News from Maryland
|
Psychiatric evaluations ordered for women accused in "exorcism" killings
Court: Maryland Sixth District
|
|---|
| Two women accused of killing two young children in what they described as an “exorcism” will be mentally evaluated to determine if they are fit to stand trial, authorities say.[5]
A district court judge for the 6th District Court ordered 28-year-old Zakieya Latrice Avery and 21-year-old Monifa Denise Sanford to be held without bail and to undergo psychiatric evaluation on Tuesday. The women are accused of stabbing Avery’s one and two-year-old children to death and injuring their two siblings, ages five and eight. Avery and Sanford told police that they saw evil spirits move between the bodies of the children, and that they were attempting to drive out demons through an exorcism ritual, according to Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy.[6]
The incident occurred in Avery’s Germantown home. Police were alerted by a 911 call from a neighbor who reported seeing an open car door and a knife with blood on it. Police discovered the bodies of the two children on the bed in the master bedroom and found the other two children with stab wounds. The injured children were taken to a hospital and are still undergoing treatment.[7]
According to Montgomery County Police Department Captain Marcus Jones, Avery had formed a group called “Demon Assassins” in order to “get rid of the devil, the evil spirits.” Police are currently trying to locate two men who are also believed to belong to the group. Sanford’s attorney, Edward Leyden, said he had no information as to whether or not his client was a member of the group.[6]
Avery and Sanford are charged with first degree murder in the deaths of the two children, as well as attempted murder of their older siblings. They could each face life in prison if convicted.[8] |
|
News from New Jersey
|
Court decides leaving a child alone in a car is neglect
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
|
|---|
| In 2009, a New Jersey woman left her 19-month-old in her running car while she went inside a dollar store to pick up some party supplies. When Eleanor (a pseudonym) returned to the car 5 to 10 minutes later, her child was fine but there were police officers there. She was arrested for child endangerment. Her case reached the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, which ruled on January 14, 2014 that leaving a child unattended in a car is indeed child neglect or abuse.[9]
Cases such as this can be difficult to figure out because the state law on child neglect and abuse applies to children under 18 whose parents or guardians fail to ensure a "minimum degree of care." There are no other references to age, and so murky waters surround the specific details of different cases. Most would probably consider it a poor choice to leave a 1 year-old in a car alone. But what about a 7-year-old? A 15-year-old? In addition to age, varying circumstances have elicited different responses from judges. When a woman left her 2-year-old, who was sick, in the car alone while she went inside to pick up medicine, she was ultimately found innocent of neglect.
In Eleanor's case, the court found that they could not justify her decision to leave the toddler unattended. Judge Clarkson Fisher of the appeals court wrote, "Eleanor was only purchasing items for a party, and other adults were available to watch the child at home while Eleanor ran her errand."[9] There is not a clear-cut way to rule on cases like this, and someone has to make a decision based on each specific set of details. This has led some, like Kathleen O'Brien, who wrote an opinion piece on the case, to declare it a "nanny state" or "busybody justice".[10]
Others emphasize that regardless of good intentions, short time periods, and safe areas, anything can happen while a back is turned. Ernest Landante, of the Department of Children and Families approved of the decision. He said "leaving a child alone in a vehicle – even for just a minute – is a bad idea. Left unattended, a child in a vehicle is vulnerable to abduction and dehydration."[9] |
|
News from Montana
|
Montana Supreme Court reversal makes it easier to bring open-government lawsuits
Court: Montana Supreme Court
|
|---|
| The Montana Supreme Court, on January 9, 2014, reversed its 2006 ruling that requires a person to prove that they were personally injured or affected by a lack of government transparency before filing a lawsuit for such an issue. This means that plaintiff Brian Schoof may continue his lawsuit against the Custer County commissioners.[11]
Schoof sued the commissioners because of a closed meeting they held in 2007 in which they decided that elected county officials could receive cash in lieu of contributions to a health insurance program. Schoof, a resident of Custer County, did not find out about this until it happened to be mentioned in a 2011 public meeting almost four years later. He promptly filed suit, arguing that the commissioners' decision should be nullified and the money returned because the meeting was not made public. He said their actions violated the state's open meetings statute and its right-to-know and right-to-participate provisions.[12]
Judge Blair Jones, of the 22nd District Court, had dismissed Schoof's suit, ruling that he couldn't file the lawsuit years later (citing a 30-day statute of limitations) and that he had not proved that "he had suffered an injury distinct from the general public."[12]
The supreme court disagreed with its 2006 decision in Fleenor v. Darby, which required the plaintiff in a similar open-government lawsuit to prove that she had suffered personal injury that was different or distinct from that of the general public. Regarding this requirement, Justice Jim Rice wrote in the 2014 ruling,
| “
|
We believe such requirements impose standing thresholds that are incompatible with the nature of the particular constitutional rights at issue.[12][4]
|
”
|
Schoof's case will now go back to the trial court.
