Category: Notorious Cases

Mixed Ruling in El Salvador Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order partly granting and partly denying the Department of Homeland Security’s application in the case of the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, noted in this post Monday. Here is the dispositive paragraph:

The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by The Chief Justice, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to  share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by The Chief Justice is vacated.

Continue reading . . .

Mexico Extradites Killer of US DEA Agent, 40 Years Late

US DEA Agent Enrique Camarena was murdered in Mexico in 1985. Now Mexico has extradited drug boss Rafael Caro Quintero, who is wanted for the crime, along with 28 others. Santiago Pérez and José de Córdoba have this story in the WSJ.

Better late than never.

It would be understandable for a country to refuse to extradite its citizens if it had a functioning justice system that could and would impose a just punishment domestically. But that is not the case in Mexico when it comes to the drug gangs. Continue reading . . .

More on Trump v. New York

Following up on posts here and here, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a stay of President-elect Trump’s sentencing in New York 5-4. The order reads:

The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a brief virtual hearing.

Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.

The hearing then went forward. The WSJ has this story. Continue reading . . .

Harvey Weinstein Conviction Reversed

New York’s highest court reversed the conviction of the notorious Harvey Weinstein today, on the ground that evidence of other crimes was admitted beyond the limits allowed under New York’s landmark precedent in People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264 (1901). The court divided 4-3, with two judges recused and the replacements in the majority. That is, a majority of the court’s regular judges participating in the case voted to affirm. Continue reading . . .

The Problem With Execution by Nitrogen Gas

In a press release earlier this week The United Nations Office on Human Rights condemned the execution of convicted hitman Kenneth Smith by nitrogen gas as “outrageous” and amounted to “State sanctioned torture.”  The U.N “experts” noted that:

“Smith reportedly took over 20 minutes to die. Witnesses to the execution said that Smith remained conscious for several minutes as he writhed and convulsed on the gurney, gasping for air and pulling on the restraints, shaking violently in prolonged agony.”

Based on that description, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Friday that the White House found the the use of nitrogen gas “very troubling.” She added that President Joe Biden has “broad concern about the death penalty.”  Not so broad one guesses to prevent his Attorney General from seeking the death penalty for Payton Gendron, who murdered ten people at a Buffalo Grocery Store in 2022.  Smith only beat and stabbed a woman to death for $1,000.

Continue reading . . .

Political Violence

The WSJ has this report on the break-in of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home and attack on her husband, Paul Pelosi. It appears at this time that the attack was politically motivated.  “The intruder shouted, ‘Where is Nancy?’ before attacking her husband, one of the officials said.” Continue reading . . .

Florida’s Single-Juror-Veto Law Defeats Justice in Parkland Case

For the sentencing phase of capital cases, some states have true unanimous verdict laws. The jury must deliberate until it is unanimous one way or the other, just as they do in the guilt phase. If they are truly hung, the penalty trial is done over before another jury. California and Arizona have true unanimity laws.

Unfortunately, when Florida rewrote its sentencing law in the wake of a Supreme Court decision throwing out the old one, the Legislature unwisely chose a single-juror-veto law. In this system, if the jury votes 11-1 for the death penalty, the view of the one prevails over the view of the eleven, and the defendant gets a life sentence. That system introduces needless arbitrariness into sentencing, as the luck of getting one juror who has hard-core anti-death-penalty views (and possibly lied on voir dire) or who is willing to accept claimed mitigation that most people reject will result in a life sentence for one defendant under circumstances where others will be sentenced to death. Continue reading . . .

The Full Harm of Burglary

Karen Bass, a member of Congress and candidate for LA Mayor, was the victim of a home burglary recently. KTTV has this interview.

Ms. Bass says “my safety was shattered” and describes returning home to find the house burgled as “traumatic.” But isn’t burglary a “non-violent property crime”? Aren’t people who commit such crimes nearly harmless, to be handled with kid gloves and let off lightly? That’s what the folks on Ms. Bass’s side of the aisle have been telling us for years, and California has seen a cascade of laws designed to water down the consequences of committing such crimes. Continue reading . . .

Intimidating Justices and Their Children at Home Is Illegal as Well as Disgusting

After the unprecedented leak of a draft of a possible SCOTUS decision on the case overruling Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion activists have decided it would be a good idea to flock en masse outside the neighborhood homes of the Justices to make sure they know that, if the “wrong” decision were handed come late June, they would, in Chuck Schmer’s words, “pay the price.”

Gathering in menacing mobs at the homes of Justices has been defended by exactly those people who, for four years, were loudly aghast at the “breaking of norms.”  But as it turns out, the mob activity is not merely disgusting but illegal  —  or at least such is the view of that right-wing rag, the Washington Post.  Its article is quoted in part below.

Continue reading . . .