Total Criminal Defense Blog

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 supporting the execution procedures of lethal injection used by Kentucky authorities, writing that in its opinion, the procedures cause no “substantial risk of harm.”

The case in question, Baze v. Rees, was filed by death-row inmate Ralph Baze and fellow inmate Thomas Bowling.  The target of their lawsuit was Kentucky’s three-drug lethal injection procedure, and they claimed that the process ran the risk of causing the men an unnecessarily extreme level of pain that would reach the level of “cruel and unusual punishment.”  The center of their argument was the description of a hypothetical scenario in which the procedure was botched, and the prisoner would appear to be unconscious but would in reality be in agonizing pain.

In the plurality opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that state executions do not have to be completely pain-free, and that in order for the prisoner’s stay of execution to be granted, it must be proved that “the state’s lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain.”  The state had taken safeguards to protect against that hypothetical scenario, and without proof that the procedure would entail that result, Roberts and others upheld the method as constitutional.

Since 1993, 120 Americans have been taken off Death Row because of DNA evidence that cleared them of the crimes they’d been found guilty of in court, according to an article released by the Associated Press. That number doesn’t include the many innocent people who have been convicted of crimes and freed from lesser sentences.

Last week, Marvin Anderson, who was cleared of charges against him after serving 15 years of a 210 year prison sentence, called for Attorney General Michael Mukasey to begin giving federal funds to state programs investigating cases for which DNA evidence has become available.

Though nearly $14 million was set aside ago by the federal government, that money has not yet seen its way to state programs aimed at investigating convictions involving new DNA evidence. Anderson, along with others who have been cleared of convictions thanks to DNA evidence, plan to speak out against this withholding.

Well, well, well. Barry Bonds, formerly of the San Franscico Giants, is facing charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a federal grand jury about his steroid use.

Some sources like Bonds’ case to Michael Vick’s, speculating that Vick’s recent 23-month sentence could be the beginning of a trend: many legal experts predicted a shorter jail stint for the former NFL star. Could Vick’s sentencing have been the beginning of a trend of taking criminal offenses committed by celebrities more seriously?

Both athletes hired teams of crackerjack criminal defense attorneys. Both got in legal trouble at high points in their careers. And, if Bonds’ trial goes anything like Vick’s, both will be held legally accountable for their actions, despite their superstar status.

Country music singer, Mindy McCready, has been sentenced to a year in jail for violation of her probation.

In July, McCready was arrested after the police were called during a domestic dispute between the singer and her mother. In her mugshot following that arrest a huge and bloody gash can be seen on McCready’s nose which was reportedly caused by a fall while she was resisting arrest.

McCready was convicted of a prescription drug fraud charge in 2004 and sentenced to three years probation. She had a few months left of probation when she was arrested in July.

Now McCready is a convicted felon. In addition to sentencing her to a year in jail, the judge ordered 2 more years of probation and 200 hours of community service for McCready.

In court, McCready reportedly made an emotional plea to the judge, but he didn’t buy it and sent her directly to jail.

In Yuma, Arizona a female inmate allegedly had sex with 3 sheriff detention officers and the sheriff is asking for felony charges against her.

The inmate, Shannon Rose, appeared in court on Tuesday on seven counts of felony sex acts by a prisoner.  The Yuma County Attorney is to decide if she will be formally charged.

The detention officers involved are no longer employed by the Sheriff’s Department.  They have been charged with felonies for alleged sex acts with four female inmates over the course of several months.

In court Rose admitted to performing oral sex on at least 3 detention officers during the 9 months that she has been incarcerated.  She says she would pass sexy notes to the officers to strike up conversations with them.  This led to at least a dozen sexual acts with the men, according to Rose.

Rose was due to be released from prison in three weeks, but if charged she could face more time behind bars.

A judge in a United Kingdom terrorism trial admitted he was struggling to cope with basic internet terms like “web site.” Judge Peter Openshaw is presiding over the trial of three men accused of inciting terrorism using the internet.

During questioning of a witness about a web-forum used by alleged Islamic radicals, the judge stopped the testimony, saying “the trouble is I don’t understand the language. I don’t really understand what a web site is.” Even after the prosecutor explained the terms, the 59-year old judge said he still hadn’t quite grasped the concepts.

Isn’t it the responsibility of the legal system to appoint judges to cases who can understand the particular cases before them?

A 26 year old school teacher arrested in Los Angeles County for kidnapping and sexual assault was vindicated ten months after his arrest–but not before he had been subjected to months in jail and abuse by both jailers and other inmates.  The defendant had ATM receipts and telephone records that proved that he could not have been near the scene of the crime when it occurred.  However, the county decided to prosecute anyway.  The defendant lost his job and, although he was acquitted less than a year after his arrest, he was not able to secure new employment for three years. After the criminal court found that the defendant was “factually innocent”, he sued the arresting officer, the county, and the Sheriff’s Department.  The jury awarded $18 million .