Courtroom Weekly: Criminals, immigrants and suicide supporters assert their rights in court

April 11, 2013

by: the State Court Staff

State courts deal with molestation, immigration, smart phones, bloggers and suicide

Courtroom Weekly The latest and greatest in court cases around the nation In this issue... Featured case News from California News from Florida News from Illinois News from Michigan News from Minnesota

Featured case Conviction in child molestation case overturned on right to counsel violation   Court: Kansas Supreme Court In 2009, Lester E. Lawson received a life sentence after being convicted of two counts of criminal aggravated sodomy. The victim in the case was a young boy, aged 11 and 12 at the time of the crimes. Lawson appealed the conviction on a right to counsel violation and the Kansas Supreme Court overturned his conviction on April 5, 2013. The court held that the lower court "erred in refusing to suppress the uncounseled statement Lawson made during the police-initiated interrogation after Lawson had invoked his right to the assistance of counsel." Lawson was arrested and charged in May 2008 with the crimes. Though he had counsel at his initial hearing, he also requested a court-appointed counsel at that time. The next day Lawson underwent a polygraph examination and police questioning. Prior to the incident in question, however, police read Lawson his Miranda rights and he signed a written statement indicating he was waiving his right to silence. During this episode with the police, Lawson confessed to sexual contact with the victim. It was later revealed that Lawson assumed a plain-clothes officer in the room was the court-appointed attorney he had requested. Further, the police questioning Lawson were apparently unaware he had requested an attorney the previous day. Prior to trial, the judge hearing the case ruled that the confession was admissible into evidence. This led to Lawson being convicted on the charges. He received a life sentence, allowable under Kansas law. The Kansas Supreme Court found the lack of counsel at the polygraph examination and questioning to be in violation of Lawson's Sixth Amendment rights. Justice Lee Johnson wrote the opinion for the unanimous court, stating, “ Lawson definitely asserted his right to counsel at a court proceeding when he submitted an application for court-appointed counsel at the first appearance. The police initiated its interrogation of Lawson the day after he asserted his right to counsel. ” This is not the end of this matter, however. While his conviction was overturned, the case was remanded for a new trial in the First Judicial District Court in Leavenworth. The County Attorney has not confirmed if a new trial will be sought. "[T]he case will have to be reprocessed minus certain elements" before a decision is made.

