Dallas, Texas Judge Rules Texas Death Penalty Unconstitutional

Dallas Morning News 
Sunday, December 25, 2011

A state district judge in Dallas County has ruled that a Texas death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it allows prosecutors to arbitrarily seek capital punishment.

Prosecutors are appealing Judge Teresa Hawthorne’s decision and have filed a motion to recuse her from Roderick Harris’ capital murder case.

Hawthorne acknowledged when making her ruling last week that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and other courts have “consistently rejected” the reasons that she found the statute unconstitutional, according to a transcript of the hearing. But she said changes in the law can still be made.

Hawthorne, who could not be reached for comment later, said she refused to be a “rubber-stamp judge.” The Democrat took office in January and is a former public defender.

“My decision is not an act of unabashed judicial activism,” she said Monday from the bench. “I remember when women and blacks could not vote. I remember when so-called witches were burned. I remember when gays had to hide to be in the military. My decision is not to buck the system or stir the waters.”

Hawthorne ruled that she believed:

• The Legislature failed to define terms like “continuing threat” and “moral blameworthiness” for jurors deciding between a life or death sentence.

• The Legislature’s definition of mitigating evidence is vague.

• State law prevents jurors from knowing that one vote for life can keep a defendant from receiving a death sentence.
  

The law allowing a judge to enter into evidence “any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence” means that each judge hearing a case has the power to influence a sentence.

“The law should not be arbitrary or capricious,” Hawthorne said in court.

The Dallas County district attorney’s office and special prosecutor Kevin Brooks declined to comment about the ruling or the recusal motion.

Brooks was appointed special prosecutor in the case because he had already been working on the case when he left the DA’s office earlier this year.

Brad Lollar, one of Harris’ defense attorneys, said he believed that the appellate court would be interested in issues surrounding the lack of definitions and the fact that jurors consider whether a defendant would continue to be a threat based on his release into society.

“That’s not going to happen” after sentencing in a capital murder case, Lollar said. “He’ll either get life without parole or death.”

A Harris County judge made a similar ruling on the constitutionality of the death penalty in March 2010. State District Judge Kevin Fine eventually withdrew his ruling and refused to recuse himself from the case.

That case ended in a plea agreement earlier this year when John Edward Green Jr. pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of murder. He fatally shot a Houston woman and wounded her sister in a June 2008 robbery.

The chance that a higher court will agree with Hawthorne is “a long shot,” said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington. But he said changes in an appeals court’s makeup can produce different rulings on the same issues.

“That’s sometimes how laws get changed,” Dieter said. “What’s been rejected before could be seen differently.”

Lollar pointed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy as an example of a jurist changing his opinion on death penalty issues. Lollar said that within a 10-year span, Kennedy changed his mind on whether the mentally retarded and those who are 17 at the time of the crime could be executed for capital murder. Executions of the mentally retarded and juveniles are no longer allowed in the United States.

“Unless you give the court the opportunity to reconsider, how do you change the law?” Lollar said.

A hearing on the recusal motion is scheduled for January before another judge. Testimony in Harris’ trial is expected to begin in May after a months-long process of jury selection.

Criminal Law is Not for Political Elites

Saturday, June 4, 2011 by Salon

by Glenn Greenwald

 

The Washington Post Editors work in a city and live in a nation in which huge numbers of poor and minority residents are consigned to cages for petty and trivial transgressions of the criminal law -- typically involving drugs -- and pursuant to processes that are extremely tilted toward the State.  Post Editors virtually never speak out against that, if they ever have.  But that all changes -- that indifference disappears -- when political elites are targeted for prosecution, even for serious crimes:

The Post Editors, July 3, 2007:

IN COMMUTING I. Lewis Libby's prison sentence yesterday, President Bush took the advice of, among others, William Otis, a former federal prosecutor who wrote on the opposite page last month that Mr. Libby should neither be pardoned nor sent to prison. We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. . . . Add to that Mr. Libby's long and distinguished record of public service, and we sympathize with Mr. Bush's conclusion "that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive."

