#Robert Apodaca

[mostlysignssomeportents]

SoCal Gas spent millions on astroturf ops to fight climate rules

Today (19 Aug), I'm appearing at the San Diego Union-Tribune Festival of Books. I'm on a 2:30PM panel called "Return From Retirement," followed by a signing:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/festivalofbooks

It's a breathtaking fraud: SoCal Gas, the largest gas company in America, spent millions secretly paying people to oppose California environmental regulations, then illegally stuck its customers with the bill. We Californians were forced to pay to lobby against our own survival:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article277266828.html

The criminal scheme is spelled out in eye-watering detail in a superb investigative report by Joe Rubin and Ari Plachta for the Sacramento Bee, which names the law firms and individual lawyers involved in the scam.

Here's the situation: SoCal Gas is California's private, regulated gas monopoly. They are allowed to lobby, but are legally required to charge their lobbying activities to their shareholders, and are prohibited from raising customer rates to pay for lobbying.

The company spent years secretly violating this rule, in the sleaziest way possible: working with corporate cartels like the California Restaurant Association and BizFed, the monopoly paid BigLaw white-shoe firms to procure people who posed as concerned citizens in order to oppose climate regulations that are essential to the state's very survival.

The bill topped $36 million – and it was illegally charged to its customers, the Californians whose immediate health and long-term survival these efforts opposed. SoCal Gas refuses to disclose the full extent of the spending, as do its lawyer-procurers, who cite legal confidentiality and a First Amendment right to secretly seek to influence policy in their refusal to disclose their profits from this illegal conduct.

The law firms involved are a who's-who of California's most prominent corporate fixers, including Reichman Jorgensen and Holland & Knight. The partners involved have a long rap sheet for anti-climate dirty tricking, most notably Jennifer Hernandez, notorious in climate justice history for an incident where activists claim she posed as one of them, infiltrating a campaign to force corporate despoilers to clean up their pollution in order to sabotage it, while secretly on a wealthy, prominent landowner's payroll.

Hernandez claims to care about the environment and says that her longstanding, corporate-funded, extensive campaigns and lawsuits against state environmental regulations are motivated by concern over their impact on working people. Her firm, Holland & Knight, denies serving SoCal Gas in opposing gas regulations, but it received $594k in ratepayer dollars, and submitted comments opposing the rules on its own behalf. Those comments were nearly identical to the comments submitted by SoCal Gas.

Hernandez also represents an obscure organization called The Two Hundred for Home Ownership in "a flurry of lawsuits" over California Air Resources Board rules on pollution, seeking to overturn the state's landmark climate change regulations.

Two Hundred for Home Ownership was founded by Robert Apodaca, who told the Bee that Hernandez's work for him is pro bono and not funded by SoCal Gas, but his entry into the fray occurred just as SoCalGas was founding an astroturf group called Californians for Fair and Balanced Energy (C4BES), which pretended to be an independent organization, disguising its relationship with SoCal Gas.

Apodaca is also founder of United Latinos Vote, an organization that had been largely dormant for seven years, not receiving any donations, until 2018, when the California Building Industry Association gave it $99k. The CBIA is a large-dollar recipient of donations from SoCal Gas, and its CEO insists that it was not acting on SoCal Gas's behalf when it made its unpredented donation to Apodaca.

The CBIA donation to United Latinos Vote was forerunner to a flood of corporate donations from the likes of Chevron, Marathon and Phillips 66. Shortly after receiving this cash, United Latinos Vote ran a full page ad in the LA Times, accusing the Sierra Club of pushing for anti-gas appliance rules that would harm working class Latino families.

This ad, in turn, featured prominently in advocacy by the SoCal Gas front group C4BES, funded with $29.1m in ratepayer money, which it then spent seeking to link clean appliance rules with anti-Latino racism. A quarter of California's carbon emissions come from home gas use.

SoCal Gas is regulated by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), which tolerated this mounting illegal conduct for many years, even as the company circulated internal memos as early as 2015 discussing its plans to oppose electrification in the state on the basis that it constituted "a significant risk to our business."

But last year, CPUC fined SoCal Gas $10m. Now, CPUC's Public Advocate office has filed a damning, extensive report on SoCal Gas's unlawful conduct, seeking $80m in rate cuts to compensate Californians for the funds misappropriated to protect the company's shareholder interests:

https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M517/K407/517407314.PDF

Additionally, the Public Advocate is demanding $233m in fines for the company's refusal to allow investigators to audit its books and discover the full extent of the fraud.

SoCal Gas is the nation's largest utility, but (incredibly), it's not the dirtiest. That prize goes to Ohio's FirstEnergy, which handed $60m in ratepayer dollars to state politicians in illegal bribes in exchange for coal and nuclear subsidies and cancellation of state climate rules. That scandal led to GOP speaker of the Ohio House Larry Householder being sentenced to 20 years in prison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal

There is something extraordinarily sleazy about using ratepayers' own money to lobby against their interests. SoCal Gas and its Big Law enablers have funneled millions in Californian's money into campaigns to poison us and boil us alive, and they did it while using workers and racialized people as human shields.

I'm kickstarting the audiobook for "The Internet Con: How To Seize the Means of Computation," a Big Tech disassembly manual to disenshittify the web and make a new, good internet to succeed the old, good internet. It's a DRM-free book, which means Audible won't carry it, so this crowdfunder is essential. Back now to get the audio, Verso hardcover and ebook:

http://seizethemeansofcomputation.org

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/19/cooking-the-books-with-gas/#reichman-jorgensen

Image: Maryland GovPics (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/mdgovpics/6635539089/

Jackie (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/79874304@N00/197532792

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

[beardedmrbean]

Dec. 8—The plea agreement hearing was progressing on schedule Wednesday, with the state prosecutor explaining to the judge how long Robert Apodaca would spend in prison for molesting schoolchildren in Santa Fe.

But the the tone — and the outcome — of the proceedings changed in an instant when attorney Paul Linnenburger rose from the second row of the small courtroom.

He addressed District Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer, telling her his client's family had a right to speak against the plea agreement presented by the state and Apodaca's defense attorney. The agreement would have allowed the Santa Fe man to plead no contest to three counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor, exposing him to between 18 and 30 years in prison.

He faces 13 charges of sexually assaulting boys in four separate cases. The plea deal would have consolidated the cases and led to the dismissal of 10 counts, including a rape charge.

"It is an unusual situation, and it is unusual to happen. But it's not unprecedented, and I think the circumstances absolutely warranted it," Linnenburger, an attorney for one of Apodaca's accusers, said of addressing the judge from the courtroom gallery.

