Supreme Court Gearing Up For Big Second Amendment Case Out Of Chicago

On March 2, 2010, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the important Second Amendment case of McDonald v. City of Chicago.  The Supreme Court will consider whether the Second Amendment individual right to bear arms applies against state and local restrictions on firearms.  In 2007 the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of D.C. v. Heller.  In that case the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.'s gun laws on the basis that they violated the Second Amendment.  Chicago's gun laws are similar to Washington D.C.  A lawsuit was filed challenging Chicago's gun laws but the trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld Chicago's gun laws and held that the reasoning in Heller did not apply because Heller dealt with Washington D.C., which is not a state.  In other words, they decided that the Second Amendment does not apply to states.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted the NRA time to argue for the Plaintiffs in the case.  It is interesting to note that the Plaintiffs in the McDonald case are represented by Alan Gura, the same attorney who argued the case for the Plaintiffs in Heller.  It is also interesting to note that Gura opposed allowing the NRA to argue on behalf of the Plaintiffs case.  While both Gura and the NRA want the gun ban overturned, they have different arguments in trying to advance the cause.  Gura is advancing a privileges or immunities clause argument for applying the Second Amendment to the states whereas the NRA is arguing a traditional due process clause argument for application of the Second Amendment to the states.  The attorney representing the NRA, Paul Clement, was solicitor general in 2007 and filed a brief in favor of upholding the Washington D.C. gun ban.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

California Supreme Court OK's "John Doe" Warrants Based Just on DNA

In an interesting decision, the California Supreme Court has upheld an arrest warrant that identifies the target as "John Doe" and merely contains the DNA profile recovered from a crime scene.  On August 21, 2000, prosecutors filed an arrest warrant against "John Doe" and attached the DNA profile from evidence left at a crime scene.  The warrant was filed four days before the expiration of the statute of limitations for the sexual offenses.  If the prosecutors had not filed the arrest warrant when they did, the statute of limitations would have run and they would never have been able to arrest anyone for this offense.  Eventually the DNA was matched to Paul Eugene Robertson and he was arrest and convicted of the sexual offenses.  The Court upheld the arrest warrant and found that the use of the DNA profile in the arrest warrant satisfied the particularity requirements of the law.  The dissenters objected because they felt that the use of the DNA profile was a clever way of getting around the statute of limitations problem and that the arrest warrant was not valid because it did not authorize the arrest of a particular individual.  The individual, in this case Paul Eugene Robertson, was not identified until after the DNA match was made, which was well after the statute of limitations had expired.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Dismisses Double Jeopardy Claim, Execution To Proceed

Today, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a Virginia man sentenced to death without addressing his double jeopardy claims.  The case involves Paul Michael Powell who was convicted in Virginia of the 1999 murder of 16 year old Stacie Reed and raping her 16 year old sister.    Powell was convicted of the murder and the rape in 2000.  However, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the verdict  because they found that the prosecution had failed to prove that Powell had raped Stacie or did anything else that would make him eligible for the death penalty.  Thinking that he had escaped the death penalty, Powell send a long and rambling letter to the prosecutor laced with profanity graphically describing the murder of Stacie Reed.  In the letter he talked about how he held down Stacie and threatened to rape her before stabbing her in the heart.  Armed with the letter, the prosecutor recharged Powell with the attempted rape and the murder of Stacie, death penalty qualifying offenses, and had Powell convicted of the crimes and sentenced to death in 2003.  The Supreme Court justices did not make any comment in dismissing his appeal and dismissing his claims that he had been subject to Double Jeopardy for being tried twice for the same crime.

This is an example of how the law is not blind.  From a technical standpoint, Powell was subject to Double Jeopardy.  He was placed on trial twice for the same crime.  It would have been interesting to have the Supreme Court issue a ruling setting forth the legal reasons for upholding the second conviction of Powell and sentencing him to death.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Washington Supreme Court Renders Doctor's Prescription For Medical Marijuana Meaningless

In a bizarre opinion, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the police can arrest an individual with a doctor's prescription for medical marijuana or even search his home for marijuana.  The judges ruled that Washington's medical marijuana law only allows for patients to raise the prescription as a defense at trial and does not preclude them from being arrested or searched.  Whether they qualify for a prescription is a decision that has to be made by a jury.  The only saving grace is that the Washington Supreme Court overturned the decision of the trial court by finding that a jury, and not a judge, has to make the decision of whether the patient qualifies for a prescription under the law.  However, the defendant in the case lost because his attorney admitted at trial that his client's condition did not qualify for a prescription under the law.

It looks like the Washington legislature is going to have to rewrite the law to make it meaningful again.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or all us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

California Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits On Medical Marijuana

Today, the California Supreme Court struck down a law which sought to limit the amount of medical marijuana someone is allowed to possess.  In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215 which allows people with a doctor's prescription to possess an unspecified amount of marijuana.  In 2003 the California legislature passed a law limiting the amount of marijuana that can be possessed by a patient to 8 ounces.  The California Supreme Court struck down this law and held that once a measure is added to the California constitution by the voters only the voters can change the law.  Thus, the legislature was improper and was struck down.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Rules Courts Can Review Motions To Reopen Immigration Cases

Today the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in an immigration case that may open the doors to courthouses for countless immigrants slated for deportation.  The ruling gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear decisions on motions to reopen decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals.  The federal regulation gives discretion to the Attorney General and does not allow any review of his final decision.  However, the Supreme Court, relying on the longstanding tradition of judicial review of administrative action and an unwillingness to exempt judicial review of administrative decisions unless the statute clearly provides for it.  In this case the court found that such a prohibition does not exist in the legislation. 

The case involved an Albanian citizen who came to the United States in 1995 on a work visa.  The visa expired and he continued to remain in the United States.  In 1996 he applied for political asylum claiming he would be persecuted for his political beliefs if he returned to Albania.  He failed to appear for his asylum hearing and he was ordered to be deported.  He filed Motions to Reopen his case but the motions were denied by the Attorney General and the Board of Immigration Appeals.

An interesting twist to the case is that the government agreed with the petitioner that the federal court should have jurisdiction to hear the denial of his Motion to Reopen his case.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Rejected - Death Sentence Upheld

Today, the United States Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of an Alabama man who claimed that his attorney failed to inform the jury at the sentencing phase that he was mentally impaired.  Holly Wood was convicted of murdering his girlfriend by a shotgun blast to her head as she slept.  At the sentencing phase Wood's lawyer told the jury that Wood had no criminal record but failed to inform then that he had an IQ of less than 70 and had been classified as mentally retarded.  A federal judge had thrown out the death sentence on the basis that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel.  The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the judge and reinstated the death sentence.  Today the United States Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and found that Wood had failed to show that his attorneys performance was constitutionally ineffective.  The decision, a 7 to 2 vote, was authored by Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  In her opinion, Judge Sotomayor stated that "Even if it is debatable, it is not unreasonable to conclude that . . . counsel made a strategic decision not inquire further into the information contained in the report about Wood's mental deficiencies and not present to the jury such information."  It seems like the court refused to second guess the strategic decision made by Wood's attorney.

The case is Woods v. Allen, 08-9156.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C.,visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.