#terry v. ohio

[akascow]

i feel bad for law students who have to memorize all the important supreme court cases that just have names like miranda v arizona or terry v ohio bc i only have to know like 20 so far for my CJ major and im STRUGGLING

[multi-muse-transect]

Cyberpunk Jinx AU Headcanons

Basically how I think Jinx's story would go if she ran into Ciri from the Witcher who can travel dimensions and chose to hide in the Cyberpunk universe to start a new life.

Jinx got her new lease on life when she met Ciri who showed her a place to get away and it was the Cyberpunk universe. She arrived in Ohio first and fell in with the Bakker Clan under the name V. There she bonded with the Nomads and even got some chrome until she saw her new family finally disappear after they integrated into Snake Nation thus causing Jinx to head to Night City for a job.

She actually thrives well in Night City with Jackie as she was a natural at fighting. Jackie pointed it out and she says she has chrome in her system when it's really shimmer.

Jackie, Viktor, and Misty are basically Jinx's new family with Viktor remind her of Vander.

After the heist, Johnny looked deep into her mind and thought he was on drugs again when he saw her past then kept quiet about it. It wasn't until he brought it up to her at the motel. My bet is that he would say "You were like me but got cold feet! So when the deed was done, you upped and left everyone!" And that causes Jinx to fall silent with Johnny saying "What? Are you gonna forget me like how you did with Vi, Clogger, and Milo?"

Johnny and Jinx would talk about their situations and how they are alike in many ways leading to alternate conversations.

The relic ends up making Jinx even more unstable cause she's basically dying or her mind is getting rewritten.

She would definitely have sick guitar skills when she's playing with Kerry Eurodyne.

Judy and her would do a lot of flirting.

Jinx has PTSD flashbacks when she meets Panam cause her and Vi are alike in so many ways. She fears getting attached to her but ends up getting attached anyway and she gets a new sister.

Jinx just gets too much bad Caitlyn flashbacks when she meets River yet opens up to him in the end. Even solving the whole Peter Pan case with him.

In Phantom Liberty, Solomon Reed does a scan on Jinx only to find out there's no registration or information on her at all which makes him infinitely suspicious cause the NUSA keeps tabs everyone while there's nothing on Jinx. Even Myers is puzzled about this when he tells it to her alongside Songbird who is just as confused.

If Jinx chose the Devil ending, her last memories and words are her sister's name as soulkiller zaps her and turns her consciousness into an engram. She's later brought back in a new body that has shimmer in it then leaves the Cyberpunk universe when she meets Ciri again and returns to her universe where she works at the bar and meets Vi again who of course doesn't recognize her but the two become friends alongside Caitlyn and Ekko. Jinx sees the mural and says goodbye to her former self before heading off.

In the Tower ending, Jinx ends up with no more chrome but still has shimmer inside her veins which grabs the attention of Myers and Reed. She returns to Night City where things have changed but beats the hell out of Terry to showcase her strength and doesn't combat implants.

The Star ending is Jinx going with the Aldecaldos with a new family to start another life. Jinx makes her peace with her past and finally settles down.

Temperance ending is Johnny who is now Jinx meeting Ciri again as she tells her to find Vi and take her to Night City to the Columbariam where Johnny has set up a niche for her. The niche reads "Powder-the woman who saved and changed many lives. Even mine. Thank you." Vi and Ciri arrive there with Vi finding said niche before sadly and angrily demanding to be left alone with it while Johnny leaves Night City.

Suicide ending is the same as before but Misty implies that she knows where she's from.

In the Sun ending, Mr Blue Eyes hints he knows that Jinx isn't from their universe at all and drops hints to her. Even quoting Silco as well. Jinx takes up the Crystal Palace job and flies off.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

When it comes to the Biden administration’s long-awaited Title IX sex discrimination education rule, which went into effect Thursday, America truly is two nations. Due to a series of lower-court injunctions, the Education Department is blocked from enforcing the rule, which includes LGBTQ school protections, in 26 states across the country.