After Marlowe Sommer ordered Linnenburger to sit down, she ultimately rejected the plea agreement after allowing two members of the victims' families to speak.

"The second presenter certainly provided some compelling information to the court, and I do not think it is in the best interest of justice to take a no-contest plea today," Marlowe Sommer said.

Apodaca, 31, is accused of molesting four children and teenagers while working as a school health aide at Santo Niño Regional Catholic School and Gonzales Community School from 2018 to 2021.

A mother of one of the victims, and Linnenburger's client, read a detailed statement relaying how Apodaca manipulated her son and abused her family's trust when they were vulnerable.

"This was a person we thought was a friend, and trusted him to keep my son safe and help him through personal issues," the mother said. "I believe my son deserves more justice than [this agreement]. The other kids deserve more justice than that, and this person needs to take responsibility or allow a jury to make him take responsibility."

She detailed how her son first interacted with Apodaca at a school nurse's office, while battling anxiety. Apodaca would later give her son jobs at summer programs as a medical assistant.

The mother added she later learned Apodaca bought her son a BB gun, expensive video games and access to an iTunes subscription.

"He was grooming my kid before he criminally, sexually penetrated him, according to the charges and my son's account," she said while fighting back tears.

The woman said her son had to be admitted to a children's psychiatric hospital and has had worsened mental health issues because of the trauma he endured.

While her son was not in the room, his mother read a statement he prepared.

"I saw [Apodaca] as an older brother. I trusted him. ... I was looking for someone to trust," the boy wrote in the statement relayed by his mother. "Now I know I was being groomed and ultimately raped. ... He thought of me as easily [manipulated] and gullible. He bullied me. He robbed me of my innocence."

Another parent spoke on behalf of his son, and told the judge state prosecutors' rationale the agreement would save the victims from enduring more trauma was a "scapegoat."

"The plea deal ... has been sold to the victims and their families as an expeditious way to complete this trial and to get on with it," the father said. "The trauma has already been done, and I think that ... these procedures minimize the actual trauma that the victims actually endured."

State prosecutor Haley Murphy said the agreement was in the best interest of justice by guaranteeing sex offender convictions on all four cases.

"It's the state's position that accountability comes in a number of different ways, and a conviction is a conviction," Murphy said during the proceeding. "Up to three decades in prison, resulting in the defendant not being released until he's in his mid-50s, is justice in the eyes of the state of New Mexico."

She added while families objected to the no-contest provisions in the agreement — allowing Apodaca to finish judicial proceedings without admitting guilt — it has the same effects as a guilty plea under the law.

Linnenburger said the no-contest provisions were a major sticking point with his client and the other families.

"In 20 years I have never seen a case of this level of egregiousness with a proposed resolution that would essentially provide 'freebies' to the defense on multiple cases, and would not require an admission of guilt," Linnenburger said.

Julita Ann Leavell, who represents Apodaca in all four cases, said the no-contest provisions were included in the agreement to find a middle ground that would bring her client "to the table."

"It was really just an effort to find resolution, but still have Mr. Apodaca serve the time ... that was certainly warranted by the charges," Leavell said in an interview after the proceeding. "I am going to continue to work with the DA and with my client to try and find a way to avoid trial because I really don't think that the families especially, and the kids, have thought through just how damaging and difficult a trial can be."

In an email, JoHanna Cox, a spokeswoman for the First Judicial District Attorney's Office, wrote prosecutors "are reviewing the options and factors in all cases and will move forward considering all aspects of the case."

Marlowe Sommer dismissed the courtroom after her decision. Later in the day, a virtual hearing was set for Dec. 29.

Linnenburger said he foresees his client's case going to trial.

"We anticipate that there will be preparations for trial, and that the cases will be given attention and that they will be treated with the seriousness that is warranted," Linnenburger said. "I have no reason to doubt, at the moment, that that will ... occur."

[rubalcavah]

Justin Bieber Purpose Tour Visual Breakdown from POSSIBLE on Vimeo.

POSSIBLE teamed with Creative Director Nick DeMoura and Show Producer Chris Gratton to produce performance looks and cinematics for Justin Bieber’s Purpose Tour. Possible designed, shot, animated, and edited together 22 custom full-song scenics and 3 intro + interstitial cinematics for the tour.

Nick DeMoura - Creative Director/Choreographer // Chris Gratton, Tour Director/Production Manager // Nick Demoura & Chris Gratton, Production Designers // Tour Visuals by POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE, Purpose Tour Visuals Team Director - Michael Figge Producers - Roy Chung, Ryan Chung, Kerry Brown, Katie Plummer Associate Producer - Alexandra Dolce Art Director - Ronald Monahan Sr. Artist - Chris Anderson, Artist, Editor - Ismael Zendejas Design & Animation - Mike Winkelmann, Trevor Kerr, Scott Peters Editor - Ryan Costa Composer - Danny Choi Sound Design - Robert Brinkerhoff

Purpose Tour Cinematics Team Directors - Michael Figge, Scott Peters 1st AD - Li Lu Producers - Kerry Brown, Roy Chung, Ryan Chung, Katie Plummer Dancers - Aubree Storm, Jonathan Erasme, Jonathan, Rabon, Yusuke Nakai, Jordan Ward, Mykell Wilson, Carlos Salvador, Elysandra Quinones, Mona Berntsen, Devan Smith, Jasmine Perri, Christina Chandler, David Shreibman, Luis Rosado, Kyle Cordova, Rudy Reynon, Jacob Landgrebe, Delaney Glazer On-Site VFX - Chris Anderson, Ronald Monahan, Ismael Zendejas Cinematographer - Andrew Mueller 1st AC - Ezra Riley Gaffer - Travis Stewart Best Boy Electric - Carlos Apodaca Key Grip - David Newbert Best Boy Grip - Ron Tondreau Head of Wardrobe - Kiyomi Hara Wardrobe Assistant - Jennifer Jones Stunt Coordinator - Nick Brett Stunt Riggers - Rico Burgos, Craig Jensen LED Wall Tech - Steve Otten Studio PA - Alexandra Dolce Key Set PA - Sean O'Connor Set PAs - Cory K Riley, Saw-Ann Bryan, Cori Elwood, Shawn Murphy, Andre Andrews Groomer - Florido Basallo

