The City of Marion is objecting to Chad Seybolds motion to plead protection against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment in a civil lawsuit alleging fraud against Michael An and his companies.

The city filed a brief Friday afternoon in Grant County Superior Court I detailing its opposition, which largely argues that Seybolds request does not meet the legal requirements for the Fifth to be used correctly in this lawsuit.

kAm$6J3@=5 😀 E96 3C@E96C @7 (2J?6 $6J3@=5[ 7@C>6C |2C:@? >2J@C[ 2?5 96 D6CG65 2D 5:C64E@C @C @A6C2E:@?D 2?5 4@?DECF4E:@? @7 E96 ?6G6C 4@>A=6E65 AC@;64E E@ C6AFCA@D6 E96 7@C>6C *|rp @? %9:C5 $EC66E 7@C E96 ?@H56462D65 p?]k^Am

kAm%96 4:EJ 😀 D66<:?8 7C@> $6J3@=5 2== 5@4F>6?ED 2?5 4@>>F?:42E:@?D C6=2E65 E@ p? 2?5 9:D EH@ 4@>A2?:6D[ :?4=F5:?8 2?J :?4@>6 @C 4@>A6?D2E:@? $6J3@=5 C646:G65[ 2?J 3FD:?6DD A=2?D 7@C E96 @=5 *|rp AC@;64E[ 2?J 5@4F>6?ED 2?5 4@>>F?:42E:@?D C6=2E:?8 E@ 2?J G6?5@C[ 4@?EC24E@C @C DF34@?EC24E@C[ 4@?DECF4E:@? AC@8C6DD 2?5 DE2EFD C6A@CED[ 2== 5@4F>6?ED C6=2E65 E@ E96 7:?2?4:2= A6C7@C>2?46 @7 p?D 4@>A2?:6D[ :?4=F5:?8 E2I C6EFC?D 2?5 42D9 7=@H DE2E6>6?ED[ 2== 32?< C64@C5D C6=2E65 E@ p? 2?5 9:D 4@>A2?:6D 2?5 >@C6] %96 4:EJ 4@?E6?5D E96 Sa]d >:==:@? @7 AF3=:4 >@?6J 7C@> 2 %2I x?4C6>6?E u:?2?4:?8 3@?5 8:G6? E@ p? 😕 a__g 7@C E96 C656G6=@A>6?E H2D ?@E 6?E:C6=J FD65 @? 4@?DECF4E:@? 4@DED[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 4@FCE 5@4F>6?ED]k^Am

kAm%96 =2HDF:E[ E9@F89 7:=65 😕 E96 4:EJD ?2>6[ 😀 36:?8 A2:5 7@C 3J AC:G2E6 5@?@CD]k^Am

kAm$6J3@=5 2?5 9:D 2EE@C?6J y@6 z6:E9 {6H:D 2C6 7:89E:?8 E96 4:EJD C6BF6DED 2?5 2C8F65 😕 2 >@E:@? 7:=65 😕 |2J 3J 2C8F:?8 E92E $6J3@=5 92D 2 C:89E E@ ?@E D6=7:?4C:>:?2E6 😕 2 4:G:= @C 4C:>:?2= =2HDF:E]k^Am

kAm%96 4:EJ ?@H 2C8F6D[ 😕 2 3C:67 HC:EE6? 3J pEE@C?6J tC:4 y] |4z6@H? @7 E96 4:EJD =2H 7:C>[ x46 |:==6C[ $6J3@=5 D9@F=5 ?@E 36 2==@H65 E@ :?G@<6 E96 u:7E9 p>6?5>6?E @7 E96 &]$] r@?DE:EFE:@? 3642FD6 9:D A2CE @7 E96 =2HDF:E H:== ?@E 36 E6DE:>@?:2= 2 7@C>2= @C HC:EE6? DE2E6>6?E F?56C @2E9 E92E E96 2>6?5>6?E 5@6D?E 2AA=J E@ 4@>A2?J 5@4F>6?ED 2?5 $6J3@=5 42?E FD6 E96 2>6?5>6?E 😕 DF49 2 3C@25 H2J] %96 4:EJ 4@?E6?5D $6J3@=5 92D ?@E 56>@?DEC2E65 2 C62D@?23=6 762C @7 AC@D64FE:@? :7 E96 5@4F>6?ED H6C6 92?565 @G6C E@ 4:EJ 2EE@C?6JD]k^Am

kAm%96 u:7E9 p>6?5>6?E @C5:?2C:=J 5@6D ?@E AC@E64E 282:?DE E96 4@>A6==65 AC@5F4E:@? @7 5@4F>6?ED E92E >2J 4@?E2:? :?4C:>:?2E:?8 :?7@C>2E:@?[ |4z6@H? HC:E6D] ]]] p44@C5:?8=J[ E@ E96 6IE6?E E92E E96 DF3A@6?2 D666?ED[ $6J3@=5D 24E @7 AC@5F4E:@? H@F=5 36 6?E:C6=J ?@?E6DE:>@?:2=] %96 FD6 @7 D62C49 E6C>D H@F=5 6=:>:?2E6 2?J C:D< E92E $6J3@=5 H@F=5 >2<6 6IE6?D:G6 FD6 @7 E96 4@?E6?ED @7 9:D @H? >:?5 😕 C6DA@?5:?8 E@ E96 $F3A@6?2]k^Am

kAmp44@C5:?8 E@ E96 4:EJ[ E96 5676?D6 92D 2=C625J D2:5 E96C6 😀 2 92C5 5C:G6 H:E9 E96 :?7@C>2E:@? E96 4:EJ 😀 2D<:?8 7@C 2?5[ 2D AC@@7 E@ E92E 4=2:>[ :?4=F565 2 |2C49 6>2:= 7C@> {6H:D E@ |4z6@H? 😕 :ED 3C:67] x? E96 6>2:=[ {6H:D E6==D |4z6@H? E92E $6J3@=5 92D 8:G6? {6H:D 9:D A6CD@?2= 92C5 5C:G6 2?5 D2JD E96J H@F=5 =:<6 E@ 8@ 29625 2?5 56E6C>:?6 E96 D62C49 E6C>D D:?46 E96C6D 2=D@ A6CD@?2= :?7@C>2E:@? @? E96 92C5 5C:G6]k^Am

kAm%96 4:EJ 2=D@ 4@?E6?5D $6J3@=5D >@E:@? E@ A=625 E96 u:7E9 p>6?5>6?E 😀 E@@ 3C@25[ 4:E:?8 2 92?57F= @7 AC6G:@FD 42D6D H96C6 4@FCED 92G6 CF=65 282:?DE 3=2?<6E :?G@42E:@? @7 E96 u:7E9 p>6?5>6?E]k^Am

