Well, she was convicted and her fate was about to be placed in the hands of a jury.

That her attorney was so adamant that Sally would never experience the fate decided on by the jury is a puzzle.

All I can come up with is that her bail would be continued pending appeal, her sentence stayed pending appeal, and she has a terminal disease. Otherwise, got me!

LOL I keep reading the story and it seems so simple and cut and dry. Something to do with state law???




TIS

Good guesses, and to answer MaryCas: No, this wasn't on the bar exam though I may raise it in a bar.

The answer is along another track and it has to do with Joan. Not only are Sally and Joan sisters, but they are conjoined twins. Sally can't be imprisoned or executed because Joan is innocent and therefore can't be imprisoned or executed.

OMG, I would have NEVER thought that. Of course, how often would that happen. Still, Sally could kill as many people as she wanted to and get away with it?

That would be a landmark case without a doubt.


TIS

As long as Joan is not guilty of anything, Sally can never be imprisoned while attached to her sister.

Kly, couldn't some common law apply here? Afterall, a pregnant woman can be imprisoned.

Would this law apply in Thailand?

I suppose it is some kind of misplaced compassion for the other family members who must have asked for it. I assume by now they have pulled the plug.

Yes, a pregnant woman may be incarcerated, but the under common law and constitutional law the fetus is not a person.

Interesting. However, some state laws do consider the fetus viable during the last trimester, so personhood of the child would have to be accounted for by the court, right?

In your scenario, state law would have to specifically address the personhood of conjoined twins. I wonder if all states do address conjoined twins as such. Of course, constitutional interpretation would be the variable in any case.

Yes. Some states have statutes that criminalize certain wrongs, like homicide, to the unborn. These statutes treat the fetus differently than a natural-born individual, and are specifically limited to confines of the statute. They don't give rise to an interpretation of personhood.

Conjoined twins have widely been viewed by law as separate individuals, each entitled to his own rights under the law, while sharing a common body. Therefore if an innocent conjoined twin accompanies his convicted twin to prison, the innocent one must be immediately released upon a habeas corpus petition.

This situation offers an ironic twist on the term habeas corpus.

Supreme Court ruled yesterday that gays could not be struck from juries under attorneys' peremptory challenges. This followed previous rulings that prevented minorities and women from being struck.

I'm confused about how this would work. I saw plenty of voir dires when I was on jury duty, and I never saw a judge question a peremptory challenge, even when, say, a black or Hispanic was struck by the prosecutor in a trial of a black or Hispanic defendant. And I can't imagine an attorney asking a juror about his/her sexual orientation.

It was the 9th circuit court of appeals and the case was about HIV drug treatment. It establishes a heck of a precedent though and I can see it having an impact on gay marriage rulings.

The judge wouldn't question an allegedly improper peremptory challenge in open court. Objections to challenges are made at sidebar. Under Batson a minority defendant must have a venire that includes at least another minority. If the prosecution uses challenges to remove all of the minorities from the prospective jury, the defendant then makes a Batson challenge where the prosecutor must offer racially neutral reasons for striking the minority members.

I don't think that attorneys would ask sexual orientation questions in a general voir dire, but it is possible that jury questionnaires may include a block to check at the option of the prospective juror. For the most part a person's orientation won't come into play. even in cases where the offense involves collateral issues that touch on orientation, most of the voir dire questions would seek to determine whether a prospective juror may possess a belief or bias that would inhibit him from determining the facts of the case impartially.

By Elizabeth Chuck, Staff Writer, NBC News

He hasn't even been attorney general for two weeks, and he is already picking a battle that could have repercussions for marriage equality throughout the South.

But Democrat Mark R. Herring, who started in his new post as Virginia's attorney general on Jan. 11, is no stranger to challenges — especially ones that change the political DNA of his state.

His latest fight comes in the form of supporting gay rights — something he had previously voted against.

On Thursday, Herring announced he had reviewed the state's ban on same-sex unions, and concluded that the ban was unconstitutional. He said he would support gay couples who have filed lawsuits challenging the ban — and if he wins his fight, he will make Virginia the first state in the old Confederacy to allow gay marriage.

Don't know if you guys heard this story but I'm guessing Oli has.

A Texas woman, considered brain dead is being kept alive because she is 14 weeks pregnant and state law prohibits taking her off life support. Thing is, doctors say baby has multiple deformed lower extremities and water on the brain. The husband & family want to take her off life support and bury both mother & baby. I can only imagine what he is going thru. What an awful situation to be in.

