The Texas Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a legislative subpoena cannot stop an execution after Republican and Democratic lawmakers who say Robert Roberson is innocent used the novel maneuver to pause his execution at the last minute.
The ruling clears the way for Roberson’s execution to move forward, weeks after a bipartisan group of state House lawmakers bought him more time by subpoenaing Roberson as he waited to be taken to the nation’s busiest death chamber.
Roberson was sentenced to death in 2003 for killing his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis. He would be the first person in the United States to be executed over a conviction tied to “shaken baby syndrome,” a diagnosis that has been questioned by some medical experts.
A new execution date for Roberson has not been set, but it is certain to proceed unless Republican Gov. Greg Abbott grants a 30-day reprieve. Abbott did not move to do so before Roberson’s original execution date and his office challenged the subpoena tactic used by lawmakers, accusing them of overstepping their power.
The state’s all-Republican high court agreed, ruling that “under these circumstances the committee’s authority to compel testimony does not include the power to override the scheduled legal process leading to an execution,” wrote Republican Justice Evan Young, issuing the opinion of the court.
The ruling addressed a subpoena issued for Roberson by the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. Roberson was scheduled to die by lethal injection on Oct. 17 when lawmakers, in a last-ditch effort, issued a subpoena to have him testify at the Texas Capitol days after his planned execution.
This spurred a legal conundrum between the state’s criminal and civil courts, which ultimately led to the Texas Supreme Court temporarily ruling in Roberson’s favor while it considered the matter. Roberson has gained bipartisan support from lawmakers and medical experts who say he was convicted on faulty evidence of “shaken baby syndrome,” which refers to a serious brain injury caused when a child’s head is hurt through shaking or some other violent impact, like being slammed against a wall or thrown on the floor.
Rep. Joe Moody, who has led the effort to stop Roberson’s execution, said delaying the execution with the subpoena was “never our specific intention” and added that the court “rightly agreed” that the subpoena and lawsuit were valid.
A former drugstore worker in the small Indiana community of Delphi was found guilty of murder on Monday in the killings of two teenage girls who vanished during an afternoon hike.
Jurors convicted Richard Allen of two counts of murder and two additional counts of murder while committing or attempting to commit kidnapping in the 2017 killings of Abigail Williams, 13, and Liberty German, 14.
Allen wasn’t arrested for five more years, while the case drew outsized attention from true-crime enthusiasts. His trial followed repeated delays, a leak of evidence, the withdrawal of Allen’s public defenders and their reinstatement by the Indiana Supreme Court.
Reporters inside the courtroom said Allen, 52, showed no reaction as the verdict was delivered, but he looked back at his family at one point. Allen is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 20. He could face up to 130 years in prison.
Outside the courthouse, people on the sidewalk began to cheer as word of the verdict spread.
Indiana State Police spokesman Capt. Ron Galaviz told The Associated Press that the judge’s gag order remains in place and he believes it will until Allen is sentenced. Allen’s lawyers left the courthouse Monday without making statements.
A special judge oversaw the case — Superior Court Judge Fran Gull who along with the jurors, came from northeastern Indiana’s Allen County. The seven women and five men were sequestered throughout the trial, which began Oct. 18 in the Carroll County seat of Delphi, the girls’ hometown of about 3,000 residents in northwest Indiana where Allen also lived and worked.
Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland noted in his closing argument that Allen had repeatedly confessed to the killings — in person, on the phone and in writing. In one of the recordings he replayed for the jury, Allen could be heard telling his wife, “I did it. I killed Abby and Libby.”
McLeland also said Allen is the man seen following the teens in a grainy cell phone video recorded by one of the girls as they crossed an abandoned railroad trestle called the Monon High Bridge.
“Richard Allen is Bridge Guy,” McLeland told jurors. “He kidnapped them and later murdered them.”
McLeland said it was Allen’s voice that could be heard on the video telling the teens, “ Down the hill ″ after they crossed the bridge on Feb. 13, 2017. Their bodies were found the next day, their throats cut, in a nearby wooded area.
An investigator testified that Allen told him and another officer that on the day the teens vanished, he was wearing a blue or black Carhartt jacket, jeans and a beanie — clothing similar to what the man recorded on the bridge wore.
McLeland said an unspent bullet found between the teens’ bodies “had been cycled through” Allen’s .40-caliber Sig Sauer handgun. An Indiana State Police firearms expert told the jury her analysis tied the round to Allen’s handgun.
But a firearms expert called by the defense questioned the analysis, and attorney Bradley Rozzi dismissed it as a “magic bullet,” saying investigators had made an “apples to oranges” comparison of the unspent round to one fired from Allen’s gun.