kAm%96 DF3A@6?2 :?4=F56D ac D6A2C2E6 C6BF6DED] *6E[ $6J3@=5 92D ?@E @776C65 2 32D:D 2D E@ 6249 C6BF6DE H9J E96 24E @7 AC@5F4E:@? H@F=5 E6?5 E@ :?4C:>:?2E6 9:>[ |4z6@H? HC:E6D] x?DE625[ E96 |@E:@? 3C@25=J DE2E6D E92E $6J3@=5 C62D@?23=J 36=:6G6D E92E 4@>A=:2?46 H:E9 E96 C6BF6DE 7@C AC@5F4E:@?[ @C 2?J A@CE:@? @7 :E[ H@F=5 7FC?:D9 2 =:?< :? 2 492:? 6G:56?46 E92E 4@F=5 =625 E@ 2 AC@D64FE:@? 7@C 2? 2==6865 :?G@=G6>6?E 😕 24C:>:?2= 6?E6CAC:D6] %96 =2H 56>2?5D E92E E96 |@E:@? >@C6 DA64:7:42==J 2DD6CE E9:D AC:G:=686 @? 2 C6BF6DE3JC6BF6DE 32D:D] %96C67@C6[ 6G6? 😕 :7 E96 AC:G:=686 5:5 2AA=J 96C6 H9:49 :E 5@6D ?@E $6J3@=5 92D ?@E 256BF2E6=J :?G@<65 :E]k^Am

kAm%96 4:EJD 7:=:?8 4@>6D ;FDE 52JD 367@C6 E96 4:EJ 2?5 $6J3@=5 2C6 D4965F=65 7@C 2 962C:?8 @? E96 >2EE6C 2E `ib_ A]>] %F6D52J[ yF=J `g 😕 $FA6C:@C r@FCE x H96C6 yF586 y677C6J %@55 >2J CF=6 6:E96C 282:?DE @C 7@C $6J3@=5D >@E:@?]k^Am

See the rest here:

Chad Seybold's bid for Fifth fought - Chronicle-Tribune

The Internet of Things is a marvel.Cars, medical devices, homes, refrigeratorsall of them now come with silicon chips and data collection, analysis and sharing capabilities. For the most part the enhancements in efficiency, connectivity and cost-reduction make the use of IoT a no-brainer.But lurking in the background are a host of unaddressed issues of cybersecurity, civil liberties, transparency, accountability, and privacy.Today's story of the Tell-Tale Heart lies at the intersection of technology, privacy and criminal law.

According to CNet, Ross Compton's house caught on fire.Notwithstanding his protestations, the authorities came to believe that the fire might have been caused by arson and that Compton had set the fire to collect on the insurancce. So far, a fairly standard case and, presumably (the story does not say) the investigation proceded on normal lines (e.g. looking for accelerants as evidence of arson). Then it took a turn.

You see, Compton has a heart pacemakerone that records data about heart rythms and the like. Compton had told the police that he was awakened from sleep by the start of the fireand an enterprising prosecutor in Butler County Ohio got to thinking that the data from Compton's pacemaker might rebut that claim.They obtained a warrant for the data from Compton's pacemaker. (It is not clear from the various storiessee, here, here, and hereexactly how the evidence was collected, that is whether it was from Compton himself or from his doctor and whether the process served was actually a warrant based on probable cause or a grand jury subpoena.)Using that data, the prosecutor then proffered the testimony from a cardiologist that the information he had reviewed was not consistent with Compton's story. The news of the day is that Compton's motion to supress has been denied and that his trial is scheduled for later this year.

To begin with, it seems to me that the judge's ruling is likely canoncially correct under existing law.Assuming that a warrant was issued based on probable cause, the Fourth Amendment objections seem to lose force.And it has long been the law that a defendant does not have a Fifth Amendment privilege against providing physical evidence that might implicate him in a crime.The Amendment is limited, under Supreme Court doctrine, to compelled testimony. The seminal case on these points, involving blood alcohol, is Schmerber v. California.

This seems, however, to be another instance in which technological development is outstripping the law. Consider the implications of a rule in which the IoT is generally a source of evidence for criminal investigations (or civil suits):

This is a big deal

If data in medical tech can

IoT may stand for: Internet of TremendousEvidenceGoldmine https://t.co/7M8pKnhoNs

Josh Corman (@joshcorman) July 13, 2017

I am not sure what the right answer is here. After all, one can readily imagine any number of circumstances in which evidecne relevant to a crime (or a terrorist incident) might reside in an IoT device.And, at least in the traditional view, if a warrant was actually issued (again, I am not clear from the stories) then Compton's rights got the gold-standard in protection against government abuse. Yet at the same time, this transition feels like a privacy invasion of a different sort than being required to give up fingerprints or even blood. What I do know for sure is that the transition is happening in an unexamined way ... and it strikes me as clear that more thoughtful consideration would benefit everyone.

Continued here:

The Tell-Tale Heart - Lawfare - Lawfare (blog)

by: Zach Crenshaw Updated: Jul 13, 2017 - 10:13 PM

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - A new report says the Shelby County District Attorneys Office violates the constitution more than any other office in Tennessee.

The Harvard Law study highlighted misconduct and overturned convictions over the past six years.

>>Read the full report for yourself here

Its critical of Amy Weirich andher entire office which the new report says has repeatedly violated their constitutional and ethical duties.

Weirich called the report inaccurate.

In March, Weirich held a press conference to announce she had taken a private reprimand from the states Board of Professional Responsibility.

Weirich characterized the reprimand as a mistake.

A report by the Fair Punishment Project though, characterized it as part of a larger pattern of misconduct.

The report, by a Harvard Law group, found Weirichs office was number one in 'misconduct' and 'reversal' out of Tennessees 95 counties.Per capita, Shelby County was also in the top ten for both.

"Well, there's nothing new in the report," saidJosh Spickler, Executive Director ofthe Memphis advocacy group Just City.

"I think the report, for the first time,really allows us to compare our jurisdiction in Shelby County with others in the state and see just how poorly we are doing," said Spickler

The report looked at the Shelby County cases of misconduct and overturned convictions from 2011 to the present day.

In 2015, it mentions the Noura Jackson case where Weirich was reprimanded for withholding key evidence from the defense and asking questions of Jackson after she took the fifth amendment.

In 2004, Weirich called two defendants greed and evil multiple times. She was admonished by a higher court.

Also in 2004, a defense attorney said they found an envelope initialed by Weirich with, Do not show defense written on it.

Weirich sent FOX13 the following statement:

This is a grossly inaccurate and incomplete account of these cases as seen through the eyes of a defense advocacy group. I became a prosecutor to hold the guilty accountable and to protect the innocent in every case, and that is what I have tried to do throughout my career. I will never apologize for trying to seek justice for victims of crime.

"This report is not about those cases," said Spickler. "This report is about a pattern of statistics really, about how often cases are overturned, how often misconduct is found, and how often ethics violations occur in the prosecutors office."

Weirich, known for not backing down in the courtroom, is not flinching.

Spickler, however, hopes the report helps hold the office accountable which he said starts at the top.

"It would be great to see something from this office that indicates that there is a pattern that is problematic and we are doing something to make sure it doesn't happen in the future."

The Harvard Law group that put the study together told us their research only reflected the rulings of judges.

The director also told us their board includes a former U.S. prosecutor and state district attorney.

2017 Cox Media Group.

Read the original:

Advocacy group ranks Shelby Co. DA as worst for violating Constitution - FOX13 Memphis

An Eagan family is suing U.S. officials for civil rights violations after what they describe as an abusive detention in early 2015 at the Canada border.

