Nevada Gov’s Plan to Clear Death Row Blocked by Marsy’s Law

Outgoing Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak had begun the process to clear out Nevada’s death row via a mass clemency. Fortunately, he does not have the authority to do that by himself. He had asked the state’s pardon board to put this step on its agenda. However, Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks challenged that action. Judge James Wilson ruled that the short-notice meeting violated Nevada’s version of Marsy’s Law, which gives victims a right to 15 days notice. The Nevada Independent has this story. Continue reading . . .

Domestic Terrorists Arrested in Atlanta

A group of five domestic terrorists were arrested Tuesday at a rural site in Atlanta.  Mark Miller of Fox News reports that police found explosive devices, gasoline and road flares.  All five were charged with domestic terrorism, criminal trespass and four were charged with aggravated assault.  Were these members of the dreaded QAnon, or the Proud Boys, the “domestic terrorist” groups targeted by the U.S. Department of Justice and vilified in the national media?  Nope, they are college-aged progressive anti-police activists who have been spiking trees, throwing Molotov cocktails at police, setting fires and carjacking among other crimes to stop the construction of a police training center.  The members of Stop Cop City claim they are also protecting the environment and have been living in trees adjacent to the site.  It is a sad fact that these anarchists are the product of the “woke” counterculture that is well established in colleges and universities, the national media, the federal and many state and local governments, entertainment, social media and too many U.S. corporations.

Outgoing Oregon Governor Commutes Death Sentences

With one month left in office,  Oregon Governor Kate Brown announced that she is commuting the death sentences of all seventeen murderers on the state’s death row to life without the possibility of parole.  CBS News reports that Brown, who has earned a reputation for issuing executive orders without legislative or public input, told reporters “I have long believed that justice is not advanced by taking a life…”  In 1978 and again in 1984, Oregon voters reinstated the death penalty for the state’s worst murderers  but the democrat-controlled government has not allowed an execution since 1997.  Brown is not the only governor who substituted her views on the death penalty for those of the people she is supposed to represent.  In 2019, newly-elected California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a reprieve for the murderers on that state’s death row, and dismantled the execution chamber.  He is currently shipping the state’s worst murderers out of death row to other prisons with more pleasant living conditions.

Co-Defendant Statements and Joint Trials

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took up a case on the perennial knotty problem of the admissibility of co-defendant statements in joint trials. The case is Samia v. United States, No. 22-196. The out-of-court statement of one defendant is admissible against the defendant who made it, but generally not to incriminate other defendants. Continue reading . . .

Venue and Double Jeopardy

Does a venue error equal a Get Out of Jail Free card? That is, if the government files its charges in a locale that is later determined to be incorrect, does the defendant walk regardless of how clearly guilty he is or how atrocious the crime is? Or can he be retried in the venue now deemed correct?

The U.S. Supreme Court took up this question this morning in Smith v. United States, No. 21-1576.

Tricky measure allows release of violent felons

Dan Walters has this column with the above title at Cal Matters on the continuing harm from Jerry Brown’s deceptive 2016 initiative, Proposition 57.

Six years ago, then-Gov. Jerry Brown tricked California voters into passing a ballot measure that, he said, would make it easier for non-violent felons to earn paroles and thus ease the state prison system’s severe overcrowding.

Continue reading . . .

Inducing Illegal Actions and Freedom of Speech

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the case of United States v. Hansen, No 22-179, for full briefing and argument. Here is the Question Presented, as phrased by the Solicitor General:

Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.

The answer would seem to be a clear “no,” but the Ninth Circuit held to the contrary. Continue reading . . .