Recently in Federal Court Category

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39726149/ns/us_news-security/

This article was published on msnbc.com by Associated Press on October 18, 2010.  The FBI were involved in this investigation (mainly because it has to do with threats of bombing).


"The trial featured 13 days of testimony by undercover informant Shahed Hussain, who met Cromitie at a mosque north of New York City. Prosecutors also relied on hundreds of hours of video and audiotape of the men discussing the scheme at the informant's home, handling fake weapons -- even praying together."

"Jurors deliberated for more than a week. A judge denied a request for a mistrial last week after a juror came across a document in an evidence binder that shouldn't have been there. The juror was dismissed."


What are the processes that the jury went through?

Do you think it was fair that the judge denied a request for a mistrial after a juror came across a document in an evidence binder?

What would you have done if you were that Judge and presented with that dilemma?

 

Im sure everyone heard about the recent attempted terrorist attack in times square. I personally think it is pretty scary that after all the security precautions that are in use these days at airports and in the United States in general, this could still happen. It kinda makes you think there is really nothing that we can do about terrorism. This article explains that Faisal Shahzad was pulled off of a plane in which he was attempting to escape to the middle east after a car bomb that he had set up in the middle of Times Square inadvertantly didnt go off. Shahzad was on a plane that was taxxing down the run way attempting to take off when authorities demanded the plane be turned around. The FBI has associated Shahzad with the Pakistan Taliban. He has admitted on video that he was behind the attempted bombing. He is facing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction charges. Obama stated that 100s of lives were saved thanks so the actions of an ordinary citizen and law enforcement.  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_re_us/us_times_square_car_bomb

This article is about a mother that gave birth to triplets. During the difficult birth she experienced severe brain damage that has caused her not to be able to raise them. She last seen her children in October of 2007 when they were toddlers, they will turn 4 on June 20th. I dont think that there is a question about if she is able to see her kids. Even if she is not able to fully interact with them. They are her kids and this unfortunate event should not keep her from seeing them. The family of the mother are fighting for her to be able to see her children. The family says she communicates through blinking. Blinking once means yes and not blinking means no. The family filed divorce papers on her behalf, and the husbands says that it is not in the childrens best interest to see their mother. I dont understand this at all... Why would it not be in the best interest for them, no matter what she is their mother! It dont make sense to me how people can be so greedy and selfish sometimes. The court proceding is scheduled for May 13, no matter the outcome, it is evident that this case will serve as a precedent for similiar cases in the future.

 http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/22/california.triplets.visitation.lawsuits/index.html

 

"April 15, 2010

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court takes up a question near and dear to digitally proficient texters: whether their personal messages are private when transmitted over an electronic device supplied by an employer."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125998549

     Most of us understand that when your employer gives you something to use, its still theirs, and a certain level of "acceptable behavior" comes with the privilege of using said allowance.  HOWEVER, we have all heard about people downloading explicit material at work, engaging in illicit chat room conversations on company laptops, and making long-distance phone calls to your family in Japan on the company's dime.  

     With this context in mind, the article linked above describes a situation involving cellular phones distributed to police officers in Ontario, California.  When the phones were distributed to police officers, the lieutenant responsible for the equipment informed the users that the message content was private, and officers would be required to pay out of pocket for messages exceeding the 25,000 character limit per month.  

     A problem arose however, when officers DID exceed the limit, and the lieutenant described feeling like a "bill collector".  He grew weary of this responsibility, and when he requested transcripts of the message content being transmitted by his officers, he was surprised to find explicit language being used between one particular officer, his estranged ex-wife, and another police officer.  

     I circle back now to my first point.  Most of us understand that this kind of behavior is not acceptable on company time, and especially with company money.  However, the officer and others who allegedly sent the "sexy" text messages sued the department for breaking their privacy rights.  

     If this situation only involved police issued equipment, then I'd probably side with the department on this one.  HOWEVER it doesn't, as the estranged ex-wife DOES NOT use a department issued phone.  What about her privacy rights?  

     George Washington University professor Orin Kerr provides the following insight: 

"Does the government violate your rights when they take those messages off the server, even though you're not the government employee?" asks George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr. "And what does that mean for the rest of us, who do have privacy rights, when the government wants to get copies of those communications?"

     If this were an isolated case without possible influence on the rest of the country, that would be fine.  However this same kind of situation will inevitably continue to arise with other agencies, organizations, private companies and the like.  What is reasonable privacy?  What sort of protections can citizens and employees expect regarding their personal lives?  What will prevent the government or others from getting into your "dirty little secrets"?  

     I submit the following guidelines:  WATCH YOUR BACK JACK.  Its sort of like the advice you get from an old sage like your grandparents, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothin' at all".  Obviously the issue only came to trial because of the DISCRETION used by police administrators to view transcripts of transmitted messages.  

Discretion, its all around us! 

In 2001 Rusty Yates received a call from his very calm, cool, and collected wife Andrea telling him that he needed to come home the children were dead. That day Andrea's plan that had been in progress finally happened. Andrea had been suffering for years from post-pardum depression and schizophrenia. She had been on medication for her illnesses and seeing a therapist, until recently when she just stopped helping herself all together. Her family attended church regularly and she, as a woman, was drilled with her being a bad mother. She heard it from her husband and her preacher, and the voice of the devil she heard in her head. She was told that since she was a bad mother her children would be eternally damned, and who wants that to be the fate of her children. So the devil agreed to help her solve her problem. If she killed her children- she was guaranteeing there way in to heaven instead of eternal damnation. So she planned for months the murder of her 5 children ranging from ages 6 months- 7 years. Finally the day came for her to execute her plan. SO she filled the bathtub full of water and drowned each one starting with the 2, 3, and 5 year olds followed by the baby and then her oldest son who actually managed to get free and run- where she chased him down and listened heartlessly to him crying and telling her he was sorry! She then called her husband and the police. She knew what she was doing was wrong, knew she was going to get punished, and was totally alright with what she'd done.

The following site leads to a full case run-down of the Andrea Yates trial: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/5.html