Abdisalam Wilwal, who was allegedly held for more than 10 hours with his wife and four children at the Portal, N.D., station of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, was detained because of his placement on a terrorist watch list used by agencies of the federal government. A lawsuit filed Thursday in district court on the Wilwal familys behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union and private litigation firm Robin Kaplan LLP states Wilwal does not know why he is on such a list and does not believe there is cause.

Wilwal and his wife, Sagal Abdigani, are originally from Somalia and immigrated to the U.S. in 2000. They were both U.S. citizens when they were crossing the border to re-enter the country from Canada, where they said they had been visiting Abdiganis sister in Saskatchewan.

The complaint filed by the ACLU and Robin Kaplan asserts the detention at the border violated the Wilwal familys protection under the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as constitutional rights namely their Fourth Amendment right to be be free from unreasonable search and seizure as well as due process rights contained in the Fifth Amendment. The lawsuit names as defendants a host of high-ranking U.S. officials, including U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Homeland Security head John Kelly and FBI chief Andrew McCabe.

The complaint seeks a declaration from the court that the defendants violated the Wilwal familys rights. It also seeks an injunction preventing the defendants from arresting, seizing, searching, or interrogating (Wilwal) because of his placement on a terrorism-related watch list, as well as subjecting Wilwals family to similar treatment due to their association with him.

The lawsuit also asks the court to require the defendants to provide Wilwal with the rationale leading to his placement on a watch list and allow him an opportunity to contest that listing and be removed from it. Finally, the injunction asks the court to require the defendants to destroy information illegally gathered on the family.

Hugh Handeyside, an ACLU attorney listed on the complaint, described the watch list system in a press release as a due process disaster that accuses people while providing them with no legal recourse to deny claims of terrorist activity.

Wilwal also spoke against the system in the release.

I came to this country seeking safety and freedom, and Im proud to be an American, he said. But our own government just shouldnt be treating my family and me or anyone else this way. Its wrong.

Go here to read the rest:

Somali-American family from Eagan sues over detention upon return from Canada - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

'Takings' Meant Something Different at First Wall Street Journal (subscription) Regulatory takings weren't part of the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause of the Constitution. Quoting a footnote from the Supreme Court's 1992 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council opinion: early constitutional theorists did ... and more »

Originally posted here:

'Takings' Meant Something Different at First - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL?

A man who pleaded guilty to state charges (and served his time) in connection with aSeptember 2011 robbery of a McDonalds fast food restaurant will likely be forced to plead guilty to the same crime in federal court this week.

Otherwise, he could wind up spending the rest of his life behind bars.

Wait isnt it unconstitutional to charge someone a second time for the same crime?

Yes, it is. In addition to its famous prohibition against compelling an individual to testify against themselves, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution holds that no one shall for the same offence be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.

In other words once an individual has been either convicted or acquitted of a charge thats it. At least from a criminal standpoint.

In the case ofTimothy DaShaun Taylor, though, this protection apparently doesnt apply.

Why not? Because federal prosecutors believe the 26-year-old has not been forthcoming about his alleged knowledge of a famous 2009 kidnapping case one that remains at the heart of an ongoing unsolved mystery.

OnApril 25, 2009, 17-year-oldBrittanee Drexelof Rochester, New York vanished without a trace en route to meet friends at the Blue Water resort in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Drexel who was on spring break at the time she disappeared hasnt been seen nor heard from since.

(Click to view)

(Via: YouTube)

Last August,Taquan Brown an inmate currently serving a 25-year sentence in a state prison told federal authoritiesDrexel was dead. In fact, the former confidential informant claims to have witnessed her death (or at least heard the gunshots that allegedly killed her).

According to Brown, Drexel was forcibly abducted by a group of black men in Myrtle Beach, S.C. that fateful April night eight years ago. These men allegedly beat her up, sexually assaulted her and transportedher to a stash house (or trap house) near McClellanville a small fishing village located on Highway 17 roughly halfway betweenMyrtle Beach and Charleston, S.C.

There, the story goes, Drexel was allegedly chained to a wall while the men who abducted her took money from other black males eager to f*ck the white girl aprocess known asbunnying.

At some point, according to Brown, Drexel somehow managed to free herself from her chains but was pistol-whipped, shot and killed before she could escape fromthe house. Drexels body was then allegedly taken to an alligator pit in the Santee region of the state where it was said to have been disposed of on May 2, 2009.

Brown accused Taylor and his father Timothy S. Taylor of participating in the bunnying of Drexel and possibly being involved in her murder. However according to attorneys for the younger Taylor, no evidence has been offered to support Browns claims.

Furthermore, after conducting searches at nearly forty possible alligator pit locations in and around Santee nothing has been uncovered.

In order to squeeze information out of Mr. Taylor, the feds sought and received permission from Washington, D.C. to indict him in federal court for the same charges hed already pleaded guilty to and served his sentence on in state court, the younger Taylors attorney, Mark Peper, told us.

Over the last year, we have proved that Mr. Taylor was in his third period class at Lincoln High School at the time he was alleged to have been with Drexel, and the Feds have realized that the inmates story has little to no merit, Peper added.

Case closed, right?

No

Federal prosecutors are still threatening to take Taylor to trial on the armed robbery charge. If convicted of this crime (which, again, he already pleaded guilty to at the state level), he could face life in prison.

Apparently, double jeopardy means nothing in the federal system, Peper told us. That said, we have no choice but to accept a plea offer wherein Mr. Taylor will be pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit armed robbery for a negotiated sentence of between ten to twenty years in prison; for a crime that hes already done his time on.

(Click to view)

(Via: Charleston County)

Taylors hearing before U.S. district court judge David C. Norton is scheduled for this week. Assuming he enters a guilty plea on the robbery charge (again), sentencing will be scheduled for later this summer.

Is this fair? Obviously there are multiple sides to every story, but based on everything weve seen up to this point in the case the answer is no.

According to Taylors attorneys, hes being punished for what he doesnt know.

This website has previously addressed such jurisdictional nebulousness as it relates to the high-profile mass murder case of Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who gunned down seven black parishioners at the Mother Emanuel A.M.E. church two years ago in the Holy City Massacre.

Roof confessed to his crime and confessed to his motive in committing it. And the evidence against him was incontrovertible. Accordingly, we believethe death sentence handed down in his case was entirely appropriate. Still, we believe the federal government usurped the states authority in his case filing a host of charges against Roof that needlessly duplicated the state charges previously filed against him (which, incidentally, moved forward despite the conclusion of the federal case against him).

This strikes us as wrong to say nothing of wasteful.

Unlike the open and shut Roof case, we have no idea what really happened to Brittanee Drexel. It could be her demise transpired precisely as the governments confidential informant has claimed. Or perhaps it happened in some other way. Or perhaps Drexel is still alive.

Again we dont know.

What we do know is that Taylors case appears to be yet another example of duplicative charges compromising the constitutional rights of an American citizen something we thought was addressed by the Fifth Amendment.