The steps that led us to such a place over the past 50 days tell both a story of how much anti-transgender animus has made its way into the federal courts — and a story of how irrelevant the U.S. Supreme Court has made itself and its rulings through its repeated actions disregarding, minimizing, or outright reversing those rulings. The 423-page rule that went into effect Thursday defines sex in the sex discrimination ban of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 as including both sexual orientation and gender identity. This is reasoning that, the Biden administration argues, follows from the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s sex discrimination ban includes bans on both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

The rule also includes provisions addressing “sex-separated facilities” and “hostile-environment harassment,” both of which include language that provides protections for transgender students. The rule does much more, however, including setting for the standards for schools to use in handling sex-based harassment complaints, pregnancy protections, and setting forth general obligations under the landmark law. That rule is now in effect, but the Education Department is blocked from enforcing it in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. (As discussed below, the department is also blocked from enforcing the rule in more than 2,500 specific schools across the country — many of which are in the 24 states that do not have an injunction in place.) The Supreme Court, moreover, has allowed this to happen without even ruling as of mid-day Thursday on the Justice Department’s requests in two of the cases to pare back the injunctions during appeals.

[...]

What happened?

A series of lawsuits were filed challenging the rule, mostly brought by Republican attorneys general but also brought by some far-right organizations and primarily arguing that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act due to the three provisions addressing gender identity and transgender protections. They were almost all filed in jurisdictions that would increase the likelihood of a far-right judge hearing the case — and a more conservative appeals court considering appeals. The efforts paid off. Some of the most conservative district court judges in the nation heard the challenges and granted preliminary injunctions against enforcement of the rule — including U.S. District Judges Terry Doughty, Reed O’Connor, and Matthew Kacsmaryk, known for their far-right rulings on efforts to combat misinformation on social media, the Affordable Care Act, and mifepristone, respectively, all of which were reversed by the Supreme Court. In addition to those three judges in Texas and Louisiana, four others — U.S. District Judges Danny Reeves, John Broomes, Rodney Sippel, Jodi Dishman — issued injunctions from their courts in Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, respectively.

The Biden Administration’s Title IX rule went into effect yesterday, but in 26 states and in over 2,500 schools across America, the new rule is being blocked from enforcement.

[freetheshit-outofyou]

WOW! People who don't understand Rights telling people who won't research Rights, how to use Rights, this is fresh. It was fresh a year ago when my comments on this were removed, so lets readdress this mess. Follow me.

But first a small side note on Miranda.....

The "Miranda Warning" is not a Right it is a warning for the person being spoken to that the things they say or do can be used as evidence in an investigation and or trial. That boys and girls is true all day every day, even without a Miranda warning. And it you, the end users responsibility to know that shit, it's not the responsibility of the police to give you the Cliff Notes on your Rights. That's right folks, those of you following along at home and those right here in our studio audience, you have ALL OF YOUR  RIGHTS without a Miranda Warning. Let's move on.

OP (What I would affectionately call a "Shithouse Lawyer".) wants you to take their advice on Rights because somehow they know a metric shit ton about Rights while also steering those who will actually encounter Law Enforcement Officers (LEO's) down a road that does several things at the exact same time. 

1. It tells the "subject" of the interaction to tell the police to talk to someone else on their behalf. That's great if that "someone" is your lawyer, but your riot liaison is not in any way shape or form going to help your integration with the police, ever.

2. The encourage the "subject" to not escalate the situation because the police are trained to escalate situations to be able to shoot and beat people. Are you fucking stupid? Honest question. Did you get this information from your Magic 8 Ball or Tumblr? The amount of freaking de-escalation training LEO's have to go through to stop from hurting every little feeling is astounding. Mind you these "subjects" are the very ones spitting on LEO's yelling in their faces, and destroying communities, and they want to talk about police escalating the situation.

3. "Am I being arrested", a valid question, to be sure but if you are told "no" and try to walk away it will more than likely result in you being arrested, so there is that. This because you asked only one question, that was your mistake, see you can be detained without being arrested. I know some shithouse lawyer is screaming right now "THAT'S THE SAME FUCKING THING!", once again they are wrong and are going to get you sent to jail.

4. This plays into number 3, know what they fuck you are talking about. Case in point:

"If you are arrested, once you make it to the station, there's a simple three step process to remember. Exact wording isn't necessary, but try and be close. Remember, you don't want to be Lawyer Dogged. Once again, be as clear as you possibly can.