Purpose Tour Touring Team Lighting Designer - Cory Fitzgerald, Nick Van Nostrand Lighting Programmer - Davey Martinez Stage Manager - Timmy Doyle Production Coordinator - Jessica Sheehan, Eric Johnson Pro-Tools - Dylan Ely Video Crew Chief - Sean "Sharky" Harper Video LED/Operators - Christopher Campbell, Austin Wavra, Colton Carroll, Kyle Brinkman, Gerald Rodgers, Dylan Taylor Road Manager - Scott Lawson Tour Manager - David Klein Live Video Director - Miek Drew Video Engineer - David Vega Video Programmer - Drew Atienza, Sean Harper Pyro Crew Chief - Ron Bleggi Musical Director - Bernard Harvey

[loscerritoscommunitynews]

Metropolitan Water District Employee Accuses Central Basin Director Bob Apodaca of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

@mwdh2o Employee Accuses Central Basin Director Bob Apodaca of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation #metoo #corruptcristina @workingcaliforniansagainstcorruption @asmgarcia

Central Basin Director Robert “Bob” Apodaca has been accused of sexual harassment; in 2013, he settled another harassment case for $670,000.    BY BRIAN HEWS • editor@cerritosnews.net Hews Media Group-Los Cerritos Community News has obtained a letter addressed to Abel Salinas, the Chief Ethics Officer for the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California, from a MWD employee…

[livinginlandmarketing]

When the driver of a stolen pickup ran from the wrong-way collision on the 215 Freeway in Menifee on Dec. 31, he left behind a Lake Elsinore resident whose “whole body broke,” the victim’s partner said.

Elizabeth Roberts, 55, who delivers for LabCorp, remains hospitalized at Inland Valley Medical Center in Wildomar.

As of Saturday, Jan. 9, she had endured five surgeries during which 10 injuries — some “life-altering” — were addressed, said Nicole Apodaca, 44, Roberts’ partner of 17 years. Her ankles, fingers and back were broken. Some fingers, nearly severed, had to be stitched back together. Roberts’ ribs broke and punctured her lungs. Pins are holding parts of Roberts together.

She is receiving “amazing” treatment, Apodaca said.

The driver, meanwhile, remains at large, Hemet police Lt. Michael Arellano said Tuesday, Jan. 12. The driver’s passenger was not helpful in identifying the driver, Arellano said, but he has not been arrested.

Officials investigate the scene of a wrong-way crash on the 215 Freeway in Menifee that the California Highway Patrol said was caused by a driver being pursued by Hemet police early Dec. 31, 2020. (LoudLabs News)

The collision happened at about 2:40 a.m. Hemet police were chasing the pickup, which had been reported stolen in Ridgecrest. Police stopped pursuing the driver when he drove down an embankment from a side road and entered the northbound 215 headed south near Scott Road. The driver shut off the Dodge Ram’s lights and abandoned the pickup even as it was still moving, police said. Less than 100 feet later, the pickup slammed into the LabCorp van.

Roberts and Apodaca had planned to celebrate their anniversary later that day.

“She doesn’t understand how somebody could do that. Neither of us do,” Apodaca said. “Our 7-year-old daughter keeps asking why — why somebody would do this.”

Roberts has worked for LabCorp for about eight years, Apodaca said. She was returning from San Diego County after dropping off specimens.

“She’s always concerned about the specimens, that everything is done correctly so people’s tests arrive safely,” Apodaca said. “She was thankful that she didn’t have any on her.”

Somehow, Roberts has been focusing on others during her recovery.

“She’s been upset and she tries to keep a really good, positive outlook even through all the surgeries and all the pain she’s in,” Apodaca said. “Liz, even in this state, she is worried about everyone else. She wants to make sure everyone else in her family is OK and knowing she’ll get through this.”

-on January 12, 2021 at 10:50AM by Brian Rokos

[successdigestonline]

Latino Leaders Are Fighting California’s ‘Unbelievably Regressive’ Climate Policies

Latino Leaders Are Fighting California’s ‘Unbelievably Regressive’ Climate Policies

Robert Apodaca, the executive director of United Latinos Vote, is among California’s Latino leaders … [+] who are objecting to the state’s regressive climate policies.

https://www.thetwohundred.org/staff/robert-j-apodaca-2/

California has some of America’s most aggressive climate change policies. But those policies are facing fierce opposition – not from big business or the oil and gas…

[racheljoyscott]

- Columbine Conspiracy #2: Multiple Shooter Theory Pt. 3

If you have not yet done so, I encourage you to read the prior posts of this series before continuing with the following. Thank you.

Robert Perry, an expelled CHS student and TCM member, was positively identified by dozens of students and faculty. Student Bijen Monte irrefutably declared Perry as one of the shooters because of the severe acne, crooked teeth, pigeon-toe mannerism, and unique trench coat that he had. Perry’s trench coat was made of a cloth material, it was not a leather duster because he could not afford one; technically, Perry was the only member of the TCM who actually had a trench coat. Students Brian Frye (JCSO, 813), Lacey Smith (JCSO, 4,465), Crystal Archuleta (JCSO, 2,346), Tessa Nelson, and Matthew Connelly all echoed these rigidly specific details. Most of these students even picked Perry out of a photo lineup, which included Dylan Klebold. Perry slightly resembled Klebold, and many of these students stated that law enforcement pressured them into claiming that the person they saw was actually Klebold (not Perry), but they refused. Brooks Brown attempted to help the official narrative by telling law enforcement during his interview that Klebold had acne scars, despite no one else ever mentioning this detail, not even Klebold’s parents. Many students interviewed throughout the investigation claimed that Brown is a compulsive liar. Perry was seen driving an older individual on the campus of CHS by the aforementioned students before the start of classes. Likewise, many students saw Perry after the attack concluded. Breanne Cook, who victim Rachel Scott often wrote to and spoke with, identified Perry as a shooter to friends and law enforcement. Cook, who was evacuated to a local library after the attack, reportedly began hyperventilating because she saw Perry there, who had changed into tie-dye shirt; many people at the library also noted that Perry was at the evacuation site because of this obvious detail. Perry began working graveyard shifts at his job the same month as the attack; however, he did not show up for work on April 19 or April 20.