If the federal government has evidence to support the allegations made against Taylor by its confidential informant, then it should charge him in connection with Drexels 2009 kidnapping and murder. Absent that, we believe the federal government should drop its robbery charge against him seeing as he has already pleaded guilty and served his punishment at the state level.

Got something youd like to say in response to one of our stories? In addition to our always lively comments section (below), please feel free to submit your own guest column or letter to the editor via-email HERE or via our tip-line HERE

Banner viaUSCourts.gov

Read this article:

Double Jeopardy Case: Plea Likely - FITSNews

StarNews Editorial Board

North Carolina dodged a bullet the other day when state House members torpedoed a proposal to call a national convention to amend the Constitution.

Actually, it probably dodged a land mine. It's scary that the state Senate actually approved the notion.

First a quick civics lesson: According to Article V, there are two ways to amend the Constitution. First, an amendment has to pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds vote, then be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Obviously, this takes a long time. After the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights were adopted early in the nation's history, only 27 amendments have been ratified in 128 years, and one of these (Prohibition) was later repealed.

The other, presumably quicker, version is to call a national convention, sort of like the one that met in Philadelphia in 1787. It takes a vote of two-thirds of the states to call such a convention, and there's an active move afoot to get one going.

Supporters generally say they want the convention to write a balanced-budget amendment. Other ideas are floating out there, too, including term limits for Congress, refiguring how federal judges are chosen or allowing a vote of state legislatures to override Supreme Court rulings.

As New Hanover County's Rep. Deb Butler wisely pointed out, this is a dangerous proposition -- a bit like putting an Uzi in the hands of a toddler with a tantrum.

Feelings are high right now, and an angry faction could do things that the rest of us will regret for a long, long time.

Back in the 1950s Red Scare, for instance, John Wayne and others wanted to repeal parts of the Fifth Amendment so it would be easier to jail Communists.

These days, with lots of folks angry at "The Media," someone's likely to take a sledgehammer to the freedom of speech and press. You don't have to like the StarNews or CNN to see that's a bad idea; a few years from now, a liberal might be elected president again, and Fox News could be the target.

Supporters say the states could put limits on their convention delegates. Ohio, for example, approved a convention only for the purpose of the balanced-budget amendment.

Many legal scholars, however, don't think that would fly. The states put plenty of limits on their delegates to the 1787 Convention -- most of which were flatly ignored. That convention threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote a whole new basic law of the land.

Article V, moreover, makes no provision on how many delegates each state gets, or how delegates could be elected. A minority rump could theoretically push major changes against the wishes of most of the people.

Those old guys in wigs, back in the 1700s, knew what they were doing. Changing our basic rules, including those dealing with our liberties, should be a long, drawn-out process. A convention is just too risky.

Excerpt from:

EDITORIAL, July 11: NC House wisely sinks constitutional convention - StarNewsOnline.com

The Teamster chief whose members are charged with extorting a reality TV show in a case linked to City Hall will plead the Fifth if called to testify when the trial of four of his members begins later this month, a federal court filing states.

Martin G. Weinberg, attorney for Teamsters Local 25 president Sean M. OBrien, declined to comment yesterday on the disclosure made Friday by lawyers for John Fidler, Daniel Redmond, Robert Cafarelli and Michael Ross.

The issue is premature, Weinberg told the Herald. It may well be a non-issue since neither side has subpoenaed Mr. OBrien. Besides, the U.S. Supreme Court has made absolutely clear that the Fifth Amendment is the refuge of the innocent, not just the guilty.

The Top Chef trial remains slated to begin July 31 in U.S. District Court.

To date, OBriens name has not surfaced among only a handful of witnesses to be publicly identified beyond mere initials. The list does include the Emmy-nominated Bravo cooking shows host Padma Lakshmi, an international model, actress and author.

Fidler, Redmond, Cafarelli and Ross each face up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted of extortion charges alleging they physically and verbally threatened the cast and crew of a June 2014 Boston-area shoot, with one allegedly telling Lakshmi, Ill smash your pretty face, if they refused to hire Local 25 drivers.

In a December 2015 appearance on Herald Radios Morning Meeting, Mayor Martin J. Walsh, onetime head of the Boston Building Trades Council, acknowledged having personally called OBrien at the time, but would not discuss their conversation. Walsh made a guest appearance on Top Chef, causing his former chief of operations Joe Rull to raise concerns about political fallout from his pro-labor boss involvement with a nonunion TV show.

Walsh spokeswoman Laura Oggeri declined comment yesterday.

No one in Walshs administration has been accused of any criminal wrongdoing. Fridays defense motion seeks to strike evidence from the trial of extensive phone and email conversations between various employees of the Mayors office and others regarding Top Chef, including OBrien. The defense argues the conversations are irrelevant because they dont involve the defendants, but rather broader policy issues such as tax credits, labor relations, and political decision-making.

Go here to see the original:

Teamster chief plans to plead Fifth if called - Boston Herald

Photo: BRETT CARLSEN, NYT

Waymo dropped several patent claims against Uber on Friday, but the two companies are still involved in a bitter lawsuit.

Waymo dropped several patent claims against Uber on Friday, but the two companies are still involved in a bitter lawsuit.

Waymo scales back claims against Uber in driverless car dispute

Waymo, the autonomous vehicle business that operates under Googles parent company, dropped several patent claims against Uber on Friday, pulling back some of its major allegations in a bitter lawsuit over driverless technology.

In a federal court filing, Waymo said it was dropping three of its four claims over Uber violating its patents related to light detection and ranging sensor technology, or lidar. Lidar is a vital component in driverless car technology, helping the vehicle detect its surroundings to navigate roads.

The case, an acrimonious battle between Waymo and Uber, spotlights the arms race surrounding autonomous vehicle talent and technology. It is especially significant for the Google unit now Waymo that spent years working on driverless car technology before other tech companies took an interest. But as Waymo searches for a way to make money from self-driving cars, many of its best engineers have left for potential competitors, carrying valuable knowledge of its technology with them.

The case with Uber, the ride-hailing company, began when Waymo filed suit in February, claiming Uber was using intellectual property stolen by one of Googles former project leaders in its driverless vehicles. That set off months of wrangling, eventually leading Uber to fire the former Google project leader, Anthony Levandowski. The case is scheduled for trial in October, with the thrust of it centered on Uber misappropriating Waymos trade secrets.

Waymos dropping of three patent claims against Uber weakens its original argument for bringing the suit. Still, each side called the latest legal move a victory.

Waymo said it agreed to scale back its patent claims because Uber had halted work on a lidar design that violated Waymos patents and is proceeding with a different design. Waymo is permitted to reassert its claims if Uber returns to the design that Waymo challenged. The company said Ubers current lidar design still violates one of its original patents.

We continue to pursue a patent claim against Ubers current generation device and our trade secret claims, which are not at all affected by this stipulated dismissal, Waymo said. We look forward to trial.

Uber said the dropping of the three claims was yet another sign of Waymo overreaching and not delivering on its claims.