The Post Editors, October 27, 2007:

The biggest sticking point [in agreeing to a new FISA bill] concerns the question of retroactive immunity from lawsuits for communications providers that cooperated with the administration's warrantless surveillance program. As we have said, we do not believe that these companies should be held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities.

The Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, August 30, 2009:

[T]his is also a nation where two political parties compete civilly and alternate power peacefully. Regimes do not seek vengeance, through the courts or otherwise, as they succeed each other. Were Obama to criminally investigate his predecessor for what George W. Bush believed to be decisions made in the national interest, it could trigger a debilitating, unending cycle. . . . There is a better, though not perfect, solution, one that the administration reportedly considered, rejected and should consider again: a high-level, respected commission to examine the choices made in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, and their consequences. . . . The alternative, for Obama, is a series of debilitating revelations, prosecutions and arguments that could drip-drip-drip through the full length of his presidency.

The Post Editors, November 28, 2010:

THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT that former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) schemed to get around a Texas law prohibiting corporate contributions to political campaigns . . .  .Mr. DeLay's conduct was wrong. It was typical of his no-holds-barred approach to political combat. But when Mr. DeLay, following the conviction, assailed "the criminalization of politics," he had a fair point.

The Post Editors, June 3, 2011:

LET’S STIPULATE: There are very likely good grounds to prosecute deposed Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak. . . . The decision by Egypt’s ruling military council and state prosecutors to begin a trial of the former strongman on Aug. 3 — before the country holds its first democratic elections — is nevertheless a mistake.

The Post Editors, today:

[W]e would not be particularly troubled by the effort to impose a fine [on John Edwards]. But a criminal case based on this novel application of the law goes too far. . . . Mr. Edwards is a cad, to put it mildly. His deplorable conduct would appear to have ended a once promising political career. It is troubling that the Justice Department would choose to devote its scarce resources to pursuing this questionable case.

In some of these cases (Libby, Mubarak), the Post couches its defense of political elites in terms of concerns about the process while claiming they're receptive to the possibility of punishment.  In others (Edwards), the concerns they raise are not invalid.  But whatever else is true, Post Editors are deeply and almost invariably disturbed when political elites are subjected to criminal accountability for their wrongful acts, but wholly indifferent -- if not supportive -- when ordinary Americans are mercilessly prosecuted for far less serious wrongdoing.

And it's not just Post Editors, but their stable of Op-Ed columnists, who reflexively defend political elites when they break the law.  The late Dean of the Washington Press Corps, David Broder, was one of the first and most vocal advocates of one of the earliest expressions of elite immunity:  Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, and Broder repeated that defense in 2006 upon Ford's death ("I thought and wrote at the time that he was well justified to spare the country further struggling with the Nixon legacy").  The Post's Broder also vigorously defended President Obama's decision to oppose prosecution of Bush officials:  "he was just as right to declare that there should be no prosecution of those who carried out what had been the policy of the United States government.  And he was right when he sent out his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to declare that the same amnesty should apply to the lawyers and bureaucrats who devised and justified the Bush administration practices."

Danish laws ban products fortified with vitamins--allege they are threat to public health

Thursday, June 02, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

So-called food safety laws enacted in Denmark back in 2004 have restricted the sale of any food products that contain added vitamins and minerals, and all on the outlandish premise that such nutrients are a threat to public health. And just recently, the country banned Marmite, a popular food spread sourced from the UK, because it contains added B vitamins.

Perfectly aligned with Codex Alimentarius and the recent EU ban of many herbal remedies, the Danish restrictions allow only the sale of fortified foods and dietary supplements that have been pre-approved by the government . And gaining approval works much the same way as it does in the US with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and pharmaceutical drugs -- pay a large sum of money to the regulatory body (mafia) in charge, and purchase approval for your product.

But apparently Marmite slipped through the regulatory cracks, as a single Danish shop that has been supplying the spread to mostly English customers for years was finally discovered by authorities. So the harmless product joins many breakfast cereals, beverages, and other consumer products with added vitamins that have already been banned in Denmark, as it will no longer be permitted for sale to Danish consumers -- unless, of course, the Marmite company decides to jump through the regulatory hoops and purchase approval.