Allen was arrested in October 2022. He had become a suspect after a retired state government worker who volunteered to help police in the case found paperwork in September 2022 showing that Allen had contacted authorities two days after the girls’ bodies were found. That paperwork indicated that Allen had told an officer he had been on the hiking trail the afternoon the girls went missing, according to testimony.
Allen’s defense argued that his confessions are unreliable because he was facing a severe mental health crisis while under the pressure and stress of being locked up in isolation, watched 24 hours a day and taunted by people incarcerated with him. A psychiatrist called by the defense testified that months in solitary confinement could make a person delirious and psychotic.
But Dr. Monica Wala, Allen’s psychologist at the Westville Correctional Facility, said Allen shared details of the crime in some of the confessions, including telling her he slashed the girls’ throats and put tree branches over their bodies. She wrote in a report that Allen told her he abandoned his plans to rape the teens when a van passed nearby. A man whose driveway passes under the Monon High Bridge testified that he was driving home from work in his van around that time.
That van, McLeland told jurors in his closing, was a detail “only the killer would know.”
During cross-examination, Wala acknowledged that she had followed Allen’s case with interest during her personal time even while treating him and that she was a fan of the true-crime genre.
Rozzi said in his closing arguments that Allen is innocent. He said no witness explicitly identified Allen as the man seen on the hiking trail or the bridge the afternoon the girls went missing. And he said no fingerprin
“He had every chance to run, but he did not because he didn’t do it,” Rozzi told the jurors.
Allen’s lawyers had sought to argue before the trial that the girls were killed in a ritual sacrifice by members of a white nationalist group known as the Odinists who follow a pagan Norse religion, but the judge ruled against that, saying the defense “failed to produce admissible evidence” of such a connection.t, DNA or forensic evidence links Allen to the murder scene.
The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case canceled any remaining court deadlines Friday while prosecutors assess the “the appropriate course going forward” in light of the Republican’s presidential victory.
Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump last year with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. But Smith’s team has been evaluating how to wind down the two federal cases before the president-elect takes office because of longstanding Justice Department policy that says sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press.
Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris means that the Justice Department believes he can no longer face prosecution in accordance with department legal opinions meant to shield presidents from criminal charges while in office.
Trump has criticized both cases as politically motivated, and has said he would fire Smith “within two seconds” of taking office.
In a court filing Friday in the 2020 election case, Smith’s team asked to cancel any upcoming court deadlines, saying it needs “time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy.”
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan quickly granted the request, and ordered prosecutors to file court papers with their “proposed course for this case” by Dec. 2.
Trump had been scheduled to stand trial in March in Washington, where more than 1,000 of his supporters have been convicted of charges for their roles in the Capitol riot. But his case was halted as Trump pursued his sweeping claims of immunity from prosecution that ultimately landed before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in July ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, and sent the case back to Chutkan to determine which of the the allegations in the indictment can move forward.
The classified documents case has been stalled since July when a Trump-appointed judge, Aileen Cannon, dismissed it on grounds that Smith was illegally appointed. Smith has appealed to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the request to revive the case is pending. Even as Smith looks to withdraw the documents case against Trump, he would seem likely to continue to challenge Cannon’s ruling on the legality of his appointment given the precedent such a ruling would create.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an emergency appeal to remove Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from the presidential ballot in two battleground states.
Kennedy wanted to get off the ballot in Wisconsin and Michigan after dropping his independent bid and endorsing Republican Donald Trump in the tight contest. He argued that keeping him on violated his First Amendment rights by wrongly implying he still wanted to be elected president.
Michigan and Wisconsin said removing his name now, with early voting underway days before the election, would be impossible. More than 1.5 million people in Michigan have already returned absentee ballots, and another 264,000 have voted early, state attorneys wrote in court documents. In Wisconsin, over 858,000 people have returned absentee ballots.
The justices did not detail their reason in an order rejecting the emergency appeal, as is typical. One justice, Neil Gorsuch, publicly dissented in the Michigan case.
The presence of independent and third-party candidates on the ballot in swing states could be a key factor in the close presidential race. The high court previously rejected Kennedy’s separate effort to stay on the ballot in New York, a state where his presence is unlikely to make a difference in the race between Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris.
Kennedy has been working to get off the ballot in the seven key swing states since endorsing Trump. Wisconsin and Michigan are the last two where his name is expected to appear.
In Michigan, he notched an appeals court win but courts ultimately found he couldn’t withdraw as the candidate of the Natural Law Party, which had wanted him to stay on.