Michael Sehestedt, who represented the defendants, responded to the ruling by saying,
| “
|
It will be easier for people to sue even if they have no real interest in the matter or never displayed any interest. But for people who truly are interested, they probably should have the right to litigate those issues.[11][4]
|
”
|
|
|
|
News from Minnesota
|
Minnesota Vikings stadium suit dismissed, construction will continue
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
|
|---|
| Three people were on a quest to stop a near billion-dollar funding project for a new NFL stadium. They argued the funding plan was unconstitutional. On January 21, 2014, the Minnesota Supreme Court said it did not have the authority to decide on the question and dismissed the lawsuit.[13]
In the per curiam ruling, the court wrote that the law "does not confer original jurisdiction on the court to resolve all challenges to legislation authorizing the use of appropriation bonds." Instead, the constitutional challenge should have been in the district courts, the court wrote.[13]
Justice Alan Page did not participate in the decision because he is a former player for the Minnesota Vikings, the team for which the stadium is being built.
Doug Mann, an activist who once ran for Minneapolis mayor, filed a previous suit, also dismissed, in Hennepin County. He also had a petition pending with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which the appellate court also dismissed, saying it was the wrong type of appeal and that he missed the deadline for filing an amended version. The supreme court suit, filed by Doug and Linda Mann and fellow Minneapolis resident David Tilsen on January 10, 2014, called on the state to stop selling bonds to build the stadium. It postponed a bond sale of $468 million; however, after the supreme court dismissed the suit, Chairwoman Michele Kelm-Helgen of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority indicated the project would be back on track.[13][14]
“We are confident that we will be able to move forward very quickly, to get the financing in place for the bond sale and to keep things on track," Kelm-Helgen said.[13]
However, the state may miss some payment deadlines. Furthermore, the Management and Budget office, in charge of processing bond sales, did not know when the bonds would be sold. Kelm-Helgen said that several contractors were willing to allow the delays. The stadium is planned for July 2016 and will replace the Metrodome, which is undergoing demolishment. Officials had previously worried the lawsuit would delay the project for a year.[13][14]
Mann released a statement Tuesday, saying he will decide whether to take further action within a few days. He admitted that "a request for review by the Supreme Court seems unlikely to be granted," considering the speed at which the state appellate courts decided the matter.[13] His suit had argued that the funding plan violated a Minneapolis charter provision that should have called for a popular vote.[13]
Governor Mark Dayton thanked the court for its swiftness. He had pressured the supreme court to rule immediately, lest the project be destroyed. He said to reporters, “If the financing is delayed by a matter of days, the whole thing could collapse. And if it collapses, I don't know how you put it back together.”[13][14]
The Minnesota Legislature approved funding for the stadium in May 2012. Since then, multiple roadblocks have impeded its progress. Originally, the state was to pay for its debt using funds from electronic gambling. In 2013, the legislature decided to use tax dollars from elsewhere to cover the $348 million the state owed to the project. The City of Minneapolis is diverting $150 million in sales tax revenue to the project. The Vikings are responsible for the other $500 million of the $975 million project.[13] |
|
News from Wisconsin
|
Wisconsin appellate court rejects self-defense claim in ice pick murder
Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals District I
|
|---|
| On January 14, 2014, a three-judge panel on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District I ruled that a Milwaukee man was convicted properly regarding the murder of his girlfriend with an ice pick. The appellate court rejected claims by Eddie Lee Anthony that he should have been permitted to testify that the slaying was in self-defense. Anthony, 66, has been serving a sentence of life in prison for the 2010 murder of Sabrina R. Junior, who was 43.[15]