"Am I being detained?" If no, leave. If yes, then say: "I invoke my right to have a lawyer present." Any time they try and push on that, you say: "As I am detained, I invoke my right to remain silent until my lawyer is present." If you have been transported to the police station, a police holding area in the case of rioters, or any other area where the police have relocated you from where you were to where they are, YOU HAVE BEEN FUCKING ARRESTED, not detained. 5. Know the difference between detained and arrested, they are worlds apart and knowing how to deal with each is important. You should always ask if you are being arrested or detained, at least OP got that right. You may not always get an answer just like you are not answering the LEO's questions, why should you expect a full forthcoming answer? 90% of the time they will just say "yes". At this point most folks will still run their mouths talking about their Rights, knowing jack shit about their own Rights. Remember silence if Golden, but your "spontaneous statements and actions" could be used against you criminally. A Terry Stop/ being detained (Terry v. Ohio, 1968) states that LEO’s can detain a person almost without limit to do an investigation.  The stop “must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop…” (United States v. Segoviano, 2019). This is going to come as a surprise to some, but if you are not being arrested but are detained and walk way it will more than likely result in you being arrested. Really, it’s that simple. 6. Last and maybe most importantly know your Rights at all levels. Your 4th Amendment Rights are always there, as are all your other Rights, but every state and sometimes every community will have different laws that you will also need to know and understand if you are going to follow the line of advice OP is giving out.

For Example; 26 states require a person to identify themselves when asked to do so my police. In many of those states not doing so or not being able to do so will result in an arrest until the person in questions identity can be determined. So know what you can and can't do before you embark on your riotous adventures. I was an LEO for a long time, I have forgot more about the law(s) than OP thinks they know, I encourage every single Citizen to exercise their Rights (All of them.), to know their Rights and how they work. OP is giving advice out their ass that is going to get you hemmed up, it will not make your interaction with police go smooth or fast. A footnote in closing:

The Citizen has way more power in a court room than the street, remember that.

Getting Arrested 101

In light of yesterdays ruling on the Miranda rights, now that the cops don't need to read you your rights, I figure it's as good a time as any to make a crash course post on what to do if you get arrested in the US. Know your rights and how to invoke them, because cops will try and trick you into reneging on them whenever they can. Here's my bible on engaging with police, and feel free to add on if you have other tips.

If you encounter police at all, especially if it's for a protest, engage as little as possible. Protests will sometimes have police liaisons; if they do, deflect the cops onto them. They have training for this. Otherwise, say nothing to them if they don't engage first.

If they engage first, do not escalate. Cops are trained to try and escalate situations. It wins them PR, and it makes it easier for them to justify violence against you and in turn, the other protestors. I don't care how punk you think it is, do not escalate.

When they engage, if you think you're being arrested, ask them in no uncertain terms and demand a clear answer. Say "am I being arrested," and if they evade, repeat it until the answer is no or yes. If it's no, walk away and don't engage further. If it's yes, then:

Shut the fuck up. Say absolutely nothing from this point forward until you reach the station. No matter what they say, no matter how serious or casual the conversation is, you say nothing. Zip. No exceptions. This is especially important to remember because they will try and humiliate you and make the arrest process as difficult as possible to try and make you crack, so do the simplest thing and say nothing.

If you are arrested, once you make it to the station, there's a simple three step process to remember. Exact wording isn't necessary, but try and be close. Remember, you don't want to be Lawyer Dogged. Once again, be as clear as you possibly can.

"Am I being detained?" If no, leave. If yes, then say:

"I invoke my right to have a lawyer present." Any time they try and push on that, you say:

"As I am detained, I invoke my right to remain silent until my lawyer is present."

You want it to be 100% undeniable, in as much of the record as possible, that you were being detained, and therefor you need a lawyer. Otherwise, the cops will retroactively decide you weren't actually held there, and therefor you had no rights to invoke, so get that shit down. And once again, aside from saying #3, shut the fuck up. Same principle applies as #4 on the first list: they will do whatever they can to get you talking, and once they do, they'll say "oh, they decided to not use the lawyer after all because they started talking without one." So do. Not. Budge.

Lastly, some general pieces of advice, both for before and during the arrest process:

If you're going to a protest, the sort of thing where arrests can be planned for, there will likely be an organizer with some experience. They may be able to give you specific advice for that protest with regards to things like ID, liaisons, or any specific protocol. Check with them as well.