In his dissent, Gorsuch pointed to lower court judges who wrote that the timing of Kennedy’s original request to be removed wasn’t so unreasonable that it should be denied.
In Wisconsin, courts rejected Kennedy’s argument that major parties unfairly get more time to switch nominees. Judges there found candidates who miss deadlines to change nomination papers must remain on the ballot unless they die, and a plan to cover Kennedy’s name with stickers was unworkable.
A recent Supreme Court decision doesn’t mean New York can’t enforce laws banning firearms from “sensitive” places such as public transportation, hospitals and schools, a federal appeals court said Thursday, repeating findings it made a year ago.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan wrote that it had complied with a high court request that it review its December 2023 decision in light of a June ruling by the Supreme Court in another gun case.
The Supreme Court also asked seven other state and federal courts to reexamine their decisions, the 2nd Circuit noted.
The appeals court said the Supreme Court case involved a regulation of firearms “quite different” than New York’s.
Last December, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit said New York could continue enforcing laws banning firearms in 20 categories of “sensitive” locations and could require handgun owners to be of “good moral character.”
It also disallowed a requirement that handgun license applicants reveal their social media accounts and blocked a ban on concealed weapons in places such as shops, supermarkets and restaurants.
In 2022, the Supreme Court struck down New York’s old rules, which had restricted guns being carried outside the home to people who could show they had a special need for protection.
A New York gun law passed after that decision made it easier for more people to get handgun licenses but also restricted where guns could be carried. The law, which was passed after a white supremacist killed 10 Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, also banned guns in places such as zoos, playgrounds, schools, theaters, bars, voting locations, buses and airports.
In a footnote, the 2nd Circuit said its ruling comes “at a very early stage of this litigation.”
It said its decision does not determine the ultimate constitutionality of the challenged aspects of the law because the provisions must now be subjected to further argument by lawyers along with historical analysis and any evidence unearthed as the case proceeds.
Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a statement that the appeals court upheld the “common-sense measure” she signed into law two years ago.
She said the law was “saving lives across New York” and was a factor in New York having one of the nation’s lowest firearm mortality rates.
Gun Owners of America, a lobbying organization involved in the litigation, called Thursday’s decision “an incredibly frustrating ruling.”
“The Second Circuit got it wrong the first time, SCOTUS told them so and said try again, and this nearly identical ruling is a slap in the face to the Justices and every gun owner across New York,” Erich Pratt, the group’s senior vice president, said in a statement.
Sam Paredes, speaking on behalf of the group’s board, said it might again ask the Supreme Court to intercede.
“This ruling will continue to leave innocent New Yorkers, who simply want the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones, defenseless,” he said.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement that the ruling was “another victory in our effort to protect all New Yorkers from the scourge of gun violence.”
She added: “After repeated attempts to weaken our gun safety regulations, once again we have prevailed.”
David Pucino, legal director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun safety group that also submitted papers in the case, said the ruling shows that the “Second Circuit had it right before and the Second Circuit has it right now.”
“Gun safety laws remain constitutional since they are consistent with our history and tradition,” he added.
Arkansas voters won’t get to weigh in on a ballot initiative to expand medical marijuana after the state Supreme Court ruled the measure didn’t fully explain what it would do, tossing out the initiative just two weeks before the election.
It’s too late to remove the measure from the ballot — early voting began Monday — so the court has ordered election officials not to count any votes cast on it. The proposed constitutional amendment would have broadened the definition of medical professionals who can certify patients for medical cannabis, expanded qualifying conditions and made medical cannabis cards valid for three years.
In Monday’s 4-3 decision, the justices ruled the measure did not fully inform voters that it would have stripped the Legislature’s ability to change the 2016 constitutional amendment that legalized medical marijuana in the state.
“This decision doomed the proposed ballot title, and it is plainly misleading,” Justice Shawn Womack wrote in the majority opinion.
The court also said the measure did not inform voters that, if approved, the amendment would legalize up to an ounce of marijuana possession for any purpose if marijuana becomes legal under federal law.
In court filings, organizers noted the ballot measure had cited the number of the provision that would be repealed. The group argued that past court rulings said measures did not need to summarize the current law being changed.
In a dissent, Justice Cody Hiland said the court was ignoring decades-long precedent by ruling the measure’s wording was misleading.
“Long ago, this court established definitive standards for evaluating the sufficiency of popular names and ballot titles,” Hiland wrote. “This court has not deviated from those standards until today.”
In the same ruling, justices rejected election officials’ reasons for ruling the measure’s organizers fell short of the signatures required for putting the measure on the ballot.
Arkansans for Patient Access, the group behind the measure, said it would keep pushing to expand the medical marijuana program and that the signatures it gathered showed widespread support.