According to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court records, Junior was stabbed 45 times during an argument with Anthony. Their 11-year-old daughter hid in the closet with two other children throughout the altercation, saying she saw her father follow her mother into the bedroom with a 10-inch ice pick. The child heard her mother scream, “Stop! Don’t do it!”[16] Her father then packed clothes in a suitcase and left. Junior’s 17-year-old daughter returned to the house shortly after and discovered her mother’s body.[15] Anthony was arrested hours later in Bradley, Ill.[16]
Anthony argued he had acted in self-defense, but Judge Richard John Sankovitz refused to let him take the stand after Anthony insisted on discussing a wrongful armed robbery conviction from 1966, in spite of being told it was irrelevant to the homicide case.[15][17] In his appeal, Anthony argued that he should have been allowed to testify and that the state prosecutors were wrong in excluding an African-American minister from the jury.[15]
In the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District I, the three-judge panel rejected Anthony’s claims. The court noted that Junior could not grip a knife due to her rheumatoid arthritis, occasional limp and reliance on a walker. Further, the mother of Anthony’s teenage son testified that Anthony suspected Junior was having an affair and had told her about the slaying without mentioning self-defense.[15] The court decision stated,
| “
|
Even if Anthony had testified about his self-defense claim, an overwhelming amount of evidence would have undermined his theory. We are not persuaded that the result of Anthony’s trial would probably have been different had the jury heard his testimony.[15][4]
|
”
|
In regards to the exclusion of the minister from the jury, the appeals court found that state prosecutors could exclude the man since the decision was based on the likelihood that he would rely more on his faith than evidence in deciding the case.[15] |
|
News from Alabama
|
First Ellis trial fully overruled, new trial on horizon
Court: Alabama Supreme Court
|
|---|
| Andre Ellis remains free from rape convictions settled in 2013, and his case will be retried before a new jury.
Ellis had been sentenced to 85 years in prison for two rape convictions and 22 years for a count of burglary in early 2013. By May of that year, the attorney defending Ellis had appealed the jury conviction in the Alabama 12th Circuit Court under Judge Jeffery Kelley. The defense requested a comprehensive review of the proceedings, and claimed that the prosceution had violated procedure in a manner toxic to the trial.[18]
In Ellis’ first trial, the prosecution had successfully proven Ellis guilty to a jury. Judge Kelley, who reviewed the trial in an eight-page ruling, made note of inconsistencies in testimony of one witness, the destruction of crucial evidence (including text messages), and the cleaning of the crime scene. The judge found that the defense did not receive all necessary information to build a proper case.[19] He ruled that the fairness and validity of the trial itself was questionable due to procedural missteps caused by the prosecution. Typical technicality appeals involve a violation of constitutional rights, such as evidence obtained without a warrant, but Kelley determined that the trial as it had proceeded could not adequately establish the guilt of Andre Ellis. Particularly pertinent was the responsibility of the prosecution to present all evidence equitably and timely to the defense.[20] Kelley's ruling undermined the validity of the jury's decision.
Tom Anderson, the district attorney prosecuting the case, petitioned the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court to overrule the judge’s decision and reinstate the conviction and sentences.[18] Among several complaints, the prosecution argued that Kelley stepped outside his jurisdiction by ruling on the validity of testimony which should be reserved for cross-examination. Both the state supreme court and court of appeals denied the motion to overturn Kelley’s ruling because the prosecution had not filed the motion within seven days of the trial, a timeframe which is required by Alabama law. Because the original conviction remains overruled, Ellis is entitled to a new trial.
Ellis remains in prison for the burglary charges, for which he received 22 years. |
|
|
