News from California
|
Undocumented immigrant may practice law in California, court says
Court: California Supreme Court
|
|---|
| Sergio Garcia, like many others, is an aspiring lawyer. A 2009 graduate of the Cal Northern School of Law, he passed the California bar exam on his first attempt. However, it took a California Supreme Court decision four years later for him to be admitted to practice law in the state. The reason: he is still not a U.S. citizen.
Garcia was brought to the U.S. from Mexico as a minor and has lived continuously in California since 1994. His father filed for a visa for him when Garcia was 17 and the petition was accepted by immigration officials in 1995. Now 19 years later, Garcia is still waiting on that visa to be granted.
The court ruling on January 1, 2014, explained, "[T]he number of available immigrant visas that may be issued each year is limited and is based upon an applicant's country of origin. Because the current backlog of persons of Mexican origin who are seeking immigrant visas is so large…a visa number still has not become available for Garcia."[5]
The court's ruling addressed the issue of authority in granting law licenses, finding that the high court itself had such authority, but that granting law licenses to illegal immigrants was also condoned by the Legislature and the Governor. They referred to the recently-amended "Section 6064(b) of the Business and Professions Code," which states:
| “
|
Upon certification by the examining committee that an applicant who is not lawfully present in the United States has fulfilled the requirements for admission to practice law, the Supreme Court may admit that applicant as an attorney at law in all the courts of this state…[5][4]
|
”
|
Finally, the court looked at Garcia individually, to determine whether or not he was fit to be a lawyer. The Committee of Bar Examiners had already dug into Garcia's life and had decided that, according to the court,
| “
|
Garcia met his burden of demonstrating that he possesses the requisite good moral character to qualify for a law license.[5][4]
|
”
|
The court agreed with the Committee's findings and allowed Garcia to be admitted to the bar.
The decision is not without its opponents, one of whom is Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. He stated that,
| “
|
This is only the latest in a series of measures by some jurisdictions to normalize illegal immigration.[6][4]
|
”
|
In an interview with CNN, Garcia explained what the ruling meant for him:
| “
|
It allowed me to fulfill one of my two dreams. I always wanted to be a licensed attorney and I hope to one day to be a U.S. citizen, but for now, I guess at least one of my two dreams is now going to be possible.[6][4]
|
”
|
When asked if he would practice immigration law, he laughed and said, "Oh no. That stuff's just too messed up. I don't want to be a part of that."[6] |
|
News from Florida
|
Gerrymandering In Florida: State supreme court forces testimony.
Court: Florida Supreme Court
|
|---|
| "Gerrymandering" is the illegal practice of redrawing representational districts to favor a particular candidate or party. The practice is not unusual, but is difficult to prove. In Florida, perhaps the most unpredictable of all swing states, the issue is especially pertinent as it can easily be used to determine the outcome of many elections. Florida's federal congressional districts are often accused of being the most gerrymandered in the nation. With modern computer technology, gerrymandering can be extremely precise in determining who gets represented by whom. Redistricting occurs on the turn of every decade with new constitutionally-mandated census data at the federal level, and most recently occurred at the state level in Florida in 2012.[7]
Several minority groups in Florida filed a challenge to the Republican-controlled redrawing of representational maps and the methods by which they were drawn. Republicans instrumental in the process declined to testify regarding the modifications made in 2012. Florida recently approved constitutional amendments to prohibiting gerrymandering, and despite legislators and their staffs having long-standing exemptions from testifying, challengers argued that the new constitutional provisions presented a "compelling government interest" to demand testimony.[8]
The same Republicans, mostly legislative leadership, sought an injunction to block testimony as well as gain access to reapportionment documents, maps, and the like. The fight over access to the information escalated quickly to the Florida Supreme Court.[8]
In a deeply divided 5-2 ruling, the supreme court determined that the Republicans in question must testify about their intentions during the redistricting process of 2012.[8] The majority author, Justice Barbara Pariente, wrote that the compelling and relevant interest of enforcing the new constitutional mandate outweighs the traditional privilege that insulates lawmakers from testifying. Though the privilege is explicit and previously undisputed, the justices found that the insulation is limited and that there must be a balance between separation of powers and the right to representation.[8]
The energetic dissent, written by Justice Charles Canady and concurred by Chief Justice Ricky Polston, accuses the majority of an "unprecedented" abridgment of the separation of powers.[8] Canady wrote: "For the first time in the recorded history of our Republic, a court has ruled that state legislators are required to submit to interrogation in a civil case concerning their legislative activities."[8]
For more information, see Ballotpedia's article on "Redistricting in Florida." |
|
News from Pennsylvania
|
Conviction of Monsignor William Lynn reversed
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
|
|---|
| On December 26, 2013, a panel of three judges of the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the conviction of Monsignor William Lynn, who has been serving a 3 to 6-year sentence for the past 18 months. In 2012, Lynn became the first church official in the U.S. to be convicted for covering up claims of child sex abuse brought against priests.[9]
Lynn was an administrator for the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004, and held the responsibility of dealing with claims of child abuse by priests. He was accused of holding the reputation of the church above the protection of children by shuffling accused priest, Edward Avery, to another parish without warning the officials there of a past incident of child abuse. Avery is currently serving a 2.5 to 5-year sentence for child abuse.[10] Judge Teresa Sarmina of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas found him guilty of child endangerment in June 2012.