“We are deeply disappointed in the Court’s decision,” the group said in a statement. “It seems politics has triumphed over legal precedent.”
Arkansans for Patient Access sued after Secretary of State John Thurston said the group fell short of the signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. The issue over the ballot measure’s wording was raised by Protect Arkansas Kids, a group opposed to the measure that had intervened in the case.
Thurston’s office had declined to count some of the signatures submitted, asserting the group had not followed paperwork rules regarding paid signature gatherers.
The state rejected petitions submitted in favor of an anti-abortion ballot measure earlier this year on similar grounds.
The state in July determined the group had fallen short of the required signatures but qualified for 30 additional days to circulate petitions. But the state then told the group that any additional signatures gathered by paid signature gatherers would not be counted if required information was submitted by the canvassing company rather than sponsors of the measure.
The court on Monday said that decision was wrong, saying state law allows a wide range of people to be considered sponsors of the measure.
Groups had already been campaigning against the measure, even though it was uncertain whether it would be put to a vote this November. Family Council Action Committee last week announced it planned to launch a statewide tour against the measure.
“A measure this bad simply has no business being on the ballot or in the constitution,” Jerry Cox, the group’s director, said after Monday’s ruling.
About half of U.S. states allow recreational marijuana and a dozen more have legalized medical marijuana. Those numbers could grow after the November election. Voters in Florida, North Dakota and South Dakota will decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana for adults, and two medical marijuana proposals will be on Nebraska’s ballot.
Thousands of Nebraska residents with felony records will learn Wednesday whether they’ll be able to vote in next month’s hotly contested elections after the state Supreme Court issues its ruling on a lawsuit seeking to restore their voting rights.
The state’s high court heard arguments in August on a lawsuit challenging a decision by the state’s top election officials to ignore a new state law restoring the voting rights of those who have been convicted of a felony.
The decision comes just days ahead of state deadlines to register to vote in the Nov. 5 general election.
Brad Christian-Sallis, a director at the nonprofit civic engagement organization Nebraska Table, said he has heard from those with felony criminal records who were looking forward to voting not just in the presidential race, but on state and local races that affect their neighborhoods and schools.
“It’s absolutely caused a lot of anxiety and frustration,” he said.
Secretary of State Bob Evnen ordered county election officials not to register those with felony convictions for the November election after the state’s attorney general, Mike Hilgers, said in July that the new law was unconstitutional. Evnen had sought that opinion from Hilgers.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of several Nebraska residents who would be denied the right to vote under Evnen’s directive. Because Evnen’s move came only weeks ahead of the November election, the ACLU asked to take the lawsuit directly to the Nebraska Supreme Court, and the high court agreed.
Evnen’s order could keep more than 7,000 Nebraska residents from voting in the upcoming election, the ACLU has said. Many of them reside in Nebraska’s Omaha-centered 2nd Congressional District, where both the race for president and Congress could be in play. In an otherwise reliably Republican state that, unlike most others, splits its electoral votes, the district has twice awarded an electoral vote to Democratic presidential candidates — once to Barack Obama in 2008 and again to Joe Biden in 2020.
Civic Nebraska, a voting rights advocacy group, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit seeking to force state officials to enact the new law.
“Whenever the decision comes, we have a plan to run registration drives and get the word out,” the group’s voting rights restoration coordinator, Noah Rhoades, said in an open letter to voters last week.
The law, passed by the Nebraska Legislature this year and often referred to by its bill number, LB20, immediately restores the voting rights of people who have successfully completed the terms of their felony sentences.
The attorney general’s opinion says the new law violates the state constitution’s separation of powers because he believes only the Nebraska Board of Pardons has the authority to restore a person’s voting rights through a pardon.
Pardons are hard to get in Nebraska, which requires those convicted of felonies to wait 10 years after their terms to even file an application for a pardon, and are rarely granted. The Pardons Board is made up three members: Evnen, Hilgers and Gov. Jim Pillen. All three are Republicans who have been vocal about their opposition to restoring the voting rights of those with felony records.
Hilgers’ opinion also found unconstitutional a 2005 state law that restored the voting rights of people with felony convictions two years after they complete the terms of their sentences. If that law is upheld as unconstitutional, it could disenfranchise tens of thousands of Nebraskans who have been eligible to vote for the last 19 years.
Evnen has said he has not taken steps to remove from the voter rolls those with felony convictions who had legally registered to vote under the 2005 law. But that has done little to assuage the concern of people who have been able to legally voted for years, Christian-Sallis said.
Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2024/11/16 17:37
