 2002 after deciding he'd been unconstitutionally deprived of his right to testify during the murder trial. That cleared the way for the new trial in which Thompson was acquitted.After Thompson's acquittal, he sued the district attorney's office that was led at the time of his 1985 conviction by Harry Connick, alleging that evidence had been wrongfully withheld.The current Orleans Parish District Attorney, Leon Cannizzaro, has said the judgment is roughly equal to his office's annual operating budget and would have "devastating" financial consequences.On March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for review. The justices will hear oral arguments in the fall.Question presented: Does imposing liability for failing to train a prosecutor on a district attorney’s office for a single Brady violation contravene rigorous culpability and causation

A little bit about me

Since a blog is supposed to be more opinionated I am going to talk about my future aspirations and why I am so intersted on this subject. I have high hopes of becoming a supreme court justice. I know it is hard to attain however I strive to be the greatest. Before so, I plan to go to law school and become a corporate attorney. I have been passionate about this since I was about seven years old. At school I have taken every class available to do with law. I have competed within debate since my freshman year and I have participated in a mock trial. One of my favorite documents is the Constitution. I took a class devoted to the teachings of this document. I am currently reading The Federalist which is closely related to the very constitution that our country with holds today.

What is Going On?

A group of 10 Republican delegates and senators in the Virginia General Assembly are engaging themselved in the battle over President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan. They want Democratic Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner to question Kagan about her opposition to military recruiting on campus during her career as dean of Harvard Law School.

Kagan opposed allowing military recruiters on campus because she believed the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy for gay service members violated Harvard's nondiscrimination policy- I believe that is wrong considering that it is not an act of discrimination, it is freedom of expression.

Bloate vs. United States (2010)

Facts of the Case:
Taylor James Bloate was convicted in a Missouri federal district court on counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. In a pretrial motion, Mr. Bloate moved to dismiss arguing that there had been a Speedy Trial Act violation. It was denied. The Act requires that a defendant's trial begin within "70 days after the indictment or the defendant's initial appearance, whichever is later." However, it excludes "any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant." Following his conviction, Mr. Bloate appealed, arguing that his motion to dismiss was improperly denied as the court excluded too many days in its calculation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed Mr. Bloate's conviction. It recognized that six circuits hold that "pretrial motion preparation may be excluded, if the court specifically grants time for that purpose" and that two do not. Here, the Eighth Circuit sided with the majority in holding that the district court properly excluded days from the time of Mr. Bloate's indictment to his trial and therefore there was no violation to the Speedy Trial Act.

Question:
Is time granted to prepare pretrial motions automatically excludable under 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(1)?

Conclusion:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit holding that the time granted to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excludable from the 70-day limit under subsection (h)(1). Rather, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority, the Court stated that such time may be excluded only when a district court grants a continuance based on appropriate findings under subsection (h)(7). The Court reasoned that the period of time sought to be excluded by the government preceded the first day upon which Congress specified that such delay may be automatically excluded. Thus, in this case, the pretrial preparation time was not automatically excludable.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate concurring opinion. She highlighted that nothing in the majority decision prevents the Eight Circuit upon remand from considering the government's argument that Mr. Bloate's indictment and conviction remain valid. Justice Samuel A. Alito, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, dissented. He argued that the neither the text nor legislative history of the Speedy Trial Act support the majority decision. Instead, he criticized the majority for creating a rule that would entitle Mr. Bloate to dismissal of his charge because his attorney persuaded a Magistrate Judge to give him more time to prepare pretrial motions.

An Animal Rights Case

The case in question, United States vs. Stevens, centered on Robert Stevens, a purveyor of the video series "Dogs of Velvet and Steel." Stevens produced and sold videos of pit bulls engaging in dogfights and viciously attacking other animals. These videos include graphic depictions of torture and brutality, including a pit bull mutilating the lower jaw of a live pig. In January 2005, Stevens was convicted of violating the Animal Cruelty Act (1999), which criminalized the trafficking of depictions of animal cruelty, except those with "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value." A federal appeals court overturned Stevens' conviction and ruled that the animal cruelty law violated his First Amendment right to free speech. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling.
The fundamental question is this: Does the Animal Cruelty Act violate the First Amendment right of freedom of speech? Certainly, the right to free speech is one of the paramount freedoms in our society. Our country was founded on the principle that people should not be persecuted for voicing unpopular opinions. Naturally, in order to be effective, this freedom protects disturbing and offensive speech.
However, there are very specific types of speech that we, as a society, have deemed so despicable and so lacking in merit that they do not deserve protection, among them child pornography, obscenity, threats and incitement of violence. Animal cruelty should be one of these unprotected categories. As Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, wrote, "We wouldn't allow the sale of videos of actual child abuse or murder staged for the express purpose of selling videos of such criminal acts." There is no reason to ignore depictions of animal cruelty while rightfully criminalizing parallel depictions of child abuse.
The Supreme Court should have recognized that videos of dogfighting and animal mutilation - created not to educate or inform but merely to titillate - have no constitutional protection. As Justice Samuel Alito, the sole dissenter, argued, "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes."
Videos of defenseless animals cruelly victimized to excite the violent and sexual fantasies of certain customers have no place in our society, regardless of the free speech claims of their producers.

Newest and Latest

President Obama will meet with senators from both parties on April 21 to discuss the upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court, the White House announced today.
Scheduled to appear are Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
They are expected to discuss the procedures for the confirmation hearings expected over the summer so that the new justice can take a seat on the bench by the fall term.
Obama will name a nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who just last week announced his retirement from the Supreme Court at the end of the current term. The candidate will have to go through hearings held by the Judiciary Committee before a vote by the full Senate.
The White House this week revealed that among the contenders was federal appeals court judge Sidney Thomas of Montana, and at least six others who were on the list when Obama chose Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the court. Among those considered potential nominees are: former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, federal appeals court judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Republican leaders have said they will examine the nominee carefully, but it is unclear whether there will be a filibuster. Democrats no longer have a sure 60 votes needed to break any logjam.