The reversal of his conviction hinged on whether the state's child welfare law at the time of Lynn's conviction could be applied to institutional supervisors. The law covered a "parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child," but Lynn did not directly supervise the children. He was in charge of the priests who did. The three Superior Court judges unanimously overturned his conviction for this reason, although they did not fully absolve the church of wrongdoing in their written opinion:
| “
|
We cannot dispute that the commonwealth presented more than adequate evidence to sufficiently demonstrate that [Lynn] prioritized the archdiocese's reputation over the safety of potential victims of sexually abusive priests and, by inference, that the same prioritization dominated [Lynn's] handling of Avery.[11][4]
|
”
|
"I am disappointed and strongly disagree with the court's decision," said Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams.[9] He noted that an appeal is likely. Many others, including the executive director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), have expressed disappointment with the decision.[11] |
|
|
News from South Carolina
|
South Carolina 14-year-old gets new hearing, 69 years after being executed
Court: 3rd Judicial Circuit, South Carolina
|
|---|
| A South Carolina court in the 3rd Judicial Circuit will hear testimony this month challenging the conviction and execution of a 14-year-old boy — 69 years after the original trial took place.[12]
George Stinney, who is the youngest person in the U.S. to have been executed in the past 100 years, was convicted of double murder in Clarendon County Court and sentenced to die by electrocution in 1944 in a one-day trial that many believe has strong racial overtones. The two victims were young white girls, ages 11 and 7, and Stinney was black. Though the girls were bludgeoned to death with a railroad spike, the 5’ 1”, 95-pound Stinney was arrested and charged with their murder hours after the victims’ bodies were found. Stinney’s court-appointed counsel did not call a single witness and did not appeal the ruling or sentence. The entire proceeding — including jury selection, courtroom testimony, jury deliberation (which took only 10 minutes) and sentencing — all occurred in a single day on April 24, 1944, and was never challenged or reviewed. Stinney was executed 83 days later, after former Governor Olin Johnston declined to reduce Stinney’s sentence to life in prison.[13]
Attorneys representing the Stinney family filed a motion in the Clarendon County Court in October of last year to determine if the court acted correctly, or if Stinney should receive a new trial — an unprecedented move in South Carolina for someone who has already been put to death.[14] The hearing will be held at Sumter County's Judicial Center and a judge will rule whether or not a new trial should occur.[13] Steven Mackenzie, who is representing the Stinney family, will bring new evidence to the hearing to convince the judge to grant a new trial, including testimony from Stinney’s siblings that was not heard at their brother’s trial nearly three-quarters of a century ago.[12]
Third Circuit Solicitor Earnest A. “Chip” Finney, who will represent the state, said that he is not opposed to the motion, nor is he in favor of it, and that his job is to “get to the truth.”[12] However, he noted that the transcript of the trial and all evidence has since disappeared, which would make it difficult to recreate the 1944 investigation.[15] Finney is also uncertain how the state would handle similar claims brought by other families with similar grievances. He explained, "Unfortunately, because of the kind of error in history we have in South Carolina, this is not the only case where somebody might want to come forward and ask for special relief. Because of that, I'm duty-bound to make sure we follow the rules and procedures and that we give the justice system the means to handle these kind of controversies."[13]
Finney says regardless of the outcome, the case is "truly a tragedy… because even if Mr. Stinney did not commit the crime, these two young ladies deserved a better fate. We may never be able to give them the justice they deserve."[13] The hearing will be held on January 21st.[14] |
