News from Louisiana
|
Louisiana Supreme Court: No parole for juvenile lifers
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
|
|---|
| According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the roughly 230 people sentenced to life in prison for committing murder as juveniles will not retroactively benefit from the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning such sentences.[5]
Last June, the country's high court ruled to discontinue handing down life sentences to juveniles convicted of murder. The decision, which cited the 8th Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, voided laws permitting the practice in 28 states, including Louisiana. Some states have decided that the ruling should be applied retroactively—that is, that all currently imprisoned juvenile lifers should be eligible for parole.[5]
Hoping for a similar outcome in Louisiana, lifers across the state filed petitions in an effort to correct what they claim are now illegal sentences. One of those lifers was Darryl Tate of New Orleans, who is currently serving a life sentence for killing a man in a robbery 32 years ago. Tate's petition was denied on November 5 in a 5-2 vote that has implications for similar cases statewide.[5]
The Orleans Parish district attorney's office, who argued against applying the decision to older cases, had little to say. Commented Assistant District Attorney Christopher Bowman,
| “
|
We're pleased with the court's decision, but beyond that we have no comment. I think the decision stands for itself.[5][4]
|
”
|
Dana Kaplan, executive director of the Juvenile Justice Project in New Orleans, expressed disappointment:
| “
|
Given that the United States Supreme Court clearly ruled that a mandatory life without parole sentence was cruel and unusual punishment, it is a disappointment that the Louisiana Supreme Court has determined that whether such mandatory punishment can be given out is set only by the date of the offense. This is especially disappointing given that other states, including our neighbor Mississippi, and the U.S. attorney general have stated that the sentence should be retroactively applied.[5][4]
|
”
|
The variation in different states' application of the law likely means that the U.S. Supreme Court will revisit the original decision, legal experts say.[5] |
|
News from Delaware
|
Former frat brothers found not guilty in hazing death trial
Court: New Castle County Superior Court, Delaware
|
|---|
| After about 6 hours of deliberation, the jury at the New Castle County Superior Court ruled in favor of two ex-fraternity members from the University of Delaware on November 15. Former Sigma Alhpa Mu chapter president Jason Aaron and former pledge master Matthew Siracusa were defendants in a civil trial over the death of Brett Griffin, who died of alcohol poisoning at a fraternity party in 2008. The trial was presided over by Judge John A. Parkins, Jr.
Brett's parents, Julie and Timothy Griffin filed a hazing and wrongful death lawsuit against the national fraternity and several members in 2009. They had settled with everyone besides Siracusa and Aaron before the start of the trial.[6]
Freshman Brett Griffin died after the frat's "Big Brother" party, where the pledges were supposed to finish a full bottle of alcohol with their big brother, according to fraternity tradition. Griffin's blood alcohol level was 0.341, more than four times the legal limit for driving. A medical expert who testified at the trial explained that he had the equivalent of a 750 ml. bottle of Southern Comfort whiskey in his system when he died.[7]
Douglas Fierberg, the attorney for the Griffins, argued that the fraternity members clearly violated Delaware's law on hazing. According the Delaware's Anti-Hazing Law, "Hazing means any action or situation which recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student[...]for the purpose of initiation or admission."[8] Both Siracusa and Aaron testified that the group decided to have the "Big Brother" party even though they knew that it violated a restriction placed on the frat a week earlier by the university. However, Siracusa says he was only at the party for a few minutes, but came back around 2:45 a.m. after receiving a call from a brother who said that Griffin was not breathing. When asked by Fierberg if Griffin had a choice not to drink that night, Aaron said he did. He also said "the fraternity just ran itself on tradition," and that if he had tried to stop it, "[he] would have been laughed at."[9]
In the end, the jury ruled that Jason Aaron did not haze Griffin, nor fail in his duty to protect him. It was found that Matthew Siracusa did haze Griffin, but that the hazing was not the cause of his death. "I regret that Brett died, but I don't know what I could have done differently," he said after the verdict. Disappointed by the outcome, Julie Griffin said, "This is the reason kids are still dying from hazing in 2013. Everyone wants to blame the kids."[7] |
|
News from Ohio
|
Religious items in classroom enough to fire teacher, Ohio Supreme Court says.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
|
|---|