Last month, Waymo received a signal from federal court that the patent claims were not its strongest legal argument in the case. Judge William Alsup of U.S. District Court in San Francisco, who is overseeing the case, urged the companys lawyers at a hearing June 7 to drop the patent claims because youre going to lose on all these patent claims unless you pull some rabbit out of a hat.

Uber, meanwhile, has been trying to distance itself from the actions of Levandowski, who joined Uber last year.

Waymo has said that Levandowski worked with Uber to steal proprietary information from Google before joining Uber. Waymo said Uber was aware that Levandowski had stolen files.

Uber said it expressly told Levandowski not to bring any stolen documents to the company or apply any of Waymos intellectual property to Ubers autonomous vehicle efforts. The company said Waymos lawyers have not found the stolen documents in Ubers possession, despite extensive discovery.

The matter has been complicated by Levandowski asserting his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Uber said it urged him to cooperate with Waymos lawyers and fired him when he continued to refuse.

In a separate filing Friday, Uber said Levandowski, before invoking his Fifth Amendment right, told Travis Kalanick, then Ubers CEO, that he had downloaded the documents from Google because he was worried that he might not receive full payment of a $120 million bonus owed to him. Uber said this indicated that his actions were unrelated to his work at Uber.

Daisuke Wakabayashi is a New York Times writer.

Link:

Waymo scales back claims against Uber in driverless car dispute - SFGate

Chinese media blame U.S. democratic system for its incompetence after a Chinese student is abducted.

Yingying Zhang, a Chinese female graduate student who disappeared in broad daylight in the U.S. state of Illinois on June 9, has not been found yet. Brendt Christensen, the man charged in Zhangskidnapping, hasnt revealed anything useful to the police. As time passes by, Zhangs family is getting more and more desperate and Chinese media have turned more and more critical, blaming the U.S. democratic system for its ineffectiveness and incompetence in the case.

Xinhua, the Chinese official news agency, launched a series of special reports, under the title of Where is Yingying? The abduction case tests U.S. rule of law, attacking the incompetence of the U.S. police and the ineffectiveness of U.S. rule of law.

The first most condemned point is that the police tracked down Christensen through his car on June 12, but didnt arrest him until June 29.Every minute wasted by the police, according to Xinhuas interpretation,directly increased the possibility of Zhangs death.

Even after the police obtained an audio recording of Christensen discussing abducting Zhang, the police still couldnt make the suspecttalk.

Xinhuaalso points tothe long and complicated procedure of court hearings and prosecution in the United States, which will bea secondblow to the victims family. The article also criticizedthe fact that Illinois has abolished the death penalty, which according toXinhuameans it will be impossible tobring an extreme criminal to justice.

Xinhuaalso attacked the principle of presumption of innocence, the fundamental cornerstone of the U.S. rule of law, which might help the criminal get away from punishment in practice.

The series of criticism won much approval fromChinese netizens. Some Chinese netizens even blamed U.S. racism for the ineffectiveresponse, arguing that the police havent tried their best because of Zhangs race and nationality. They compared Zhangs abductionwith another case in China: one Japanese young man reported to the Chinese police that his bicycle was stolen in Wuhan city. The whole citys policemen were mobilized and found his bicycle within three days.

Despite the hash criticism, some other Chinese media still tried to defend the U.S. rule of law, arguing that the U.S. Fifth Amendment isa fundamental protection of human rights. And some Chinese netizens who agree withthis point of view also explained the principle of presumption of innocence by quoting Blackstones formulation: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

In return, their opponents counter-argued: Better for whom?

Clearly, Zhangs case has become a fuse for Chinese people to ponder U.S. democracy and its fundamental principles.

The rest is here:

A Chinese Student Disappeared. China Blames US Democracy - The Diplomat

Criminal Justice

Posted Jul 06, 2017 05:01 pm CDT

By Lorelei Laird

The elected sheriff of Orange County, California, testified under oath Wednesday that although some of her deputies have violated defendants constitutional rights, there is no organized jailhouse informant program. The Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times and Voice of OC have stories.

The testimony was the first time a court heard from Sheriff Sandra Hutchens on charges that her deputies have for years used jailhouse informants to get incriminating statements from defendants. When the defendant has a lawyer, use of a confidential informant violates the defendants right to counsel under a 1960s U.S. Supreme Court decision called Massiah v. United States.

Defense attorney Scott Sanders, who represents a high-profile murder defendant, has alleged in detailed court filings that deputies have been using informants for years, perhaps decades. He also alleges that Orange County prosecutors have frequently failed to turn over evidence showing the use of informants, which would violate the defendants rights under Brady v. Maryland.

Hutchens said Wednesday that the informant allegations have been embarrassing, but that only a few deputies broke the rules by planting informants next to targeted defendants. She pointed to a few deputies who are under criminal investigation, some of whom have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights when called to testify. (No prosecutors have been professionally disciplined or criminally charged in the matter, although one resigned and moved out of state after his testimony was contradicted by a sitting judge.)

A grand jury report issued in June echoes Hutchenss position on the subject, saying the wrongdoing was limited to a few rogue deputies. That report contradicts a decision of a California appeals courtwhich called the problems systemicand testimony of one former deputy and one current deputy, both of whom said their supervisors knew about the informant program, the OC Weekly reported.

Judge Thomas Goethals called the hearing to look into the existence and whereabouts of jailhouse informant records. As the Los Angeles Times noted, the Sheriffs Department has repeatedly said it had turned over everything, and then found more records. The most recent set of documents was turned over this yeareven though Goethals had ordered all evidence turned over in 2013.

We could have done a better job of responding to discovery requests, Hutchens said.

At the hearing, Sanders, an Orange County public defender, cited multiple internal memos showing that cultivating informants was part of jailers duties, and that sergeants and lieutenants commended these deputies for their work. Hutchens said she hadnt seen any of those documents and that deputies may have used the word informant broadly. She apologized for her departments inability to find the requested documents.

The testimony came in the case of Scott Dekraai, who murdered eight people and wounded a ninth in 2011 when he shot up the beauty salon where his ex-wife worked. Dekraai confessed the same day and has pleaded guilty to the crime, but the Sheriffs Department used an informant anyway, allegedly out of concern that he might plead insanity. The ABA Journal reported on the case in 2016.

Allegations related to the use of informants caused Goethals to take the entire Orange County District Attorneys office off the caseit is now being prosecuted by California Attorney Generals officeand has stymied the case at the penalty phase. Goethals has said he may rule out the death penalty if he finds evidence of substantial wrongdoing.

Hutchens announced last week that she will not seek re-election in 2018, a decision she said was not related to the informant matter.

Read more here:

Orange County sheriff: There's no jailhouse informant program, but some deputies have misbehaved - ABA Journal

A federal appeals court on Wednesday overturned the death sentence for Nevada prisoner Tracy Petrocelli, a three-time convicted killer.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday overturned the death sentence for state prisoner Tracy Petrocelli, a three-time convicted killer.

Petrocelli has lived for more than a quarter-century on death row since being found guilty in a murder that has had substantial influence on Nevada criminal procedure.

He shot and killed Reno used car salesman James Wilson in 1982, after he fled Washington, where he had killed his 18-year-old fiancee, Melanie Barker.