|
News from New Hampshire
|
Defendant denied bail after mistrial in 20-year-old cold case
Court: New Hampshire Superior Courts
|
|---|
| A mistrial was declared on December 19, 2013, regarding the case of a 1989 arson fire. The jury deliberated for two days but was unable to agree on a unanimous verdict. The defendant was facing four counts of second degree murder. Attorneys for the defense requested that Judge John Kissinger of the Cheshire County Superior Court free their client on bail until a new trial could be held. The judge did not grant the request, though the defendant has already been in jail for over 3 years.[16]
The quadruple murder happened in 1989. A family died in a fire, that experts believe was intentionally set, in an eight-unit apartment building located in Keene, New Hampshire. Carl and Lori Hina, who were married shortly before the fire, their baby Lillian and Carl's daughter Sara, never escaped the fast-moving fire. According to WCAX-TV, arson investigators believe an open flame held to a couch in a neighbor's apartment caused the fire. The neighbor's apartment was located under the Hina's unit. However, defense attorneys theorize a discarded cigarette or unattended candle may have started the fire.[17]
Police suspected David McLeod when they first began their investigation. Nine or more witnesses interviewed in 1989 had either heard McLeod threaten to burn down the apartment building or heard him brag about setting the fire afterward.[18]
The case went cold for 20 years, until New Hampshire's cold case unit reopened the investigation. Police claim the case was difficult to investigate because many who witnessed the fire were drunk at the time. Other witnesses refused to cooperate with investigators initially. McLeod was arrested on June 30, 2010, in West Sacramento, California. He was brought back to New Hampshire to stand trial for the murders.[19]
A dispute over evidence in the case began in 2011. It took until May 2013 for the New Hampshire Supreme Court to issue a final opinion that three arson experts could testify at trial. Based on interviews with the Hina's neighbor in 1989, the experts determined the fire was the result of arson, but the neighbor died before the trial. The court also allowed prosecutors to present a recorded phone call in which McLeod admitted to an informant that he set the fire.[20]
During the trial, McLeod's attorney, Caroline Smith, argued McLeod didn't have a motive or an opportunity to start the fire. Prosecutors claimed McLeod set the fire to get back at an old girlfriend, Wanda Ford, who also lived in the building. McLeod didn't live in the building. On the night of the fire, he was with Ford, at a party in another apartment.[19]
A new trial was set for April 14, 2014.[21] |
|
News from Nebraska
|
Sentence upheld in sawed-off shotgun murder
Court: Nebraska Court of Appeals
|
|---|
| The man who, less than two weeks before turning 18, shot and killed Naif Al-Kazahy will keep his original sentence, an appeals court ruled. Zachary E. Neuberger, now 19, pleaded no contest in March 2013 to manslaughter and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced in April. Lancaster County District Judge Paul D. Merritt, Jr. tried him as an adult and gave him 30 to 35 years in prison. On Tuesday, the Nebraska Court of Appeals upheld that sentence.[22][23]
Neuberger had contested the judge’s decision to try him as an adult as well as his lawyer’s efficacy. He lost both battles.[22]
According to police in Lincoln, Nebraska, where the incident took place, Al-Kazahy, his brother Munif and a friend had approached a house just before midnight on July 29, 2012 expecting to fight. As they arrived, Mitchell Utterback and several others met them outside. Tensions escalated, leaving Munif and Utterback on the ground.
When Munif’s younger brother Naif approached with a baseball bat, Neuberger shot the 19-year-old from the porch with a sawed-off shotgun, according to a witness. Neuberger’s account was that Al-Kazahy had already begun swinging. Al-Kazahy died shortly afterward in a local hospital. Police found Neuberger hiding in a house in neighboring Bennet. |
|
|