TIS


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/01/...in-court-friday

Indeed I have. It is an illustration of the complexity of law. It's unfortunate that so many people simply will not recognize that complexity and desperately seek simplicity. Such conflicts always come in my class discussions.

KLY, I watched a TV program during which a criminal defense attorney stated that she was unable to obtain depositions from witnesses. I think the reason was that state law did not compel witnesses to provide such depositions. Does that ring a bell?

Yes. It depends usually on the purpose of the deposition. If the witness is an expert or a party whose presence is not possible for trial, she has a stronger argument to compel it.

In a criminal venue there is compulsory process guaranteeing the right to question witnesses, but that applies to trial. Most states don't require witnesses to submit to pretrial depositions absent a showing of unusual circumstances. However, any statements made by a witness concerning the relevant charge in question must be turned over to the other side.

Amanda Knox and former boyfriend found guilty of murder by Italian court

Italian judges announced their decision to the witness of slain 21-year-old Meredith Kercher's two siblings who were photographed in the Florence courtroom. The verdict sets a 28.6-year sentence

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/am...ticle-1.1597038

Good luck with the extradition, Italy. Talk about a waste of money. There's NO WAY The United States hands them over.

I know the case but haven't followed real closely. I know there was a movie on it a while back but I didn't see it. I have no idea if she is guilty or not.

However, did I understand this is the 3rd trial? She was found not guilty on the first two? What's up with that? Also, I read she wouldn't be re-arrested and I'm sure she's not going back to Italy, so what's the purpose?




TIS

Two Utah scout leaders who video recorded themselves gleefully toppling a boulder from a Jurassic-era rock formation in a state park were formally charged Friday, according to park department officials.

Highland residents Glenn Taylor, 45, and David Hall, 42, were accused of toppling a protected sandstone formation, also known as a hoodoo or goblin, at Goblin Valley State Park in October.

Taylor was charged with one count of felony criminal mischief and Hall with one count of felony aiding and assisting in criminal mischief, park officials said. Both men could face penalties up to five years in prison, $5,000 in fines and restitution for damages to resources of the State of Utah.

ST. LOUIS (AP) - With lethal-injection drugs in short supply and new questions looming about their effectiveness, lawmakers in some death penalty states are considering bringing back relics of a more gruesome past: firing squads, electrocutions and gas chambers.

Most states abandoned those execution methods more than a generation ago in a bid to make capital punishment more palatable to the public and to a judicial system worried about inflicting cruel and unusual punishments that violate the Constitution.

"This isn't an attempt to time-warp back into the 1850s or the wild, wild West or anything like that," said Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin, who this month proposed making firing squads an option for executions. "It's just that I foresee a problem, and I'm trying to come up with a solution that will be the most humane yet most economical for our state."

Brattin, a Republican, said questions about the injection drugs are sure to end up in court, delaying executions and forcing states to examine alternatives. It's not fair, he said, for relatives of murder victims to wait years, even decades, to see justice served while lawmakers and judges debate execution methods. Like Brattin, a Wyoming lawmaker this month offered a bill allowing the firing squad. Missouri's attorney general and a state lawmaker have raised the notion of rebuilding the state's gas chamber. And a Virginia lawmaker wants to make electrocution an option if lethal-injection drugs aren't available.

What is the legal justification behind this?
http://news.yahoo.com/maine-court-rules-favor-transgender-pupil-165405315.html

I mean there is a legitimate reason imo why bathrooms are separated by gender in the first place.

Ugly stuff. Glad that the cop was fired.

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/local_news/...artificial-hair

Tony Mack, the mayor of Trenton, N.J., the state's capital city, has been found guilty of extortion, bribery and fraud after a month long federal corruption trial.

On Friday evening, jurors came back with guilty verdicts on all six counts levied against the 48-year-old. The trial started in January. Jurors only deliberated for one full day before delivering the verdict.

Mack didn't say a word as he walked from the federal courthouse in the capital city. His attorney, Mark Davis, said jurors made the wrong decision and that they're looking at an appeal.

Kly and DT, under what circumstances is the prosecution permitted rebuttal once it has rested?

Pretty crappy story. But that's how it goes. The real question is why does anyone feel the need to use reality-warping substances?



Heroin's small town toll