If you're in a situation where arrests are likely or expected, especially with a protest, plan accordingly. Power off your phone and deactivate the fingerprint or facial recognition unlock options, or leave it at home entirely. Don't bring anything you wouldn't want to be arrested with. Think carefully about leaving your ID at home, though. John Doe-ing can cause extra trouble for the cops (good), but it's also risky, since it can make it harder for you to pay for bail and can make things harder for you down the line.

Police always lie. Let me repeat. Police. Always. Lie. Again, Police. Always. Lie. This should be your fucking mantra. They will tell you you'll get out easier if you cooperate. They will tell you any information they can find about your friends and family. They will threaten you and them. This is all hollow. Your friends have rights as well. All of this is posturing to get you to talk and incriminate you and your friends. Police always lie.

Every American should know this, but it's especially important for any activist, or advocate. Knowing your rights is the only defense you have against cops, so you need to game that system to keep them from gaming it back.

[bamboomusiclist]

5/20 おはようございます。 Roy Porter Sound Machine / Roy Porter Sound Machine LH003 等更新しました。

Cleo Laine / All About Me 680992tl Herb Ellis / Thank You Charlie Christian Mgv8381 Terry Gibbs And His Orchestra / Launching A New Sound In Music　MG20440 Terry Gibbs Quartet / That Swing Thing V-8447 Lionel Hampton / Silver Vibes cl1486 Roy Porter Sound Machine / Roy Porter Sound Machine LH003 Barretto / Eye Of The Beholder SD19140 Harold Wheeler Consort / Black Cream BGL1-0849 One Way / Featuring Al Hudson 201269 Eastbound Expressway / Eastbound Expressway AVI6068 P-Funk All Stars / Urban Dancefloor Guerillas PZ39168 Parlet / Pleasure Principle NBLP7094 George Duke / Liberated Fantasies G22835 Players Association / Born To Dance vsd79398 France Gall / Dancing Disco 50364 Roberta Flack / Feel Like Makin' Love SD18131 Mystique Featuring Ralph Johnson / Mystique CU501 Ohio Players / Honey Srm1-1038

[balasora]

OVERTURN TERRY V OHIO!

[lboogie1906]

Congressman Louis Stokes (February 23, 1925 – August 18, 2015) was an attorney, civil rights pioneer, and politician. He served 15 terms in the House of Representatives – representing the east side of Cleveland – and was the first African American congressman elected in the state of Ohio. He was one of the Cold War-era chairmen of the House Intelligence Committee, headed the Congressional Black Caucus, and was the first African American on the House Appropriations Committee.

He was born in Cleveland, the son of Louise and Charles Stokes. He and his brother, politician Carl B. Stokes, lived in one of the first federally funded housing projects, the Outhwaite Homes. He attended Central High School and served in the Army (1943-46). After attending Western Reserve University and Cleveland-Marshall College of Law on the G.I. Bill, he began practicing law in Cleveland in 1953. He argued the “stop and frisk” case of Terry v. Ohio before the SCOTUS in 1968. Later in 1968, he was elected to the House. He shifted to the newly created 11th District, covering much of the same area following a 1992 redistricting.

He married Jeannette “Jay” Stokes and they had four children. His daughter, Angela, is a former Cleveland Municipal Court judge who served (1995-2015), while another, Lori, is the Co-anchor of The 5 O’clock News and The 10 O’clock News and Anchor of The 6 O’clock News and former Co-anchor of Good Day New York WNYW Fox 5. His son, Chuck, is a journalist with WXYZ-TV in Detroit. His brother, Carl B. Stokes, was the first African American mayor of a large American city. He was a cousin of funk and R&B musician Rick James.