Chris Morris, a then CHS senior and TCM member, was also positively identified by an overwhelming number of students and faculty. Ashley Egeland identified Morris by name in her interview with Jeff Co. officials. Students Jake Apodaca (JCSO 665), Chris Wisher (JCSO 1260), Donald Arnold (JCSO 666), Patrick Neville (JCSO 1044), and Mike Kenny (JCSO 940), among many others, all described seeing Morris throwing explosives outside of the school. Just as Robert Perry’s claim to have been sleeping during the attack has been proven impossible, Morris’s claim to have been playing Nintendo with Corey Friesen, fellow TCM co-founder, has also been proven impossible because of this eye-witness testimony and unintentionally non-redacted pages in the final report. Fellow conspirator and TCM member, Joseph Stair, mentioned that Morris has anger management issues that caused him to act violently before the attack. Morris had previously been suspended for pulling a knife on students. In Morris’s own interview with law enforcement, there are two major discrepancies with the official narrative. Morris, along with Eric Harris’s ex-girlfriend, Sasha Jacobs, claimed that the Harris family had prior knowledge of the attack and of the construction of explosives that took place under their roof. The Harris’s never testified because they were refused immunity. Morris also claimed that Phil Duran, who worked at Black Jack Pizza with the shooters, had prior knowledge of the attack and willingly bought the guns for Harris and Klebold. If Morris claims to have known that these individuals were told of the attack, how can he claim that he, himself, had no prior knowledge on the attack and did not participate in any way, shape, or form? Morris was arrested the day of; law enforcement refused to acknowledge this (more on this arrest later).

Joseph Stair, also a CHS student and TCM member during the attack, was identified by a diverse number of eye and ear witnesses. Joseph, or simply, Joe, revealed a great deal about the TCM during his interview with investigators. Like Chris Morris admitted of himself, Joe Stair practiced satanism. Stair would reportedly carry around what he called “the devil’s bible.” Also, Stair and fellow TCM male members would kiss each other in public to disgust the students around them and promote satanism. As noted by investigator GB Mumma, Stair threatened to blow up Columbine on several occasions; CHS peer counselor Lindsey Ul corroborated this and informed law enforcement that police reports and internal Columbine reports were made on Stair and several other members of the TCM. Prior knowledge of the attack was abundant. I will get into more particular details on the TCM, including documented proof of Dylan Klebold’s involvement with the group in a later post. Students Salazar (JCSO 3761) Courtney Harible, Alicia Incinious, and Stephanie Duffy (JCSO 2919), among many others, all reported seeing Joseph Stair. The lack of redactions in these students’ accounts shows that they heard fellow shooters even call out to him “Joe, and not the word ‘yo.‘” Stair allegedly committed suicide in 2007, when many of those around him claim that he was preparing to become a whistleblower.

There were more personnel involved in the attack; however, these were the only three mentioned by name in the final report because they were the only three students, other than Harris and Klebold, who had attended CHS. I will describe the other people involved in later posts, which include TCM members from nearby schools and law enforcement. I also will provide documented evidence of prior knowledge, as well as new details of the TCM.

Intro to the Series

Columbine Conspiracy Post #1

Columbine Conspiracy Post #2 Part 1

Columbine Conspiracy Post #2 Part 2

**Again this is not my work. Not claiming these are true either, just theories**

[weareboxing]

On This Day: Floyd Mayweather Jnr cruised to 1-0 after beating Robert Apodaca on his debut #boxing #BoxingNews #FloydMayweather (at Texas Station Hotel & Casino)

[rafaelthompson]

What to Expect from the Two Upcoming Sensory Summits

The Coffee Roasters Guild is expanding its sensory events, with the first two 2020 incarnations taking place in Davis, Calif., this month and Zurich, Switzerland, in February.

BY CHRIS RYAN BARISTA MAGAZINE ONLINE

Photos courtesy of Specialty Coffee Association and Coffee Roasters Guild

Each winter, the Coffee Roasters Guild brings together coffee professionals in Davis, Calif., for Sensory Summit, a unique conference designed to educate and inspire attendees about the breadth of sensory experiences in coffee and beyond.

This year, the Sensory Summit is broadening its scope, with the first two events of 2020 taking place days apart in different parts of the world. The first event will happen January 30-February 1 in the venue that has hosted four previous Sensory Summits: the Sensory Theater inside the Robert Mondavi Institute at the University of California, Davis. Days later, European coffee professionals will get their own Sensory Summit when the event comes to Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW) on February 10-11.

Discovering new sensory experiences through tasting coffee and other items is an important element of Sensory Summit.

Jen Apodaca, vice chair of the Coffee Roasters Guild, says that while UC Davis is an incredible host for the Sensory Summit, its location in the Western U.S. limits the amount of people the global event can reach. “With the unification of not just the SCA, but of the Guilds as well, the Leadership Council of the Roasters Guild takes being a global entity seriously,” Jen says. “We have a lot of interest to have these conversations all over the world.”

Jen says the first offshoot of Sensory Summit was the Sensory Forum—which has been held in both Korea and Taiwan in the last two years—and the expansion is continuing in 2020. “Bringing Sensory Summit to Europe, where we have a huge support network, was an easy decision to make,” she says. “Now we are looking at bringing more events to other parts of the world where we have little presence, like Africa, Central America, and Australia.”

The first two Sensory Summit events of 2020 will each cover similar ground, with general themes including working sensory science techniques into coffee tasting; using lessons from food science, beer, and wine in the sensory experience of specialty coffee; and exploring current studies and reports about coffee extraction and more.

Attendees take in the curriculum of the 2019 Sensory Summit in Davis, Calif.

However, many of the sessions and speakers will vary between the two Summits. At the first event, in Davis, highlights will include a session looking at the effect of quakers on the taste and aroma of specialty coffees, presented by Mariane Rabelo of the Federal University of Lavras; an exploration of titratable acidity in coffee from UC Davis’ Mackenzie Batali, William Ristenpart, and Sara Yeager; and a deep dive into varietal honey—including an introduction to the UC Davis Honey Flavor and Aroma Wheel—led by Amina Harris, director of the UC Davis Honey and Pollination Center.

Peter Giuliano (left) of the SCA and Hanna Neuschwander of World Coffee Research lead a session during the 2019 Sensory Summit.

The host venue of UC Davis is home to the Coffee Center, a 6,000-square-foot roastery and lab. The Center, which has been supported by coffee companies including Peet’s, La Marzocco, and Wilbur Curtis, is still in development and, when completed, aims to provide a place for world-leading scientific research on coffee.

At the Zurich event, sessions will include a close look at measuring coffee freshness from ZHAW Professor Chahan Yeretzian and Scientific Associate Samo Smrke; breaking down the science behind the SCA Flavor Wheel with Ida Steen of Copenhagen University; and an interactive workshop on the multi-sensory perception of flavor led by Qian Janice Wang, an assistant professor in the Department of Food Science at Aarhus University.

Attendees enjoy coffee and conversation during a break during the 2019 Sensory Summit.