He etched his name into state legal history books after his appeal of the Wilson murder conviction led the Nevada Supreme Court to establish a three-prong test for whether a defendants prior bad acts can be included in evidence at trial.

The decision Wednesday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was largely unrelated to the prior bad acts issue that dominated Petrocellis early appeals.

The 9th Circuit instead ruled that the penalty phase of the Wilson murder trial represented a flagrant violation of Petrocellis constitutional rights, because it relied on testimony from a psychiatrist who examined Petrocelli without informing him of his Miranda rights.

The psychiatrist, Dr. Lynn Gerow, was hired by the prosecution to perform a competency evaluation after Petrocelli was arrested on murder and robbery charges. He visited Petrocelli at the Washoe County jail and conducted an interview without contacting defense lawyers and without informing Petrocelli of his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to legal representation.

Gerow testified as a government witness during the penalty phase of the Wilson murder trial and told jurors that Petrocelli had a psychopathic personality for which there is no cure. The jury imposed a sentence of death.

U.S. Circuit Judge William Fletcher wrote in his opinion that the effect of Dr. Gerows testimony was magnified by an erroneous jury instruction, which he said gave jurors an inaccurate warning about the chances of Petrocellis release if he was sentenced to life without parole.

The psychiatrists testimony, coupled with the instruction, had a substantial and injurious effect on the jurys decision to impose the death sentence, Fletcher wrote.

Since the first guilty verdict, Petrocelli, now 65, has been convicted of two other killings that occurred in 1981. One was of Barker, who was killed in October 1981. The other murder, of Dennis Gibson, was not prosecuted until the late 2000s. In that case, Petrocelli pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

All three of his victims were killed within six months of one another from October 1981, when he shot Barker, to March 1982, when he killed Wilson. Petrocelli had not been convicted of murdering Barker when he stood trial for the shooting of Wilson, but the jury still learned of her death through testimony at trial.

Case created evidence parameters

Petrocellis lawyers argued on appeal that such evidence was unfairly prejudicial, citing trial law that generally prohibits evidence of prior bad acts or bad character except under certain circumstances. In a 1985 decision, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld Petrocellis conviction but set out a new test for courts to determine what prior bad acts can come into evidence at trial.

The state high courts ruling led to the establishment of what is known as a Petrocelli hearing, at which defense attorneys and prosecutors argue over whether the bad acts evidence meets the standard spelled out in the 1985 ruling.

The Petrocelli case has defined the parameters of the admissibility of character evidence in Nevada, Clark County Deputy Public Defender Jordan Savage said. The bad character evidence is disfavored because there is the danger that the prejudicial and inflammatory impact of that type of character evidence will cause the jury to not fairly consider the evidence of the charges in the current case.

Petrocellis lawyer could not be reached for comment.

Original conviction upheld

The 9th Circuit, in reversing the death sentence, upheld the original conviction. According to the ruling, state prosecutors can hold a new penalty phase trial or impose a lesser sentence consistent with the law.

We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the District Courts denial of Petrocellis challenges to his convictions, and we are in the process of further reviewing the Ninth Circuits decision to reverse the District Courts denial of relief with respect to his sentence, said Monica Moaz, a spokeswoman for Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, whose office defended the conviction and the death sentence.

Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter. Review-Journal reporter Ben Botkin contributed to this story.

Here is the original post:

Appeals court overturns death sentence in 1982 Reno murder case - Las Vegas Review-Journal

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By: Elias J. Atienza

Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) baffled many Republicans and others when he voted against HR3004, known as Kates Law, an immigration bill passed by the House that toughens up punishments against illegal immigrants. As noted byBreitbart,a pro-Trump website, Amash was the only Republican to vote against the law, while 24 Democrats voted for it. The bill passed 257-167.

Amash voted against the bill because it stems from a provision that denies Fifth Amendment due process to certain criminal defendants.

Amash wrote:

As its text makes clear, the Fifth Amendment applies explicitly to all person[s] within the United States, including suspected illegal aliens who are arrested, charged, and tried within the United States. The Constitution uses the word citizen in other provisions whenever that word is intended. This interpretation of the Constitutions applicability is shared by the Supreme Court, including among the conservative justices.

Furthermore, he writes that the bill unconstitutionally eliminates the opportunity for those charged with illegal re-entry to challenge the validity of a removal order which, in his opinion, violates the Fifth Amendment.

He writes:

If a defendant never has a meaningful opportunity to have a judge review her removal order and, under this bill, she is prohibited from challenging her removal order during the criminal proceedings for illegal re-entry, then she could be convicted of a felony without ever having had the chance to challenge whether the order to remove herwhich is an element of the crime!was legally valid. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987), this would be a violation of the defendants due process rights.

The Hillsummarized the bill:

The bill includes a provision that ensures immigrants in the U.S. illegally who are charged with a serious crime are detained during their deportation proceedings. It also requires that localities comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement requests to detain suspects for extra time, since some jurisdictions currently dont always cooperate. The extended detentions allow immigration enforcement authorities to pick up suspected criminal immigrants from local jails.

Many people in the comments section opposed him, with one commentator saying that he should have voted for the bill and let the Supreme Court deal with the constitutionality of it. Amash hit back, writing,First, thats not how our oath of office or our system of government works. Second, the Supreme Court already has held that this is unconstitutional. Theres an opinion cited in my explanation that is directly on point.

Amash also voted against the HR3003, which was theNo Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which he claims violates several amendments of the Constitution including the 1st, 5th, and 11th. He has voted for defunding sanctuarycities in the past.

breitbartDonald TrumpFifth Amendmentfirst amendmentfourth amendmentJustin AmashKates Law

Link:

Justin Amash Explains His Vote Against 'Kate's Law' - The Libertarian Republic

Benton County officials are preparing to make policy changes after a federal appeals court ruled in-custody defendants should not be shackled in the courtroom.

A presumptively innocent defendant has the right to be treated with respect and dignity in a public courtroom, not like a bear on a chain, the decision states.

The decision, which was handed down May 31 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a court with jurisdiction over many Western states including Oregon, relies heavily on the constitutional liberties ensured under the Fifth Amendment.

The decision says a judge must make a determination that a defendant be required to wear restraints. Otherwise, all presumptively innocent detainees must appear without shackles at all proceedings, including sentencing hearings.

I think its a very expansive decision that will probably be reviewed further, said Benton County Circuit Court Presiding Judge David B. Connell.

The U.S. Attorneys Office applied for and was granted a 90-day stay on the issue, according to documents filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals. Therefore, the new policy has not yet gone into effect. The stay allows the U.S. Attorneys Office time to file a motion asking for the Ninth Circuit to rehear the issue.

The U.S. Attorney's Office also could appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, Connell said.

The decision is surprising because it greatly expands the scope of a defendants right not to be shackled in the courtroom, the judge said. The courts have long held that defendants should not be restrained during jury trials, the judge said.

Its not only the law, but I think its the right thing to do, Connell said.

For all other hearings that are not before a jury, defendants who are being held in the Benton County Jail typically are brought into court wearing cuffs around their ankles and wrists that are connected by a chain in front of their bodies, the judge said.