He was a Prince Hall Freemason and a member of the Cleveland Alumni chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #kappaalphapsi

[dealgemeneverwarring]

De Algemene Verwarring #99 - 16 October 2023

The ninety-ninth episode of De Algemene Verwarring was broadcast on Monday, October 16, 2023, and you can listen to it by clicking on the link below that will take you directly to the Mixcloud page:

Pictured below is Brooklyn, NY, based band The Rogers Sisters. And you know what, they are actually sisters: Laura Rogers and Jennifer Rogers, and there is als vocalist and bass player Miyuki Furtado. The band didn't exist for that long and as far as I know the two sisters aren't actively involved in music making anymore. I saw the band when I was in New York, they played a gig under the Brooklyn Bridge together with Enon and Telepathe, and I thought they were a really great band. They also got a spot on the Rough Trade Shops "Post Punk" compilation on Rough Traden that's actually where I first heard them and I honestly thought they were an early eighties band somehow. Their debut album 'Purely Evil' that was released by Troubleman Unlimited is still a classic in my eyes. There's more post punk in this episode, new and older, from Family Fodder, Magazine, The Toads, and The Cure, yes. Also some quiet music from Roy Montgomery, Mist and the great new album by Maxine Funke. And a long awaited brand new release from Swedish underground loving and Gent based label B.A.A.D.M.. And beneath the photo you can find the playlist for the show. Enjoy!

Playlist:

The Orphans: Hey Gyp (LP V/A Back From The Grave 10” on Crypt Records, 2014, originally released on a 7” in 1967 on Herbst Records)

The Mirrors: Hands In My Pockets (2LP V/A “Punk 45 - Extermination Nights In The Sixth City, Cleveland Ohio: Punk and the Decline of The Mid-West 1975-1982” on Soul Jazz Records, 2015, originally released somewhere in 1977)

A-Frames: Frankenstein (7” “Complications” on S-S Records, 2004)

Dan Melchior’s Broke Revue: Loveyougirl (LP “Heavy Dirt” on In The Red Records, 2001)

The Cure: World War (LP “Boy’s Don’t Cry” on Fiction Records, 1979)

The Rogers Sisters: Zero Point (LP “Purely Evil” on Troubleman Unlimited, 2002)

Family Fodder: Debbie Harry (2CD “Rough Trade Shops (Pfresh ost Punk 01)” on Rough Trade, 2003, originally released on a 7" by Fresh Records in 1980)

The Toads: Ex-KGB (LP “In The Wilderness” on Upset The Rhythm, 2023)

Magazine: Definitive Gaze (LP “Real Life” on Virgin Records, 1978)

Terry: Miracles (LP “Call Me terry” on Upset The Rhythm, 2023)

Children Maybe Later: Jane Birkin’s Basket (LP “What A Flash Kick” on Slothmate Productions, 2023)

Roy Montgomery: Pranged (LP “That Best Forgotten Work” on Grapefruit Records, 2021)

Maxine Funke: Willow White (LP “River Said” on Disciples, 2023)

William Henry Meung: Foxhole Blues (LP “Hiraeth And Limerence” on Horn Of Plenty, 2023)

Mist: Mist Stream (12” “Glowing Net” on Amethyst Sunset, 2010)

CIA Debutante:  The New Season (LP “Down, Willow” on Siltbreeze, 2023)

Continuity: The Neon God (LP “Continuity” on B.A.A.D.M., 2023)

[constitutionaladvocate]

Overturn Terry v. Ohio, 2nd Part, Comprehensive Guide to Understanding w...

void and null , not bound to any office conflcit of itest. 

[mrmceachin]

Watch "INTENSE 1st AMENDMENT AUDITOR BLAST TYRANT COP! Rodriguez v US #police #funny" on YouTube

[greetingsfromcleveland]

Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio expanded the right of police officers to “stop and frisk” individuals whom they deem to be suspicious. At the same time, it set limits on the conditions under which such a stop could take place. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/terryvohio/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

[sapereaude-habemut]

Literally there was a time (1967 I believe) when the Supreme Court held a public pat down without reasonable, objective suspicion to be an unreasonable seizure (a violation of the fourth amendment) because the officer physically touched the citizen, and because being pat down in public was a level of embarrassment and dehumanization that violated the sanctity of ones person.

And not long after it held that any use of lethal force wheee it’s not in response to an objective threat to the officer’s one or another’s life is an unreasonable seizure because there is no greater violation of someone’s liberty of personal security than deadly force.

It’s only been the past few decades that the court (and nation) has really begun to hammer down this dangerous policy of avoiding over-deterring law enforcement that has led to like, chronic underdeterrence and complete unaccountability in law enforcement.