"All the English people here are shaking their heads in disbelief and say that it is insane," said Marianne Orum, owner of the Danish shop that, up until recently, had been selling Marmite. "It's becoming impossible to run a business in this country. We are not allowed to do anything anymore. It is the way Denmark is going."

Meanwhile, efforts are underway to push the same highly-restrictive measures in the US. The recent passage of S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, represents a global effort to thwart national food sovereignty and bring all nations under the same type of regulatory system as that of Denmark .

++++

Marmite made illegal in Denmark
By Bruno Waterfield - 24 May 2011

According to the marketing slogan it is a taste that you either love or hate. But Danes will no longer get the chance to make up their own minds on Marmite after the British delicacy was banned under food safety laws.

The strongly flavoured dark brown spread made from brewer's yeast has joined Rice Crispies, Shreddies, Horlicks and Ovaltine prohibited in Denmark under legislation forbidding the sale of food products with added vitamins as threat to public health.

Many well known breakfast cereal and drink brands have already been banned or taken off supermarket shelves after Danish legislation in 2004 restricted foods fortified with extra vitamins or minerals.

But Marmite had escaped notice as an exotic import for a small number of ex-pats until the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration telephoned Abigail's, a Copenhagen shop selling British food, to ban the famous yeast spread.

"I don't eat it myself, I don't like it but Marmite was one of our best selling products. Not a day goes by without someone coming in and asking for it," said Marianne Ørum, the shop owner.

"All the English people here are shaking their heads in disbelief and say that it is insane. I agree but it is the law. It's becoming impossible to run a business in this country. We are not allowed to do anything anymore. It is the way Denmark is going."

The shop has now started a "Bring back Marmite" campaign to overturn a ban that is seen as discriminating against Britons living and working Denmark.

Lyndsay Jensen, a Yorkshire born graphic designer working in Copenhagen, told the British ex-pat RedHerring.dk website, that Britons would carry on spreading Marmite on their toast, even if it meant smuggling it in to Denmark.

"They don't like it because it's foreign," she said. "But if they want to take my Marmite off me they'll have to wrench it from my cold dead hands."

The sale of any foodstuff with the "addition of vitamins, minerals and other substances" must be first approved by the Danish authorities after a health scare over their effect on children or pregnant women when combined with other foods with high vitamin levels.

A spokesman for the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration said: "I cannot comment on the Marmite case because our expert is away until Thursday."

There Are No More Criminal Laws

There Are No More Criminal Laws
2011-01-04 by Karl Denninger 

 

You think I'm kidding, right?

The 50 state attorneys general probing U.S. foreclosure practices will first settle with the five largest loan servicers, including Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said.

Oh, so 150,000+ bogus affidavits - each an alleged count of perjury (and perhaps forgery) will lead to a felony criminal charge, right?

The group isn’t pursuing a criminal investigation, Miller said. “Our focus is to reform the servicing process and that’s inherently civil, not criminal,” he said.

I see. So the standard is that if you're a bank, you can break the law.  

Any law - and it's not criminal.  At worst it's a civil matter.  Maybe.

It's not criminal to break into someone's home when you have no right to be there (as has been documented in multiple cases) - if you're a bank, or employed by one.  And it's not criminal to falsely swear before a court - if you're a bank, or employed by one.

This is sorta like how it wasn't criminal to launder drug money - if you're a bank, or wire money to a prohibited nation (for alleged terrorist uses) - if you're a bank, or to be involved in a massive bribery and other associated events scheme over a sewer system - if you're a bank, or to rig bids in the municipal debt markets - again, if you're a bank.

Well, it seems to me that if this is the standard for a bank, then the people are well within their rights to decide that the precise same standard shall apply to conduct directed at a bank. 

That would be fair and just, right?

One would hope not.  But hope is not a strategy, nor is it a reasonably expectation.  Instead, we have the mealy-mouthed so-called "law enforcement" folks from our states who cannot in fact be bothered to..... enforce the law.

And here I thought our State AGs would actually perform their jobs and prosecute.

I guess not - after all, nobody has when it was drug money laundering, terrorist funding or ripping off state and local governments.

Why change the record now?