Should this decision go into effect, the sheriffs office would decide if someone poses a danger or risk for escape and should be shackled, Connell said. If a defendant contests that decision, a hearing would be held. The judge would look at factors including criminal history, the circumstances of the arrest and whether the defendant has been disruptive in the jail to decide if restraints are appropriate.

Since criminal cases take docket priority, these hearings may push aside civil cases, which already can take years to litigate, Connell said.

What an impact this would have is very hard to say since weve never faced it before, the judge said.

Benton County Sheriff Scott Jackson said more deputies would be needed to transport unrestrained offenders into courtrooms. He said he hopes the courts would use video appearances more often if the decision went into effect. Such video calls are currently used during some arraignments, but their use could be expanded for plea changes and sentencing hearings, Jackson said.

What were trying to avoid is having to bring on a bunch of staff that is costly to taxpayers, the sheriff said.

Jackson said he is also working to understand the legal definition of restraints. He said the Sheriffs Office has neoprene stun belts that wrap around the stomach and fit under clothing, so theyre not visible. A deputy could deploy the stun belt and incapacitate the defendant if the need arises, the sheriff said.

I question how valid (the decision) is, Jackson said. If you consider a violent person-to-person case or a rape case or significant domestic violence case where the victim has to come in to testify and theres no restraints there, it can be a really delicate situation to navigate, through.

Jennifer Nash, a Corvallis defense attorney, said she is pleased the sheriff and the courts are addressing the decision and safeguarding the constitutional rights of detainees.

All citizens are presumed to be innocent until the state proves that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Nash said. Placing the accused in restraints when they do not pose a public safety threat belies that presumption.

Benton County District Attorney John Haroldson said those who participate in the judicial process must be mindful of ensuring both safety and fair trials. He said he will rely on the Ninth Circuits interpretation of the law in doing so.

Even under the proposed framework, if there is a risk, there is an opportunity to be able to address that with the court to ensure there are safeguards, Haroldson said.

Originally posted here:

County responds to ruling against shackling in courtroom - Corvallis Gazette Times

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- TV courtroom dramas have made the work of lawyers and police part of our culture.

Above all, our founders wanted to keep government power limited and out of the people's lives.

Part of making sure government stays in check is the Fourth Amendment's enshrining the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

The idea was that the founders wanted to prevent political enemies from using the government to punish opponents or others who might just be unpopular in society.

This is why to search you or your property, law enforcement usually has to get a writ of permission, otherwise known as a warrant, from a judge. Involving judges in the process was intended to spread the power to investigate and punish potenial wrongdoers among multiple branches of government.

Of course, the Fourth Amendment's key term is here "unreasonable." where law enforcement can make a case that there is probable cause to believe that someone committed a crime, warrants are quickly issued.

And, it might interest you to know that there are over 20 exceptions to requiring a warrant to do a search. These include the plain sight and exigent circumstances doctrines and they deal with situations in which law enforcement see a crime in progress or believe one is imminent.

The founders also codified rights against self-incrimination, or testitfying against youself, in the Fifth Amendment. This is where the phrase "pleading the fifth" comes from. Meanwhile, the Fifth Amendment also prevents double jeopardy-which is being tried for the same crime twice. And, perhaps most importantly, states clearly that no one shall be denied life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.

Our justice system isn't perfect of course, and people may still fall victim to corruption and incompetence in criminal investigations, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendment go a long way to securing some key safeguards of individual liberties.

(Brian Calfano)

See the original post:

Analysis: How the Constitution Limits Government Power - OzarksFirst.com

Why does the U.S. Constitution spend so much time protecting criminals? Part 1 The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments to the Constitution are to protect those accused of crimes. Part 1 will explore the fourth and fifth amendments.

Posted on June 29, 2017 by Darren Bagley, Michigan State University Extension

The first amendment (freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly) and the second amendment (right to bear arms) usually get the most attention in the media. The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments to the U.S. Constitution are to protect those accused of crimes. That is half of the Bill of Rights! Why do you think so many amendments of the Bill of Rights are to protect those accused of crimes? Why do they get so little attention today?

The following questions are meant to have a good discussion with youth about personal rights. This activity can be done within a family, as part of school activities, a 4-H club or with any group working with young people. Encourage a robust dialogue about these issues, and encourage young people to find data to back up their opinions. During the discussion, try to limit interjecting your own opinions and let the youth discuss it among themselves.

How do you think the early times of the United States were different for criminals or those accused of crimes compared to today? How do you think the law enforcement and court systems was different? Do you think the relevance of these rights have changed over time?

Have you ever been accused of something? How does that feel? Have you ever been accused of something you didnt do?

The fourth amendment states, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A simplified summary of this might be, The police cant look through your stuff without a pretty good reason.

Why do you think this amendment exists? Some people interpret this amendment as a right to privacy. Do you think the amendment should cover electronic information and communication? If you arent doing anything wrong, what do you have to be afraid of?

When should the government have a right to search your property? Do you think this amendment ever hinders law enforcements ability to catch criminals?

The fifth amendment states, No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A simplified summary of this might be, For big crimes, a Grand Jury has to determine if you will go on trial. You cant be put on trial twice for the same thing. You dont have to say anything bad about yourself if you dont want to.

Pleading the fifth is often used to say you dont have to talk when you believe something might incriminate you. Why do you think this is in our Constitution? This amendment is also where the Miranda Rights come from; the famous, You have the right to remain silent.

Do you think those being arrested understand what that means during an intense police situation?

We will continue this Why does the U.S. Constitution spend so much time protecting criminals? Part 2.

Hopefully these questions will get some good discussion going about personal rights. If you have some great ideas, share them with your local county, city or township, or your state or federal legislators.

To learn about the positive impact of Michigan 4-H youthleadership, citizenship and serviceandglobal and cultural education programs, read our 2016 Impact Report: Developing Civically Engaged Leaders. Additional impact reports, highlighting even more waysMichigan State University ExtensionandMichigan 4-Hhave positively impacted individuals and communities in 2016, can be downloaded from theMSUExtension website.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension. For more information, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu. To have a digest of information delivered straight to your email inbox, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu/newsletters. To contact an expert in your area, visit http://expert.msue.msu.edu, or call 888-MSUE4MI (888-678-3464).

Here is the original post:

Why does the U.S. Constitution spend so much time protecting ... - Michigan State University Extension

From Texas Standard:

Plaintiffs have fileda new lawsuitchallenging the University of Texas at Austin's race-based admission rules. Unlike a well-known case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the new suit was filed in state court, and bases its claims on the Texas Constitution and state statutes. Because the Supreme Court ruled in Fisher v. University of Texas that UT-Austin could retain its race-based admission system, it is unclear how the new case will fair.

In 2008, Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian woman from Sugarland, applied for admission to UT-Austin. She didn't qualify for automatic admission because she wasn't in the top 10 percent of her class. She competed with others in the the normal pool of in-state applicants and didn't get in. Fisher claimed that if the university had not used race as a factor in admissions, she would have been admitted.

The Supreme Court found that UT-Austin's practice of using race as one factor in admission decisions was narrowly tailored to promote diversity and therefore acceptable under the U.S. Constitution.