It’s so dangerous when people act like it’s the “norm” and say shit like “well if you didn’t do illegal stuff” or “if you are just polite” they’ll leave you alone... like no sorry, police are supposed to be trained to de-escalate conflict, to make situations SAFER, and FURTHERMORE the Constitution protects guilty people too! Breaking the law, fleeing from the police, resisting arrest, etc do not retroactively negate your constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and right to be free from excessive force!! Sorry but even guilty people—unless someone is literally pointing a loaded gun at a child or something and the cop objectively has no other way to neutralize the threat—have the right to be free from the officer using disproportionate force!

you could curse a police officer out, kick their car, throw a temper tantrum and throw trash. and that still doesnt mean they get to kill you. what the fuck is wrong with yall? why do you think police get some special license to kill when they get disrespected?

if they cant do their job without murdering unarmed people, they dont deserve their badge, or anyones respect.

[collapsedsquid]

With all this in mind, we consider Howse’s claim. Howse argues that the officers violated his clearly established right to be free from “unreasonable government intrusions.” Appellant Br. at 18. But that frames the “clearly established” test at too high a level of generality. The law must be specific enough to put a reasonable officer on clear notice that his conduct is unlawful. See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 590. The right to be free from “unreasonable government intrusions” is much too vague to do that.

Instead, we must examine the particular situation that Hodous and Middaugh confronted and ask whether the law clearly established that their conduct was unlawful. To answer this question, we must ask whether every reasonable officer would know that law enforcement cannot tackle someone who disobeyed an order and then use additional force if they resist being handcuffed. Importantly, this question asks about the lawfulness of conduct under the Fourth Amendment. And in that context, the Supreme Court has stressed “the need to identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances” was found “to have violated the Fourth Amendment.” Id. (cleaned up). Without such a case, the plaintiff will almost always lose. See id.

Howse hasn’t identified any case that addresses the conduct at issue here (and we aren’t aware of any either). Instead, Howse cites a single case in support: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). But that case does him no good. Terry held that a search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the law enforcement officer reasonably believed that the suspects were engaged in criminal activity and might be armed and dangerous. Id. at 30–31. The case has nothing to do with excessive force. So Terry doesn’t clearly establish that law enforcement cannot tackle a non-compliant suspect and use additional force against him if he resists arrest. Cf. Rudlaff v. Gillispie, 791 F.3d 638, 641–42 (6th Cir. 2015) (explaining that using a taser or a knee strike against someone who is actively resisting arrest does not qualify as excessive force).

Because the alleged unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct wasn’t clearly established, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Learned of this case from here, it’s not a supreme court case but a more everyday one

[keplercryptids]

Hey have you listened to the podcast 5-4? It's three lawyers explaining in layman's terms various Supreme Court decisions over the years and why they're bullshit. I thought you and your followers might like it! Especially relevant now re: lack of police oversight are the eps about Terry v. Ohio, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and Tison v. Arizona.

i have not (i exclusively listen to podcasts for clown shenanigans) but that does sound interesting!

[dendroica]

There are now decades of data that show that stop-and-frisk is racially biased and does not reduce crime, including data that was available to Bloomberg the day he took office. Following the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed black man in the Bronx, 41 times by four plain-clothed NYPD officers, then-Attorney General Elliot Spitzer ordered a study of stop-and-frisk in New York City. He tapped Fagan to analyze stops. The report found that stops of black and Hispanic pedestrians were less likely to end in an arrest than stops of white pedestrians. On top of racial bias and lack of relationship with crime, the report also found constitutional problems with stop-and-frisk. The 1968 Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court that formalized stop-and-frisk requires officers to be able to articulate were suspicious based on facts and their experience -- “male, minorities, 16 to 25” is not a constitutionally legitimate answer. The Spitzer report found that in only 40% of stops, the forms filled by police articulated the factual basis for a reasonable suspicion. In all other stops, the information was either missing, insufficient, or did not meet the legal standard. This history is important because it goes to the heart of what is so misleading in Bloomberg’s claim that he “inherited” stop-and-frisk. Fagan also conducted the statistical analysis for Spitzer's 1999 report. “At the time Bloomberg took office the report was available, the evidence is pretty straightforward that [stop-and-frisk] wasn't really responsible for the drop in crime,” Fagan told City & State NY on Wednesday. “It was biased. And not only was it biased, it was unconstitutional.” In 2013, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that the NYPD conducted stop-and-frisk in an unconstitutional and racially discriminatory biased manner. Her decision was informed by Fagan’s 2010 analysis of stops stops during Bloomberg’s tenure, which showed the same results as his 1999 report: racial bias, no relationship between crime rate and stops, and disregard to the standard of reasonable suspicion.