News from California California court rules against use smart phone maps while driving   Court: Superior Court of Fresno County, California Lost in California? Thinking of using your phone for directions while you drive? Think again. Judge W. Kent Hamlin of the Fresno County Superior Court ruled the use of cell phone mapping applications while driving was illegal under Section 23123 of the California Vehicle Code. The decision was made after the defendant, Steven Spriggs, was pulled over and cited for using his phone for directions while driving. Spriggs challenged the citation, saying that the ban on texting and talking on a phone did not apply to the use of maps. Judge Hamlin explained that while the defendant did not use the phone to make a call or text, it still served as a distraction and violation of the law. “ Because it is undisputed that appellant used his wireless telephone while holding it in his hand as he drove his vehicle, his conduct violated Vehicle Code section 23123, subdivision (a). - Judge W. Kent Hamlin ” Read the court's whole decision here: People of the State of California v. Steven R. Spriggs (dead link)	News from Florida Florida Supreme Court denies illegal immigrant admission to the state bar   Court: Florida Supreme Court The Florida Supreme Court has denied Jose Godinez-Samperio the right to practice law in the state of Florida. Godinez-Samperio is an undocumented worker; he came to the United States with his family when he was nine years old on a tourist visa, but he and his family never returned to Mexico. Godinez-Samperio graduated from the Florida State University School of Law, and passed the Florida bar exam in 2011. He and his attorney argue that since he completed law school and passed the bar, there is no reason he should not be admitted, as current bar statutes make no mention of legal status. However, the Supreme Court chose on April 4th to deny his admission to the bar because of his undocumented status, disallowing him from practicing law in the state. Though the court denied Godinez-Samperio's request to be admitted to the bar at this time, they essentially ruled that they could not admit him because the larger question of whether or not undocumented immigrants can become practicing attorneys in the U.S. is still at issue. The court has indicated that it will be ruling on this larger question in the future. This is not the only case of its kind recently in the courts: an undocumented immigrant in California is currently seeking the right to practice law, though he has been denied thus far. It is likely that cases such as these will continue to grow in notoriety as the debate over immigration reform continues to gain national attention. It is currently unknown if Godinez-Samperio will continue to fight for a chance to practice law.
News from Illinois Illinois Supreme Court reverses decision to clear former nightclub owners   Court: Illinois Supreme Court February 17, 2003, was anything but a party for patrons of Illinois nightclub E2. In a tragedy now famous in south side Chicago history, 21 people died and more than 50 were injured after security guards used pepper spray to break up a fight, provoking a vicious stampede when 1,500 clubgoers scrambled for the inward-swinging doors. Owners Dwain Kyles and Calvin Hollins had been previously ordered to close the second floor of the club—the site of the stampede—after chronic failure to keep the facility up to code, but they later cited confusion, saying that the court order had referred only to a raised mezzanine area within the club. Over the course of nearly a decade of controversy, owners Kyles and Hollins were given two-year prison sentences by Cook County Associate Judge Daniel Gillespie and later acquitted on grounds of the allegedly unclear order. But last Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision to clear them of indirect criminal contempt. Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote in summary of the ruling, “ Even if the orders could be viewed as forbidding only use of the mezzanine, the defendants had not complied even with this requirement. ” The case has been sent back to the Illinois Appellate Court for reconsideration. Though the defendants' prison sentences have not yet been reinstated, Kyles and Hollins may still face jail time if the court rejects their other arguments.	News from Michigan Michigan court rules on anonymity for bloggers   Court: Michigan Fourth District Court of Appeals In July of 2011, the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law in Michigan, filed suit against the blogger known as Rockstar05, a former student at Cooley Law, for defamation. Rockstar05 on his blog titled, “Thomas M. Cooley Law School Scam”, catalogs his complaints against his former school concerning such issues as bar passage rates, admission standards, employment prospects, national ranking, and annual tuition. Cooley subpoenaed Weebly Inc., a California based company that hosts the blog, seeking the identification of Rockstar05. Weebly Inc., due to internal miscommunication, divulged Rockstar05’s email address allowing Cooley access to his real identity. Rockstar05, subsequently, filed a motion for a protective order, but trial court judge Clinton Canady of the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County, declined to grant it for “reasons stated on the record”. This allowed Cooley to access and use information pertaining to the blog in their case. On appeal, in an opinion written by Judge William C. Whitbeck, the Michigan Fourth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court had erred in declining the protective order. First, because it found that the trial court had used standards derived from New Jersey and Delaware court opinions and made them applicable to Michigan law; second, because the trial court had failed to proffer reasons on the record for its refusal to grant the protective order; and third because the trial court had made a determination that per se defamatory remarks were outside of First Amendment protections without an actual finding of fault. The Michigan Court of Appeals then remanded the case back to the trial court to determine if it has the jurisdiction to quash the California subpoena and if Rockstar05 has a right to protect his anonymity under Michigan law. While this holding may hint at greater protections for anonymous online speech, opinion exists that the Michigan Fourth District Court of Appeals failed to address the overlying major concerns brought to light by Cooley’s lawsuit. One such concern is the failure of the Court of Appeals to provide future guidance for lower courts, most importantly as to what legal standard should apply if other states’ standards remain inapplicable. Another concern with the holding is its failure to impose a notice requirement before seeking the identity of an anonymous defendant. This lack of notice by the seeking party, may result in a defendant who is unaware that a protective order may be needed to protect online anonymity.
News from Minnesota Minnesota's assisted-suicide law attacked as unconstitutional, again   Court: Minnesota First Judicial District A recent appeal will give the Minnesota Court of Appeals an opportunity to reconsider the state's law establishing criminal penalties for those who intentionally advise, encourage, or assist someone in committing suicide. In a criminal case against Final Exit Network and some of its members, Judge Karen Asphaug determined that the Minnesota law was "facially overbroad" by making it criminal to "advise" someone in taking their own life. Final Exit Network is a Georgia-based, volunteer-run organization that supports a person's choice to end their own life when that person feels their quality of life is no longer acceptable. According to the Pioneer Press, "Dakota County prosecutors filed felony charges of aiding a suicide . . . [and] gross misdemeanor charges of interfering with [the] death scene" of a woman who committed suicide in May 2007. Final Exit Network agreed that the State had legitimate reasons, supported by public policy, to criminalize the act of someone "assisting" in a suicide. However, their attorneys argued that forbidding "advising" or "encouraging" suicide would place unconstitutional limits on free speech. Judge Asphaug found that "encouraging" suicide could still subject someone to prosecution under the statute but found for the defense regarding the statute's use of "advises". This finding resulted in the dismissal of the felony charge against Thomas Goodwin, the founder and former president of Final Exit Network. The Minnesota Court of Appeals previously decided a case in July 2012 that addressed the same constitutional issue. According to the court's ruling there, the statute was not an unconstitutional violation of free speech because the speech being proscribed is both "an integral part of the criminal conduct of physically assisting suicide" and "an integral part of another person's suicide itself." This finding placed the speech at issue into a category of speech that does not implicate the First Amendment and may therefore be proscribed by the State. Final Exit Network will now face the appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals for its own criminal defense case and briefing as amici curiae for the Minnesota Supreme Court in the case against William Melchert-Dinkel. While the Minnesota Supreme Court has granted Final Exit Network's motion to brief as amici curiae, along with Melchert-Dinkel's petition for review of the Court of Appeals decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court has yet to set the date for oral arguments.

See also

• Courtroom Weekly