Head here for more information on the Davis Sensory Summit January 30-February 1, and details on the Zurich Sensory Summit on February 10-11 can be found here.

The post What to Expect from the Two Upcoming Sensory Summits appeared first on Barista Magazine Online.

What to Expect from the Two Upcoming Sensory Summits published first on https://espressoexpertsite.tumblr.com/

[robyking]

El beisbol venezolano se ha visto afectados en su relación con MLB por sus vínculos con el gobierno. La LVBP fue retirada del acuerdo invernal hasta no esclarecer su condición de empresa privada ante la OFAC. Esto ha traído como como consecuencia principal que los equipos de MLB no cedan sus jugadores a la LVBP por lo cual, de momento, no podrán contar ninguno de ellos. Es por eso que he venido haciendo una recopilación de los jugadores que no pertenecen a MLB. Jugadores de Tiburones de La Guaira que no pertenecen a MLB Lanzadores derechos (30): Gregory Infante William Cuevas Edison Barrios Jeanmar Gómez Francisco Rodríguez (lesionado) Rafael Cova Alvin Herrera Edgmer Escalona Víctor Diaz Carlos Missel Adonys Cardona Héctor Mayora Endrys Briceño Jhoan Quijada Francisco Butto Javier Palacios Edgar Escalona Luis Matute Kilber Santana Luis Rivero Freddy Tineo Andrés Torres Argenis Blanco Jonathan Martínez Daniel González Ritzi Mendoza Miguel Román César González Servando Hernández Joseph Rodriguez Lanzadores zurdos (10): Eudis Idrogo Antonio Noguera Miguel Burgos Edgar Alfonzo Kristhiam Linares Jonathan Torres Kevin Canelón Néstor Oronel José Manita Luis Cordero Catchers (5): Juan Apodaca Héctor Sánchez Luis Villegas José Gil Moisés Pérez Infielders (11): Alcides Escobar Heiker Meneses Alberto González Edgar Durán Rony Cabrera José Brizuela Miguel Méndez Jesús Graterol Edgar Pineda Robert Antunez Angel Medina Outfielders (10) : Teodoro Martínez Danry Vasquez Omar Carrizales Junior Sosa Greifer Andrade Luis Bandes José Duarte Edgar Herrera Omar Martínez Jr. Freddy Rodriguez #Tiburones #LVBP #LaGuaira #Vargas #Beisbol #beisbolvenezuela https://www.instagram.com/p/B4Ism3Pghur/?igshid=983epfiygzsk

[jazzfunkdid]

Tribe ‎– Solid

ABC Records ‎– 2C 064-96294 – Released in 1975. Tribe ‎– Tribal Bumpin'. Bass, Backing Vocals – Robert Apodaca. Drums, Backing Vocals – Benton Miles Little. Guitar, Backing Vocals – Edward H. Romias. Keyboards, Lead Vocals – Earl J. Foster, Jr. Violin Electric, Backing Vocals – Gelon Lau.

[annagothika]

Perfo para Robert Gracias por la confianza 🖤 No le voy a decir a nadie que si lloraste Digo ups xD (at Ritual Apodaca) https://www.instagram.com/p/Bxa1HEwB5rf/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=185k8c3qvurt1

[allbestnet]

HOT LIST: The 159 Best Romance Books Ever

Written in My Own Heart's Blood by Gabaldon, Diana

Three Weeks with Lady X by James, Eloisa

Heroes Are My Weakness by Phillips, Susan Elizabeth

Bollywood Affair, A by Dev, Sonali

It Happened One Wedding by James, Julie

My Beautiful Enemy by Thomas, Sherry

Romancing the Duke by Dare, Tessa

Shield of Winter by Singh, Nalini

Fool Me Twice by Duran, Meredith

Suffragette Scandal, The by Milan, Courtney

Bitter Spirits by Bennett, Jenn

Burn for Me by Andrews, Ilona

Darling Beast by Hoyt, Elizabeth

Do or Die by Brockmann, Suzanne

Evernight by Callihan, Kristen

Into the Shadows by Crane, Carolyn

Never Judge a Lady by Her Cover by MacLean, Sarah

Only Enchanting by Balogh, Mary

Play by Scott, Kylie

Rogue Spy by Bourne, Joanna

Saint, The by Reisz, Tiffany

Somebody like You by Vogt, Beth K. 

Submission Gift, The by Ames, Solace

Suddenly Last Summer by Morgan, Sarah

Sweet Filthy Boy by Lauren, Christina

Vixen in Velvet by Chase, Loretta

All Broke Down by Carmack, Cora

Archer's Voice by Sheridan, Mia

Arrow, The by McCarty, Monica

Avenge Me by Yates, Maisey

Baby It's You by Graves, Jane

Backup Boyfriend, The by Jaymes, River

Beautiful Oblivion by McGuire, Jamie

Be Careful what You Kiss For by Daniels, Jane Lynn

Beekeeper's Ball, The by Wiggs, Susan

Before Jamaica Lane by Young, Samantha

Before We Kiss by Mallery, Susan

Bells of Times Square, The by Lane, Amy

Best Medicine, The by Brogan, Tracy

Between the Sheets by O'Keefe, Molly

Bitter Spirits by Bennett, Jenn

Black Lies by Torre, Alessandra

Blossom Street Brides by Macomber, Debbie

Bonds of Denial by Aicher, Lynda

Burn for Me by Eden, Cynthia

Call Me Saffron by Surova, Talia

Carolina Blues by Kantra, Virginia

Carolina Man by Kantra, Virginia

Chocolate Temptation, The by Florand, Laura

Christmas Gone Perfectly Wrong, A by Grant, Cecilia

Concealed in Death by Robb, J. D.

Cover Your Eyes by Burton, Mary

Cowboy's Reluctant Bride, The by Cowan, Debra

Crashed by Bromberg, K.