Bloomberg’s misleading comments on stop-and-frisk | CSNY

[virginiaprelawland]

People V. Scott Peterson

By Kayla Blevins, Liberty University, Class of 2020

September 2, 2020

Forty-seven-year-old Scott Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder of his wife, Laci, in 2005 and sentenced to death by lethal injection. He was also convicted of second-degree murder because of the death of his son, Conner, of whom Laci was still pregnant at the time of her death. However, Peterson argued to the California Supreme Court that his trial was flawed because of the media hype that encircled the case. The court rejected this but found serious errors when selecting jury members for the penalty phase - the trial court wrongly rejected potential jurors because they opposed the death penalty.

The problem is the potential jurors said they could overlook their personal opinions about the death penalty, nevertheless,the prosecution rejected them. The California Supreme Court agreed with Peterson because the precedent previously set by the United States Supreme Court asserts that potential jurors may not be considered ineligible to serve in capital murder cases because of their objections against the death penalty. (1) The California Supreme Court said this is precisely what occurred in Peterson’s penalty phase. Under the precedent set by the Supreme Court, even when one error occurs in a capital murder trial, there must be an “automatic reversal of any ensuing death penalty judgment.”(2) The California court believes numerous errors require they overturn Peterson's death penalty, but not his two murder convictions.

The California Court’s Opinion

According to Justice Kruger, the main author of the California court’s opinion, jurors are required to answer written questionnaires. The questionnaires ask the potential juror basic questions, like their opinion about the death penalty, because the courts desire someone capable of rightly judging the evidence presented in the case and not being swayed by their opinions.

Jurors can be excused through one of two “mechanisms.” (3) According to the opinion, the first “mechanism” is that a juror can be excused because the court or the council believes that he or she has a bias. (4) In a capital murder case, for example, the prospective juror is subject to excusal if they would be unable or unwilling to impose the death penalty if the defendant is found guilty. (5) Second, prospective jurors may be excused by the parties by means of peremptory challenge.(6) Each party is given a number of peremptory strikes set by law and allowed to choose from the remaining pool, up to the limit of their strikes, additional potential jurors they believe would be less favorably disposed to their side and to the verdict they seek. (7) The result of this process is a final jury of 12, plus alternates to guard against the need to excuse one or more jurors during the trial itself.(8)

The first mechanism is the focus of the California court in Peterson’s case, “The question is whether the process the trial court employed to remove jurors complied with the standards the United States Supreme Court has established for the disqualification of jurors for bias in a capital case.” (9)

Key Supreme Court Cases

In Witherspoon,the United States Supreme Court ruled that,

[A] sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen [potential jurors summoned for duty] for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction. (10)

The reason is that “A man who opposes the death penalty, no less than one who favors it, can make the discretionary judgment entrusted to him by the State and can thus obey the oath he takes as a juror.  But a jury from which all such men have been excluded cannot perform the task demanded of it,” namely, to “express the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or death.” (11) In other words, “a criminal defendant has the right to an impartial jury drawn from a venire[potential jurors summoned for duty] that has not been tilted in favor of capital punishment by selective prosecutorial challenges for cause” based solely on general opposition to the death penalty. (12)

Witt, another case, acknowledges that states ensure murder cases are tried before juries who are “able to apply capital punishment within the framework state law prescribes.” (13) In Witt, the court held that trial courts may excuse a prospective juror for cause based on the juror’s views of capital punishment if those views “would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’”  (14) But to protect the right to trial by an impartial jury, a trial court may not remove jurors for cause based on views that do not greatly impair their ability to serve. (15) “[I]f prospective jurors are barred from jury service because of their views about capital punishment on ‘any broader basis’ than inability to follow the law or abide by their oaths, the death sentence cannot be carried out.” (16)

