News from Utah
|
Guilty plea stands in Utah sex abuse case
Court: Utah Court of Appeals
|
|---|
| In February 2011, Keith Brown plead guilty to sexually abusing his now-adult daughters when they were children.[4] Recently, his attorney requested leave to appeal his guilty plea, citing a misplea.
Brown plead guilty to one-count of sodomy on a child and two counts of sexual abuse of a child. Both are felonies, first and second degrees, respectively. The first degree felony for sodomy resulted in a 10 year minimum sentence and the two second degree felonies for sexual abuse resulted in a 15 year sentence. The prosecution agreed with Brown's attorney, Taylor Hartley, to request that the two sentences be served concurrently.
Hartley, however, filed a motion for misplea with the Utah Fourth Judicial District in November 2012, but that court denied the request, stating it no longer had jurisdiction to handle the matter. Hartley then filed his motion with the Utah Court of Appeals. In it, he argued that the plea colloquy was improper as Brown was not in "a . . . physical or mental condition to understand the deal he was making."[5] Hartley went on to state that the court should have noticed Brown was in an unfit condition. Brown had been involved in a severe car accident shortly before pleading guilty and still had lacerations and bruising. Additionally, Harley indicated "[t]he drugs put him in a state where his answers during the plea colloquy were inaudible and inaccurate."[5] Instead, Hartley asserted the district court should have inquired into Brown's state and continued the matter until a later date.
Despite Hartley's most persuasive arguments, the court denied the request to hear Brown's appeal, stating: "The failure to file a timely motion to withdraw a guilty plea extinguishes a defendant's right to challenge the validity of the guilty plea on appeal."[5]
Brown's children are in a classical music group known as the 5 Browns. The children, three girls and two sons, have distanced themselves from their father, who is now in prison and no longer manages their musical careers.[6]
Interestingly, Brown was represented by Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union in his 2011 guilty plea.[4] |
|
|
News from Indiana
|
Indiana school voucher program upheld, expansion likely
Court: Indiana Supreme Court
|
|---|
| Indiana citizens hoping to use their tax dollars for private school tuition have been given the green light after a two-year debate between teachers unions and school choice supporters—but the controversy is not over.[7]
The Indiana Supreme Court ruling on March 26, issued by Marion County Judge Michael D. Keele, came as a blow to the school officials, teachers and parents who sued the state in 2011 on grounds that the school voucher program violated the Indiana Constitution. In the lawsuit, opponents of the program—which is fast becoming one of the largest in the nation—claimed that it disregarded the state's duty to provide free and "uniform" public education, also claiming that vouchers unfairly redistribute much-needed funds from public schools to religious organizations.[7]
Argued Judge Keele, scholarship recipients are free to choose to use the funding for education at a public, secular private, or religious private school—a conclusion consistent with that of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 when it found Cleveland’s voucher program similarly constitutional.[8]
Indiana State Teachers Association vice president Teresa Meredith, listed as the plaintiff in the case, commented,
| “
|
Fundamentally at the bottom of it all, we are on very different philosophical ground about what taxpayer dollars should be used for. This is funding a religious activity with public dollars.[8][3]
|
”
|
Since the program’s inception, an increasing number of low-income families have redirected tax dollars from their public school district to pay tuition when their children transfer to private schools. Indiana’s program is the fastest growing in history, having distributed 3,919 vouchers in its first year and 9,324 in its second. And now, since the Indiana Supreme Court moved to uphold the law, the central debate has shifted from the program’s overall constitutionality to the possibility of its expansion.[7]
Legislators are drawing near to a vote on the expansion bill, which, supported by Governor Mike Pence, could significantly increase the number of students eligible for vouchers this fall.[9] The bill would extend vouchers to special education students, income-qualified siblings of students already using vouchers, and children living within the boundaries of schools rated D or F by the state’s Department of Education.[8]
Democrats, outnumbered 37-13 in the state Senate and 69-31 in the House, continue to push against the bill. A final vote is expected before the legislature adjourns on April 29.[9] |
|
|
News from Massachusetts
|
Court rules that sharing marijuana is not a crime, growing it is
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
|
|---|
| The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, on April 5, 2013, ruled on four cases dealing with marijuana arrests. Since voters decriminalized possession of less than one ounce of the drug in 2008, the court ruled that sharing a blunt is not a crime. The rulings clarified the state's relatively new law regarding marijuana.[10]
One of the rulings involved Kityan Jackson, who was seen sharing a joint at the 2010 Hempfest at Boston Common. When police saw him pass the joint, they went up and searched his backpack, though they didn't have a warrant. There they found 10 small bags of marijuana that, together, weighed less than an ounce. Though Jackson was initially prosecuted for possession with intent to distribute, the Supreme Judicial Court threw out the conviction because no crime was committed by sharing the joint.