Craving Temptation by Mello, Deborah Fletcher

Darkest Touch, The by Showalter, Gena

Dead Romantic by Saberton, Ruth

Deceived by Hannon, Irene

Decker's Wood by Dallas, Kirsty

Devil's Game by Wylde, Joanna

Douglas by Burrowes, Grace

Escape, The by Balogh, Mary

Fever Pitch by Cullinan, Heidi

Fighting Redemption by McCarthy, Kate

Forged by Desire by McMaster, Bec

Forged in Ash by McCallan, Trish

Frozen by Brook, Meljean

Full Measures by Yarros, Rebecca

Gabriel's Redemption by Reynard, Sylvain

Gentleman Rogue, The by McPhee, Margaret

Girl in 6E, The by Torre, Alessandra

Glass Kitchen, The by Lee, Linda Francis

Grave Danger by Lee, Katy

Hard Time by McKenna, Cara

Having Her by Ashenden, Jackie

Her Cowboy Hero by Michaels, Tanya

Her Kind of Trouble by Mayberry, Sarah

Her Temporary Hero by Apodaca, Jennifer

Holding Out by Rose, Lila

Honeymoon Trap, The by Hunter, Kelly

Honor Reclaimed by Burrows, Tonya

Hope at Dawn by Henrie, Stacy

Hour of Need by Leigh, Melinda

Huckleberry Summer by Beckstrand, Jennifer

In Bed with a Rogue by Grace, Samantha

In Your Corner by Castille, Sarah

In Your Dreams by Higgins, Kristan

Indecent Proposal by O'Keefe, Molly

Intrusion by Stein, Charlotte

It's in His Kiss by Shalvis, Jill

Jade Temptress, The by Lin, Jeannie

King, The by Ward, J. R. 

Kiss and Tell by Michaels, Fern

Kiss Me like This by Andre, Bella

Kraken King, The by Brook, Meljean

Lead by Scott, Kylie

Lock and Load by Troutte, Kimberly

Lone Warrior, The by Austin, Lori

Love Letters by Macomber, Debbie

Love with a Perfect Cowboy by Wilde, Lori

Man's Promise, A by Jackson, Brenda

Maybe Someday by Hoover, Colleen

Maybe This Christmas by Morgan, Sarah

Midnight Action by Kennedy, Elle

Mr. (Not Quite) Perfect by Hart, Jessica

Never Been Kissed by O'Keefe, Molly

No More Mr. Nice Guy by Andrews, Amy

Not Quite a Wife by Putney, Mary Jo

Once a Family by Quinn, Tara Taylor

Once in a Lifetime by Shalvis, Jill

One in a Million by Shalvis, Jill

Passion and Ponies by Sivec, Tara

Personal Geography by Parker, Tamsen

Place Called Harmony, A by Thomas, Jodi

Place I Belong, The by Herkness, Nancy

Purely Professional by Winters, Elia

Raider, The by McCarty, Monica

Raine Falling by Marinaro, Paula

Raw by Aurora, Belle

Reaper's Stand by Wylde, Joanna

River Road by Krentz, Jayne Ann

Rock Addiction by Singh, Nalini

Rush by Dawson, Nyrae

Santa's Playbook by Templeton, Karen

Save the Date by Andrews, Mary Kay

Secret Life of Violet Grant, The by Williams, Beatriz

Shadow Spell by Roberts, Nora

Shame on You by Sivec, Tara

Single by Saturday by Bybee, Catherine

Slow Tango with a Prince by Burnham, Nicole

Smuggler Wore Silk, The by Alexander, Alyssa

Starting with June by Rose, Emilie

Stay with Me by Lynn, J.

Stepbrother Dearest by Ward, Penelope

Stranger I Married, The by Day, Sylvia

Sweet Addiction by Daniels, Jessica

Sweet Disorder by Lerner, Rose

Sweet Spot, The by Evanovich, Stephanie

Sweetest September, The by Talley, Liz

Thankful by Gray, Shelley Shepard

Think of England by Charles, K. J.

Tied by Chase, Emma

To Scotland with Love by Griffin, Patience

Transcendence by Savage, Shay

Twice Tempted by Dreyer, Eileen

Ugly Love by Hoover, Colleen

Ultimate Sins by Leigh, Lora

Untouched by Yates, Maisey

Vixen and the Vet, The by Regnery, Katy

Wanted by Kenner, J.

What a Lady Needs for Christmas by Burrowes, Grace

What I Love about You by Gibson, Rachel

Where the Horses Run by Warner, Kaki

Will, The by Ashley, Madeleine

Winter King, The by Wilson, C. L.

Worth: Lord of Reckoning by Burrowes, Grace

Worth the Fall by Quinn, Caitie

Wrapped around Your Finger by Tyler, Alison

You're Not Safe by Burton, Mary

[marymosley]

Ramos v. Louisiana and the Jim Crow Origins of Nonunanimous Juries

Ramos v. Louisiana, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last Monday and summarized here, holds that the Sixth Amendment impartial jury guarantee gives defendants a right to a unanimous jury verdict in state trials. The case is making waves for reasons tangential to the dispute between the parties: in a dizzyingly split opinion, the justices argue more over the meaning of stare decisis (the court’s obligation to follow its prior holdings) than whether defendants in state courts may be convicted by a less-than-unanimous jury. This aspect of the opinion has been widely discussed (see analysis here, here, here, and here), and foreshadows the justices’ likely battle over an upcoming reproductive rights case. Since the divergent perspectives on stare decisis have been covered elsewhere, I will consider another issue that split the justices: the legal relevance of the nonunanimous jury law’s Jim Crow origins.

First, a pop quiz

Did North Carolina ever allow non unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials? Read on for the answer.

The facts and procedural history of the case

Evangelisto Ramos was charged with a second-degree murder in New Orleans in 2014. He maintained his innocence and invoked his right to a jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial, ten jurors found Mr. Ramos guilty and two jurors found him not guilty. In the 48 states (including North Carolina) and federal court where all jurors must agree on a guilty verdict to convict a defendant, this would have resulted in a hung jury and a mistrial. Instead, because he was tried in Louisiana (before voters repealed the nonunanimous jury provision in 2019), Mr. Ramos was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Appellate courts in Louisiana affirmed the conviction, relying on Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), which had declined to extend the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed Mr. Ramos’s conviction.

Mr. Ramos’s Sixth Amendment challenge

Mr. Ramos asserted that the nonunanimous jury verdict violated his Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury. His argument rested on the historical and continued meaning of the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury, which provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury[.]” He argued that the impartial jury guarantee, at the time the Sixth Amendment was adopted in 1789, included the right to a unanimous jury verdict. Neither party disputed that the right to a unanimous jury verdict was central to the jury trial right at common law, dating back to 1367. See Douglas G. Smith, The Historical and Constitutional Contexts of Jury Reform, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 377, 397 (1996). The U.S. Supreme Court has referenced that history on several occasions, at one point describing the common law right to a unanimous jury as so widely known that “[n]o authorities are needed to sustain this proposition.” Am. Publ’g Co. v. Fisher, 166 U.S. 464, 468 (1897). And the Supreme Court had already agreed that the purpose and effect of the impartial jury guarantee of the Sixth Amendment was to codify the common law meaning of the jury right, including the right to a unanimous verdict. See, e.g., Patton v. United States, 281 U. S. 276, 288 (1930). The only question before the Ramos court was the applicability of that aspect of the right to the states—whether the right was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment to bind states as well as the federal government. The biggest hurdle for Mr. Ramos to overcome was that the earlier decision, Apodaca, already answered this question in the negative.

