CRIMINAL PRACTICE
What's the Consequence of a Prosecutor Neglecting to Submit prior Witness Statements to the Defense?
On January 10, 2012, the United States Supreme Court reversed Juan Smith's conviction for murder in the first degree because prosecutors failed to submit prior witness statements to the defense and to the court. Under the famous 1963 case, Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors are required to hand over any material and favorable evidence to the defense prior to trial. In this recent Supreme Court case, the single eye-witness, whose in court testimony represented the key and sole evidence linking Smith to the crime, had made prior statements indicating that he never actually saw Smith's face at the scene of the crime. These statements were not presented before the jury, as they were never disclosed to Smith or Smith's attorneys, a clear Brady violation.
In 1995, a New Orleans, Louisiana jury convicted Smith of the killings of five individuals during an armed robbery, and Smith was subsequently sentenced to death row. At the trial, the district attorney’s case against Smith primarily relied on the sole testimony of Mr. Boatner, who stated before the jury that he “had no doubt that Smith was the gunman he stood face to face with on the night of the crime.” However, while Boatner swore to this testimony in court, it was later revealed – after Smith's conviction – that he initially told the police that “he couldn't ID anyone because he couldn't see faces” and “would not know if he saw them.” The US Supreme Court held that Boatner’s statements were both favorable and material to the defense and should have been disclosed to the defense under the Brady rule.
By not disclosing these particular contradictory statements to the defense, the prosecution basically eliminated one certain way that the defense could have impeached Boatner. This type of impeachment could have likely raised reasonable doubts among the jurors as to whether the witness in fact correctly identified Smith as the perpetrator, resulting in a non-guilty verdict.
The Smith case and other cases where district attorneys’ offices have withheld evidence favorable to the defense compel questions on prosecutorial ethics. Did the prosecution purposefully neglect to submit this evidence or was it reckless neglect? For example, in March 2011, in the case of Connick v. Thompson, the US Supreme Court noted that a detective intentionally neglected to submit DNA evidence that later exonerated the defendant as the murderer of the crime. Still, if in the case of Smith, it was an issue of not discovering these contradictory witness statements, rather than purposefully withholding evidence, what is the excuse for not exercising meticulous caution and thoroughness, especially in a case where the defendant is facing the death sentence? Spending one day in jail when a person is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is an injustice, not to mention 17 years on death row.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Can a Private Individual sue a Debt Collector in Federal Court for Receiving too Many Unwanted Calls?
The US Supreme Court recently ruled that under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) Marcus Mimms could sue Arrow Financial Services, LLC in federal court for sending him unwanted pre-recorded messages to collect a debt. The TCPA, an FCC regulated law, limits telemarketers and other businesses from continuously making the typical telemarketing call that people often despise – recorded messages. Although States have a similar law, the FCC established this statute to enable States to sue companies in federal court on behalf of its residents. The statute also includes a provision to allow a private individual to sue companies in state courts. In this case, Arrow Financial Services argued that private individual Mimms could not bring his action in federal court because the TCPA gave exclusive jurisdiction to state courts. However, the Supreme Court held that the TCPA’s language did not explicitly exclude federal courts, and therefore, Mimms could sue the company in federal court.
This is a crucial case for every individual in the United States who receives unwanted telemarketing calls, not to mention debt-collector phone calls. Know that you too have a cause of action because FCC has rules protecting citizens from such an invasion of privacy.
FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
Whether Government Tracking of an Individual’s Movement via a GPS Device is a 4th Amendment Violation?
On January 23, 2012, the US Supreme Court held that placing a GPS tracking device in one’s vehicle constitutes an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. In U.S v. Jones, Mr. Jones had been convicted of drug trafficking and conspiracy offenses based partially on information the police acquired from the GPS device that was installed in Jones’ vehicle without Jones’ knowledge and with an expired warrant. That conviction ultimately resulted in a life sentence for Jones. The lower court had ruled that Jones had “no reasonable expectation of privacy” while the vehicle was on public streets, and hence, the seized data from the GPS was used against him. However, the the appeals court reversed Jones’ conviction, and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, because evidence was obtained through the warrantless use of a GPS device and impinged upon Jones’ reasonable expectation of privacy rights.