A group that backed Fisher in her case, the non-profit Students for Fair Admissions,filed a new complaintin a Travis County court on behalf of a new set of plaintiffs. They are arguing that affirmative action, as used by UT-Austin, is invalid under the Texas constitution.

Lynne Rambo, a professor of law at Texas A&M University Law school, who is a specialist in equal protection, affirmative action and constitutional law, says the plaintiffs base their suit on three state provisions, including two found in the Texas Constitution.

"The main part of the Texas Constitution that they're relying on is the Equal Rights Amendment that Texas adopted back in 1972, when [it] was being advanced by women [nationally.] That has been interpreted by the Texas Supreme Court to go beyond the Equal Protection Clause," Rambo says.

Cases based on Texas law could fail because the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause places adherence to the U.S. Constitution over state law. But Rambo says the fact that the Texas Equal Rights Amendment grants more rights could help the plaintiffs' case.

"Classically, the states have been allowed to expand broader constitutional rights than the U.S. Constitution," she says. "In many states, there are broader Fourth Amendment protections. Texas, for example, has a broader Fifth Amendment self-incrimination privilege than the U.S. Constitution affords."

Students for Fair Admissionwas created by Edward Blumto seek plaintiffs to challenge university admissions policies at UT-Austin, Harvard, the University of North Carolina and the University of Wisconsin.

"He's a UT grad, and he apparently has a real dislike for the consideration of race in any number of areas," Rambo says. "He was behind Shelby County, for example, the case challenging Sections 4and 5 of the Voting Rights Act."

Written by Shelly Brisbin.

Go here to see the original:

UT-Austin Faces Another Affirmative Action Lawsuit | KUT - KUT

Key evidence including the victims body should be tossed from the murder case against a defendant in a grisly Upper East Side stabbing because detectives questioned him without his lawyer present, according to court papers filed Wednesday.

Lawrence Dilione also claims he wasnt read his Miranda rights before giving detectives directions to where he and co-defendant James Rackover allegedly buried Joey Comunale.

The alleged misconduct which may have included prosecutors means Diliones statements should be ruled inadmissible against him, according to his Manhattan Supreme Court filing.

In addition, any evidence gained from the illegally obtained statements would constitute the fruits of the poisonous tree including Comunales remains, defense lawyer Michael Pappa said.

Dilione is charged along with James Rackover the surrogate son and accused lover of jeweler to the stars Jeffrey Rackover in Comunales Nov. 13 slaying.

Following the killing, Rackover and Dilione allegedly drove Comunales mutilated body to Oceanport, NJ, set it on fire with gasoline and buried the remainsin a shallow grave.

A civil suit filed by Comunales dad, Pat and revealed exclusively by The Post Monday accuses Jeffrey Rackover of trying to cover up the crime, in part by letting James use his black 2015 Mercedes-Benz to move the body.

Wednesdays court papers say Dilione made a clear and unequivocal assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege while detectives drove him to the 13th Precinct station house at 10:45 p.m. on Nov. 15.

During the ride, Dilione spoke by phone with lawyer Joseph Evans, and told the detectives he wouldnt answer any questions without speaking to Evans, court papers say.

At 11:05 p.m., Evans also sent Dilione a text message that said he was hopping a cab to the precinct house, but Dilione never got it because detectives allegedly seized his phone.

But when Evans arrived at the precinct house, he was given the runaround by four different police officers, the papers state.

Eventually, a detective emerged and said Dilione had told them where Comunale was buried.

Evans told the detective that Dilione shouldnt be questioned further, but he allegedly made two more statements without a lawyer present the next day, including one to Manhattan Chief of Detectives William Aubry, court papers say.

The circumstances surrounding the clear and perhaps even intentional violations of [Diliones] Miranda rights.allow us to in good faith suggest that NYPD detectives either acted along or in concert with the Office of the District Attorney, Pappa wrote.

A spokeswoman for Manhattan DA Cy Vance said prosecutors will respond to this motion appropriately in court. Those papers are due Aug. 1.

The NYPD didnt return a request for comment.

Excerpt from:

Defendant in 'jeweler to the stars' case was improperly interrogated: lawyer - New York Post

Do We Really Want People to Learn How to Spot Micro Facial Expressions?

Paul Ekman Group

By definition, micros leak emotions that people dont want others to know they are feeling. Sometimes, even the person showing the micro is not aware of the emotion that is leaking out. My Micro Expression Training Tool (METT) enables those who study it to take this information from people attempting to conceal their emotions (and, in a sense, they are stealing this information).

Who has the right to do that, to tear away the curtains disguise? Certainly the Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs), although I have argued (a bit rhetorically) that LEOs who have been trained to spot micros should offer those they talk to the opportunity to wear a mask or facial cover.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protects us from self-incrimination, but micros may provide the Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) who took our training just such incriminating information- just what the person involuntarily showing the micros doesnt want a LEO to know. Would it be in the spirit of the Fifth Amendment for LEOs who have learned how to spot micros to at least inform those they interview that they have been specially trained to take this information- to invade privacy without consent? Should they offer criminal suspects the right to wear a mask to preserve their Fifth Amendment protection?

Many people (lawyers, business operators, salespersons) whose interests are not always the same as those whose micros they learn to spot, can now (without forewarning) invade privacy, taking information without permission that the provider would not want them to have. I never thought about these issues when I developed METT, but I recognize that my training courses enable an invasion of a very private realm of peoples lives: the feelings they dont want everyone (and sometimes, no one) to know they are experiencing.

And yet, such an invasion of privacy can serve the public good. It helps the health care provider doctor, nurse, or other caregiver tune in and, therefore, be better able to help.

I once thought that I might be able to control who else would be able to use METT, but I learned from my colleagues in the Department of Defense that there is no way to do that. A tool, once created and accessible on the internet, is available to everyone who pays the nominal price. All I can hope, my Defense Department colleagues advised, is that it will be used more for what I consider to be good, to help people, than to harm or exploit people.

The proverbial cat is out of the bag, free to go anywhere!

Dr. Paul Ekman is a well-known psychologist and co-discoverer of micro expressions. He was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by TIME magazine in 2009. He has worked with many government agencies, domestic and abroad. Dr. Ekman has compiled over 40 years of his research to create comprehensive training tools to read the hidden emotions of those around you. To learn more, please visit: http://www.paulekman.com.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Originally posted here:

The dangers of reading micro expressions - HuffPost

Washington Times

Supreme Court, Wisconsin hit property rights Washington Times Recently, the committee of nine unelected lawyers known as the Supreme Court gutted the Fifth Amendment. The case was called Murr v. Wisconsin. In the Murr case, a family in Wisconsin owned two lots. On one, they built a nice cabin and the other they ... Did the Supreme Court Tip Its Hand on How It Will Rule on the Travel Ban?Just Security Last day of Supreme Court decisions features religion, immigration casesConstitution Daily (blog) A new front in the legal fight over Donald Trump's travel banThe Economist (blog) all 1,387 news articles »

Visit link:

Supreme Court, Wisconsin hit property rights - Washington Times