Nonunanimous jury verdicts sound race-neutral: what’s race got to do with it?

Justice Gorsuch begins his opinion, in a portion joined by a narrow majority of the justices (Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh), with a history lesson not on the Sixth Amendment but on nonunanimous juries in Louisiana. It is an ugly history, revealing a white supremacist backlash to the growing rights and political power of black people at the end of the nineteenth century. The move away from unanimous juries in Louisiana emerged in response to constitutional, statutory, and judicial efforts to secure the rights of black people to serve on juries through the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880) (holding that racial discrimination in jury selection compromises the right of trial by jury and violates the Equal Protection Clause). Justice Gorsuch explains that the nonunanimous jury provision originated in Louisiana’s 1898 constitutional convention, the purpose of which, according to one committee chairman, was to “establish the supremacy of the white race.” Ramos v. Louisiana, Slip. Op. at 2. Alongside other Jim Crow provisions intended to disenfranchise black people, including a poll tax and combined literacy and property ownership test, the nonunanimous jury provision targeted black people without explicitly naming this intent in its text. “With a careful eye on racial demographics, the convention delegates sculpted a facially race-neutral rule permitting 10-to-2 verdicts in order to ensure that African-American juror service would be meaningless.” Slip Op. at 2 (internal quotations omitted).

Justice Kavanaugh explains why nonunanimous jury provisions limit the influence of black jurors on the outcome of criminal trials:

Then and now, non-unanimous juries can silence the voices and negate the votes of black jurors, especially in cases with black defendants or black victims, and only one or two black jurors. The 10 jurors “can simply ignore the views of their fellow panel members of a different race or class.” Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 397 (1972) (Stewart, J., dissenting). That reality—and the resulting perception of unfairness and racial bias—can undermine confidence in and respect for the criminal justice system. The non-unanimous jury operates much the same as the unfettered peremptory challenge, a practice that for many decades likewise functioned as an engine of discrimination against black defendants, victims, and jurors. In effect, the non-unanimous jury allows backdoor and unreviewable peremptory strikes against up to 2 of the 12 jurors.

Slip Op. at 35 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part).

In 1974, Louisiana readopted its nonunanimous jury provision. Why? The justices don’t seem sure. Justice Gorsuch briefly concludes that “it’s hard to say why these laws persist”; Justice Kavanaugh speculates that the continued reliance on nonunanimous juries “may have been motivated by neutral principles (or just by inertia)”; and Justice Alito notes that the stated purpose of the nonunanimous jury provision in 1974 was judicial efficiency and, in the debate, “no mention was made of race.” Slip Op. at 3 (Alito, J., dissenting). But Justice Sotomayor observes that when it comes to old laws originally motivated by racial animus, it is often the case that “States’ legislatures never truly grapple[] with the laws’ sordid history in reenacting them.” Slip Op. at 33 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in part). She finds that Louisiana’s only effort to do so came not in 1974 but just last year, when Louisiana voters approved a 2019 referendum repealing the nonunanimous jury provision. The campaign for a unanimous jury right focused in part on the racist origins and continuing racially disparate outcomes of the nonunanimous jury law.

Raise your hand if you think that the Jim Crow origins of Louisiana’s nonunanimous jury provision is important to consider in this case

Not all nine justices think we should consider this history. Only five do. Four justices share Justice Gorsuch’s perspective that the racist history of Louisiana’s nonunanimous jury verdict law matters here. Concurring in most of Justice Gorsuch’s opinion, Justice Sotomayor writes separately to stress how important the Jim Crow history is to the invalidity of nonunanimous juries. Justice Kavanaugh also spends part of his lengthy concurrence discussing the significance of the racism that gave rise to nonunanimous juries. Justice Thomas ignores the Jim Crow history altogether, and Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kagan and Chief Justice Roberts, seems more offended by the majority’s audacity to observe that racism underpinned the nonunanimous jury provision than by the racism itself. Slip Op. at 62-66 (Alito, J., dissenting).

It may sound unremarkable that five justices in this case examine the racist history underlying Louisiana’s nonunanimous jury provision. In reviewing the constitutionality of a provision arising out of a white supremacist state constitutional convention, wouldn’t the Court have to reckon with that history? Certainly, if Mr. Ramos had raised an equal protection challenge to his nonunanimous jury verdict, the Court would have been squarely presented with the legal question of whether the nonunanimous jury provision was unlawful because it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose and had a discriminatory effect. But outside the equal protection context, the U.S. Supreme Court has marginalized the relevance of racist intent when such a consideration is not an essential element of a defendant’s legal claim, for example, when a traffic stop is challenged as racially motivated in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (“[T]he Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race. But the constitutional basis for objecting to intentionally discriminatory application of laws is the Equal Protection Clause, not the Fourth Amendment. Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.”).

Why did a majority of the Court look so closely at this history in Ramos, and what exactly did they do with it? It is easy enough to note that five justices think that the racist origins of the law matter here and four justices apparently think they don’t. The more difficult question is how and why that history matters. How, if at all, does Jim Crow history influence the justices’ resolution of the legal questions before them in Ramos?

The answer is elusive. Justice Gorsuch highlights the racist origins of the law and criticizes the Apodaca plurality for ignoring that history, but in a footnote concedes that his discussion of Louisiana’s white supremacist constitutional convention is dicta, as nonunanimous juries would violate the Sixth Amendment impartial jury guarantee whether or not they were designed to diminish the influence of black jurors. Justice Sotomayor emphasizes that “the racially biased origins of the Louisiana and Oregon laws uniquely matter here,” but what does it mean legally to “matter”? Does the history matter because it serves as important context; because the Court has an ethical obligation to acknowledge painful aspects of our history (a “never again” perspective); or does it somehow factor into the resolution of the questions before the Court? She does not detail how the Jim Crow origins of Louisiana’s nonunanimous juries affect the Court’s analysis of the legal issues. She implies that an equal protection claim may have succeeded here, referencing the analogous case of United States v. Fordice, 505 U. S. 717, 729 (1992), which held that policies “‘traceable’ to a State’s de jure racial segregation and that still ‘have discriminatory effects’ offend the Equal Protection Clause.”