Witt and Witherspoon elucidates that potential jurors should not be disqualified from service just because they oppose the death penalty, “[N]ot all who oppose the death penalty are subject to removal for cause in capital cases; those who firmly believe that the death penalty is unjust may nevertheless serve as jurors in capital cases so long as they state clearly that they are willing to temporarily set aside their own beliefs in deference to the rule of law. (17) Neither may a juror be disqualified from service because he or she might “impose a higher threshold before concluding that the death penalty is appropriate.” (18) “The critical issue is whether a life-leaning prospective juror — that is, one generally (but not invariably) favoring life in prison instead of the death penalty as an appropriate punishment — can set aside his or her personal views about capital punishment and follow the law as the trial judge instructs.” (19)As long as a potential juror can obey the court’s instructions and rightly determine whether death is proper, based on a sincere consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the juror may not be excused for cause. (20)

The California court emphasized in the opinion they were not suggesting that a trial court errs when it exercises discretion to limit counsel’s opportunity to question prospective jurors directly. (21) The size of the venire was quite large – 1,500 people. It is reasonable for the court to have “tight controls” on the voir dire. (22) But sufficient inquiry must be made so only those properly excusable under the governing standards are properly dismissed, “Before granting a challenge for cause, the ‘court must have sufficient information regarding the prospective juror’s state of mind to permit a reliable determination as to whether the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair” performance as a capital juror.’”(23)Thus,trial courts are required to make “a conscientious attempt to determine a prospective juror’s views regarding capital punishment to ensure that any juror excused from jury service meets the constitutional standard.” (24)In this case, the California court found there were not enough inquiries made.

Peterson complained of numerous issues like his trial being in an area where he would likely have been found guilty, but the California court disagreed. He also complainedof evidence being flawed, like the admission of dog scent trailing evidence. But the court rejected that argument, “The dog-trailing evidence was not, as defendant claims, inherently unreliable; it rested on a solid foundation and could fairly be considered by the jury alongside whatever arguments against its significance and accuracy Peterson chose to muster.” (25)

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokeswoman Terry Thornton said Peterson will stay in death row housing until the Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager, decides if he wants to seek a new penalty phase trial.(26)

________________________________________________________________

(1)  Witherspoon v. Illinois 391 U.S. at pp. 518–523;Wainwright v. Witt 469 U.S. at p. 424.

(2)  People v. Heard(2003) 31Cal.4th 946, 966–967; People v. Armstrong(2019) 6 Cal.5th 735, 764; People v. Woodruff (2018) 5 Cal.5th 697,745; People v. Riccardi54 Cal.4th at p.783.

(3)  Kruger, J. (2020, August 24). Supreme Court of California. Retrieved August 29, 2020, from https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S132449.PDF.

(4)  Ibid. p. 21.

(5)  Ibid.; Ross v. Oklahoma (1988) 487 U.S. 81, 83–86; Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 586, 595–596.

(6)  Ibid.

(7)  Ibid.

(8)  Ibid.

(9)  Ibid.

(10)                   Ibid.pp. 20-21.

(11)                   Ibid. p. 21.

(12)                   Ibid.; Uttecht v. Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 9.

(13)                   Ibid.; Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. at p. 9.

(14)                   Ibid.; Adams v. Texas (1980) 448 U.S. 38, 45; People v. Jones (2017) 3 Cal.5th 583, 614.

(15)                   Ibid. p. 22.

(16)                   Ibid.; Adams, at p. 48;Uttecht, at p. 9; Jones, at p. 614.

(17)                   Ibid. pp. 21-22.; Lockhart v. McCree (1986) 476 U.S. 162, 176.

(18)                   Ibid.; People v. Stewart (2004) 33 Cal.4th 425, 447.

(19)                   Ibid.; People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1065.

(20)                   Ibid.; People v. Armstrong, 6 Cal.5th at p. 750; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 633.

(21)                   Ibid. p. 27.

(22)                   Ibid.

(23)                   Ibid.

(24)                   Ibid.; People v. Buenrostro (2018) 6 Cal.5th 367, 412.

(25)                   Ibid. p. 59.

(26)                   Tracy, Erin. “What happens next in the Scott Peterson case after his death sentence was overturned?” Modbee, Modesto Bee, 9 Aug. 2020, https://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/scott-peterson-case/article245303320.html.