Justice Fernande Duffly wrote, in the unanimous ruling,
| “
|
We now decide that the social sharing of marijuana is akin to simple possession, and does not constitute the facilitation of a drug transfer from seller to buyer that remains the hallmark of drug distribution.[11][3]
|
”
|
In two other cases, the court ruled against evidence found when police conducted a search based on public marijuana consumption by the defendants. For example, the court threw out illegal gun possession charges against Daniel Clinton and Alyson Tayetto because police found the gun through an unauthorized search of their car after having been informed that the two possessed a small amount of marijuana.
However, the court did crack down on a man who was found growing marijuana in 2010. He was in possession of less than one ounce of the drug, but his closet was set up to grow the plant, complete with lights and a thermometer. Justice Margot Botsford wrote,
| “
|
[T]he word ‘cultivate’ refers to the process of growing a plant or crop, not the purpose for which the plant or crop is grown. Accordingly, we hold that the cultivation of one ounce or less of marijuana, regardless of its intended use, is a criminal offense.[11][3]
|
”
|
|
|
|
News from Iowa
|
Iowa Supreme Court justices may face pay cuts for decision supporting same-sex marriage
Court: Supreme Court of Iowa
|
|---|
| A few justices for the Supreme Court of Iowa are at risk of having their pay cut drastically for a decision made in a case in April of 2009.[12] The case was Varnum v. Brien, originally brought in the District Court in Polk County, by several same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by the county recorder. Judge Robert B. Hanson granted the couples {{{{{{{{summary judgment}}}}}}}} and the county recorder appealed.[13] Chief Justice Mark Cady wrote the opinion for a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Iowa, affirming the district court by holding that "the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution."[13]
Now, three years later, lawmakers in Iowa are attempting to amend the judicial branch budget bill in a way that would reduce the justices' salaries from about $163,000 annually to only $25,000.[14][15] According to CBS Channel 4 News, "the pay cut wouldn't be implemented unless voters approved a constitutional amendment stating that marriage was between a man and a woman."[15] In Iowa, such an amendment would require approval by two legislative assemblies which were elected in consecutive elections before it could be put to the voters to be adopted.[15]
According to the Huffington Post, State Representative Tom W. Shaw stated that lawmakers were "just holding [the justices] responsible for their decision, for going beyond their bounds."[12] Not all legislative members share this view. State Senator Rob Hogg called the amendment "ridiculous" and, according to the Huffington Post, noted that "the court routinely interprets state law" and that the "Legislature is free to pass clarifying language."[12] The pay cut would only impact those justices who participated in the unanimous decision, and Senator Hogg feels as though the pay cut will not withstand a court challenge.[12]
Iowa made history in the 2010 retention election when voters ousted three of the justices involved in the gay marriage ruling: David Baker, Marsha Ternus and Michael Streit (see: Iowa judicial elections, 2010). That was the first time any state Supreme Court judge was not retained. |
|
|
News from Ohio
|
Judge Wagner's Domestic-Violence Court
Court: Toledo Municipal Court, Ohio
|
|---|
| Judge Michelle Wagner of the Toledo Municipal Court in Ohio has proposed a plan for a specialized domestic-violence docket in hopes of addressing the system's failure to protect the victims of domestic violence, which has resulted in the deaths of 70 Toledo women in the past decade.[16]
Judge Wagner's plan calls for one judge to handle all domestic violence cases, which would allow that judge to develop not only the legal knowledge and base to handle any domestic violence case, but it would also allow that judge to acquire the astute skills needed to assess any threats faced by the victims. Currently, a typical domestic-violence case can have several judges presiding over it at various steps along the line. Having one judge handle all domestic violence cases in one docket would, according to the Toledo Blade, "give the court memory and each case continuity" and could make "miscommunication and lack of communication less likely".[16][17]
According to Adam Loukx, the city's law director, the Toledo Prosecutor's Office, in conjunction with Judge Wagner's plan, is establishing a "domestic violence unit" consisting of two prosecutors who will focus on domestic violence. This would allow for those prosecutors to develop trust and a familiarity with victims.[17]
Currently, in the Toledo courts, about 58 percent of the 1,500 domestic violence cases resolved last year were dismissed, largely due to the victims' failure to appear in court. A hearing to approve the proposed docket will take place in May.[17] |
|
|