| A divided Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a Mt. Vernon school teacher’s firing was justified on grounds of insubordination, leaving the larger issue of religion in schools to be debated another day. The 4-3 decision affirmed the school’s decision to fire John Freshwater, a high school science teacher, because he had refused to remove religious objects from his classroom, including a bible and a poster of a U.S. President in prayer. Though school officials erred in demanding that Freshwater remove his personal bible from his desk, his termination was a legitimate result of ignoring “direct, lawful edicts from his superiors while in the workplace,” the court said.[10]
Hollie Reedy, the chief legal counsel for the Ohio School Boards Association, stated:
| “
|
[The decision] upholds the right of the board to direct teachers to teach the curriculum and not to share religious beliefs with children that are not part of the curriculum.[11][4]
|
”
|
Freshwater, however, had maintained that his religious materials were meant to inspire his students, not espouse a particular religion. Witness testimony told of Freshwater showing classroom videos discussing creationism and intelligent design, as well as occasionally distributing religious literature to his students. Freshwater also kept a book on Christianity and an Oxford Bible in his classroom. Court documents revealed that Freshwater had put up a poster on the classroom wall depicting former President George W. Bush and former Secretary of State Colin Powell in prayer with a scriptural passage at the bottom.[12]
In a spirited dissent, Justice Paul Pfeifer lambasted the majority’s decision, claiming that they had “set a very low bar” for insubordination in public schools. Pfeifer also argued that by refusing to tackle the larger constitutional issues of the religious freedom of public school teachers, the court had “[walked] away from the opportunity to provide helpful guidance to every school board in Ohio…who could benefit from knowing more about the extent of and limits on their academic freedom.”[10]
Freshwater, who now teaches at a private school, was not available for comment. His attorney, Rita Dunaway, said only that she was disappointed with the decision. The ruling represents the latest twist in what had become months of appeals stemming from the school district’s original decision to fire Freshwater in 2008, after a 2007 incident where he was accused of burning a cross into a student’s arm with a scientific instrument called a Tesla coil. The Rutherford Institute, which represented Freshwater in the dispute, has said they will ask the court to reconsider the decision.[11] |
|
|
News from New York
|
Smile! You’re getting a new trial thanks to a jury-stalking attorney
Court: New York Supreme Court 5th Judicial District
|
|---|
| On October 9, 2013, a jury of six came to a unanimous verdict, in favor of the defendants: a dental clinic, parent company, dentists and insurance companies. The trial was held in the Onondaga County Supreme Court in New York and lasted for 15 days. It involved a case filed by a mother, Kelly Varano on behalf of her son, Jeremy Bohn. Varano alleged her son did not receive proper treatment from a dental clinic in Syracuse, New York called Small Smiles Dentistry.
Immediately following the verdict, the judge in the case, Deborah Karalunas, went to visit the jury to say "thank you" and ask if there were any questions, but the response wasn’t what she’d expected. According to Karalunas, the jurors told her a man who had been observing the trial had also been stalking them outside the courtroom.
The next day, in open court, Karalunas questioned the man who jurors described the day before. His name was Scott Greenspan, a Manhattan attorney who worked for American International Group (AIG). AIG was not named as a defendant, but it is the company that insures the Small Smiles dental clinics, the individual dentists who work at the clinics and the clinics' parent company, FORBA Holdings. The judge described for him the jury’s comments about his behavior:
| “
|
They used the word you were creepy, that you were very seedy, that you were in the elevator with them frequently, that you followed them to various places where they had lunch, identifying four restaurants; that you were waiting in the lobby of the court(house) and got into the elevator with them after lunch to ride up in the elevator with them.[13][4]
|
”
|
Greenspan testified he did not represent any of the co-defendants in the case and was simply present to monitor the trial for AIG. Attorneys for FORBA Holdings, the parent company of the dental clinic, and a defendant in the lawsuit, told the judge Greenspan never spoke with any of the jurors. He only responded and spoke directly to a juror once, when that juror asked him a question.[14]
Despite the arguments made by defendants, Judge Karalunas found Greenspan’s behavior to be improper. Based on their observations, the jurors suspected Greenspan worked for the defendants, and he intimidated the jurors with his actions. Thus, it was reasonable to assume he might have been trying to deliberately intimidate the jury. Karalunas granted plaintiff Kelly Verano's motion for a new trial on the grounds that the behavior by Greenspan violated the 'sanctity of the jury'. By following the jury outside the courtroom and the courthouse, Greenspan’s actions called into question the jury’s verdict. His conduct raised the possibility that the jury may not have come to their decision in the case based exclusively on the evidence and without prejudice.