Justice Kavanaugh alone specifies how the origins of Louisiana’s nonunanimous juries influence the resolution of this case. He concludes that, once the court has determined that the correct resolution of the issues conflicts with a prior court holding (here, the Apodaca ruling), the court is more justified in departing from precedent when it has caused “significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences.” Slip Op. at 42 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part). The nonunanimous jury provision “tolerates and reinforces a practice that is thoroughly racist in its origins and has continuing racially discriminatory effects,” a significant negative consequence. This framework brings the Jim Crow history into the stare decisis analysis, not the determination of the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury, or whether, under the Fourteenth Amendment, this right binds the states.

Why does the Jim Crow discussion feature so prominently? Is it easier for justices to confront vestiges of racism (a la Ramos) than to confront contemporary allegations of more widespread racial bias (a la Whren)? Or perhaps the justices are more likely to consider racism as relevant when ruling on Sixth Amendment challenges involving the right to a jury trial? Recently, in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855, 867 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that in cases involving evidence of racial bias in juror deliberations, the rule preventing the court from hearing juror testimony about statements made during deliberations must yield so that the court may consider whether the alleged racial bias violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. That was not an equal protection case, but a case concerning the right to a fair and impartial jury, and the Court’s decision rested (as Justice Kavanaugh explains in Ramos) on a recognition of “the imperative to purge racial prejudice from the administration of justice generally and from the jury system in particular.” Id. at 13–14 (quoting Pena-Rodriguez and collecting cases). So, a working theory: when a defendant asserts a Fourth Amendment right, racial bias generally doesn’t matter, but when asserting a Sixth Amendment right, it might? Or maybe, as my colleague Shea Denning has considered and Justice Ginsburg has suggested, Whren was wrongly decided?

The bottom line here is that a majority of the court concluded that it is important to consider Jim Crow history when ruling on whether the unanimous verdict aspect of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states. Although the justices in the majority do not agree on how this history factors into the analysis, the decision suggests that Jim Crow origins may support the invalidation of laws even outside of equal protection challenges.

What does this mean in states like North Carolina where jury unanimity was already guaranteed?

The holding in Ramos does not have immediate implications for North Carolina, where people accused of crimes already had a right to a unanimous jury. However, it raises interesting questions about the possibility that Jim Crow laws may have evolved into current law without careful examination or reconsideration. Kavanaugh asserts that the “nonunanimous jury is today the last of Louisiana’s Jim Crow laws.” (Slip. Op. Kavanaugh, J., concurring, at 48.) Assuming that this is true, what about in other states? What about here?

In 1898, the year of Louisiana’s constitutional convention, North Carolina saw similar white supremacist political activity, propaganda, and related violence, including the only successful political coup in United States history, in which white supremacists overthrew the city government of Wilmington, killing numerous black residents, forcing the resignation of the mayor, police chief, and aldermen, and burning down the headquarters of a black newspaper. Caleb Crain, City Limits: What a white-supremacist coup looks like, The New Yorker, April 27, 2020. As in Louisiana, “white supremacists went on to alter state law so as to disenfranchise black people[;]” while there were “more than a hundred and twenty-five thousand registered black voters in North Carolina in 1896 . . . only six thousand or so were still on the books by 1902.” Id. at 67. See also Thomas W. Frampton, The Jim Crow Jury, 71 Vanderbilt Law Review 1593, 1613-14 fns 118, 123, 124 (2019) (quoting articles published in 1898 and 1899 in the Semi-Weekly Messenger, a Wilmington newspaper, making white supremacist appeals for nonunanimous juries, one of which suggests that nonunanimous jury verdicts will reduce the need for lynchings). Are any of the laws passed in this era and motivated by this campaign of white supremacy still on the books?

The answer, almost certainly, is yes. Consider the North Carolina law making it a felony to vote when ineligible, even if the voter is unaware that he or she is ineligible to vote. This law dates back nearly unaltered to this same political effort to disenfranchise black voters around the turn of the twentieth century. Are there others? Some aspects of jury selection, including the use of peremptory strikes, have been historically entangled with discrimination. See April Anderson, Peremptory Challenges at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century: Development of Modern Jury Selection Strategies as Seen in Practitioners’ Trial Manuals 16 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 1 (2020). Historians at UNC are working on documenting North Carolina’s Jim Crow Laws, which may help identify others still in operation.

Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence in Ramos cautions that we may be governed by dated laws, in North Carolina and elsewhere, that have been reenacted or maintained without meaningful consideration of their Jim Crow origins and purpose. At least some of our legal architecture is built on the same troubling historical foundations described in Ramos. The splintered Ramos opinion does not provide a roadmap for resolving legal challenges related to Jim Crow laws—outside the usual equal protection approach—but a majority of the justices insist that this history cannot be ignored.

About that pop quiz

Yes, North Carolina briefly allowed non-unanimous jury verdicts in the 17th century. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 98 n.45 (1970). I don’t know what motivated the adoption of nonunanimous juries in North Carolina or the return to unanimity. If you know more about this history, please leave a comment, and of course, feel free to comment on any other issues raised by the Ramos decision.

The post Ramos v. Louisiana and the Jim Crow Origins of Nonunanimous Juries appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law.

Ramos v. Louisiana and the Jim Crow Origins of Nonunanimous Juries published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[loscerritoscommunitynews]

Metropolitan Water District Employee Accuses Central Basin Director Bob Apodaca of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

@mwdh2o Employee Accuses Central Basin Director Bob Apodaca of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation #metoo #corruptcristina @workingcaliforniansagainstcorruption @asmgarcia

Central Basin Director Robert “Bob” Apodaca has been accused of sexual harassment; in 2013, he settled another harassment case for $670,000.

    BY BRIAN HEWS • editor@cerritosnews.net

Hews Media Group-Los Cerritos Community News has obtained a letter addressed to Abel Salinas, the Chief Ethics Officer for the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California, from a MWD employee…

[allafricayouthsplatform-blog]

Retired Newport Beach Cardiac Surgeon’s Book Reflects on Youth in Apartheid South Africa

By Valerie Takahama “A Boy Named Courage” is Himmet Dajee’s engaging new memoir, co-written with Patrice Apodaca, about growing up as the son of a domineering Indian immigrant father in South Africa. The memoir twines historical events—the Sharpeville massacre in 1960, Robert F. Kennedy’s “Ripple of Hope” speech at the University of Cape Town, the Soweto uprising in 1976—with the Orange County…