What's the Consequence of a Prosecutor Neglecting to Submit prior Witness Statements to the Defense?
On January 10, 2012, the United States Supreme Court reversed Juan Smith's conviction for murder in the first degree because prosecutors failed to submit prior witness statements to the defense and to the court. Under the famous 1963 case, Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors are required to hand over any material and favorable evidence to the defense prior to trial. In this recent Supreme Court case, the single eye-witness, whose in court testimony represented the key and sole evidence linking Smith to the crime, had made prior statements indicating that he never actually saw Smith's face at the scene of the crime. These statements were not presented before the jury, as they were never disclosed to Smith or Smith's attorneys, a clear Brady violation.
In 1995, a New Orleans, Louisiana jury convicted Smith of the killings of five individuals during an armed robbery, and Smith was subsequently sentenced to death row. At the trial, the district attorney’s case against Smith primarily relied on the sole testimony of Mr. Boatner, who stated before the jury that he “had no doubt that Smith was the gunman he stood face to face with on the night of the crime.” However, while Boatner swore to this testimony in court, it was later revealed – after Smith's conviction – that he initially told the police that “he couldn't ID anyone because he couldn't see faces” and “would not know if he saw them.” The US Supreme Court held that Boatner’s statements were both favorable and material to the defense and should have been disclosed to the defense under the Brady rule.
By not disclosing these particular contradictory statements to the defense, the prosecution basically eliminated one certain way that the defense could have impeached Boatner. This type of impeachment could have likely raised reasonable doubts among the jurors as to whether the witness in fact correctly identified Smith as the perpetrator, resulting in a non-guilty verdict.
The Smith case and other cases where district attorneys’ offices have withheld evidence favorable to the defense compel questions on prosecutorial ethics. Did the prosecution purposefully neglect to submit this evidence or was it reckless neglect? For example, in March 2011, in the case of Connick v. Thompson, the US Supreme Court noted that a detective intentionally neglected to submit DNA evidence that later exonerated the defendant as the murderer of the crime. Still, if in the case of Smith, it was an issue of not discovering these contradictory witness statements, rather than purposefully withholding evidence, what is the excuse for not exercising meticulous caution and thoroughness, especially in a case where the defendant is facing the death sentence? Spending one day in jail when a person is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is an injustice, not to mention 17 years on death row.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Can a Private Individual sue a Debt Collector in Federal Court for Receiving too Many Unwanted Calls?
The US Supreme Court recently ruled that under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) Marcus Mimms could sue Arrow Financial Services, LLC in federal court for sending him unwanted pre-recorded messages to collect a debt. The TCPA, an FCC regulated law, limits telemarketers and other businesses from continuously making the typical telemarketing call that people often despise – recorded messages. Although States have a similar law, the FCC established this statute to enable States to sue companies in federal court on behalf of its residents. The statute also includes a provision to allow a private individual to sue companies in state courts. In this case, Arrow Financial Services argued that private individual Mimms could not bring his action in federal court because the TCPA gave exclusive jurisdiction to state courts. However, the Supreme Court held that the TCPA’s language did not explicitly exclude federal courts, and therefore, Mimms could sue the company in federal court.
This is a crucial case for every individual in the United States who receives unwanted telemarketing calls, not to mention debt-collector phone calls. Know that you too have a cause of action because FCC has rules protecting citizens from such an invasion of privacy.
FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
Whether Government Tracking of an Individual’s Movement via a GPS Device is a 4th Amendment Violation?
On January 23, 2012, the US Supreme Court held that placing a GPS tracking device in one’s vehicle constitutes an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. In U.S v. Jones, Mr. Jones had been convicted of drug trafficking and conspiracy offenses based partially on information the police acquired from the GPS device that was installed in Jones’ vehicle without Jones’ knowledge and with an expired warrant. That conviction ultimately resulted in a life sentence for Jones. The lower court had ruled that Jones had “no reasonable expectation of privacy” while the vehicle was on public streets, and hence, the seized data from the GPS was used against him. However, the the appeals court reversed Jones’ conviction, and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, because evidence was obtained through the warrantless use of a GPS device and impinged upon Jones’ reasonable expectation of privacy rights.
RSS Feed