AIG remains hopeful that the original verdict will be reinstated on appeal.[14] |
|
News from Nebraska
|
Nebraska judge instructs man not to use medical marijuana—in California
Court: Nebraska District 2
|
|---|
| One state’s medicine is another state’s prison sentence. A California medical marijuana patient will have to avoid one to avoid the other, if he is to comply with Nebraska District 2 Judge Jeffrey Funke’s instructions.
Joshua Nordstrum, 26, was stopped on Highway 75 in Nebraska with close to a pound of marijuana, hash and hash oil. After pleading guilty to attempted distribution, he is on probation. Funke warned him that if he violates his probation, it will become a five-year prison sentence.[15]
Funke, who found out that Nordstrum has been using marijuana since he was 14, told him that “California says you can, but Nebraska says you can’t use it.” When Nordstrum was pulled over on August 7, he showed the officer his California medical cannabis card, which Funke said was for a kidney ailment. Public Defender Michael Ziskey said Nordstrum was “self-medicating with marijuana to address other issues.” Ziskey noted he was willing to seek treatment for addiction while serving his 24-month probation.[15]
Funke compared marijuana to alcohol, suggesting Nordstrum quit the drug as part of a life change. “Alcohol is legal here...but if it’s a problem you have to stop,” he said.[15] He also told Nordstrum:
| “
|
You are not to possess marijuana even if you have a medical permission to do so.[15][4]
|
”
|
|
|
News from Wisconsin
|
Drunk driver in fatal wreck sentenced to seven years in prison
Court: Dane County Circuit Court, Wisconsin
|
|---|
| Lawren E. Prisk, a 44 year old computer programmer for an insurance company, was sentenced on Monday by Dane County Circuit Court Judge Nicholas McNamara to seven years in prison for homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle.[16][17]
On August 21, 2012 at about 12:35 a.m., Prisk was driving his Pontiac Solstice northbound at 100 mph en route from one bar to another on Highway N in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin when he slammed into the back of a Volkswagen Beetle driven by Jamie N. Lauter, 24, of Sun Prairie.[18] There was no evidence that Prisk, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.18 percent, attempted to hit the brakes.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title After the crash, Prisk asked a Dane County sheriff’s deputy, “Did I hit something?”[18] When another deputy asked Prisk if he knew where he was coming from, Prisk replied, “Good question. Where was I coming from?”[18] Lauter was severely injured by the crash, requiring 24-hour care for injuries that will likely leave her in pain for life and render her unable to continue working as a certified nursing assistant. Lauter’s friend and passenger, Conor J. Dunleavy, 20, died at the University of Wisconsin Hospital later that day.[18]
In September 2013, Judge McNamara ordered a pre-sentence investigation.[16] Assistant District Attorney Emily Thompson recommended a sentence of five years in prison and eight years of extended supervision for homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle with an additional three years of supervision for injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle.[16] Prisk’s lawyer, Julius Kim, suggested a sentence of three years in prison for the two charges, both of which Prisk pled guilty to.[17]
Since the accident, Prisk has vowed to never drink again, stating that he never intended for his alcohol problem to impact the Dunleavy family or Lauter. Kim said that Prisk has undergone extensive alcohol treatment since the crash.[17] While Judge McNamara agreed that Prisk has made “real, affirmative changes,” he remarked that the crime was too severe to warrant only three years in prison.[17] In his sentencing, McNamara stated:
| “
|
If we lived in a society where life could be taken with practically no consequence, that would be dangerous.[17][4]
|
”
|
He sentenced Prisk to seven years in prison. In court, Prisk stated “I want to take, fully, personal responsibility for my actions.”[17] |
|
|
