Imagine being called into a jury and then being asked to submit your fingerprints or social security for your jury background check. Who…me?
Is this an government overreach for people merely serving on a jury? The federal prosecutors against notorious ex-mobster James “Whitey” Bulger don’t think so. They want juror background checks to be done.
In 2003, Gary Lee Sampson was convicted of killing three people in Massachusetts and sentenced to death under a federal carjacking law. Before the execution could take place, however, a Massachusetts federal district court ordered a new sentencing trial based on evidence that a juror had lied during the selection process. Federal prosecutors appealed.
On Wednesday, prosecutors went before a First Circuit panel, arguing that the juror's potential bias is not enough to void Sampson's death sentence, The Boston Globe reports. While questions of jurisdiction were raised, the panel members indicated that they might invoke their authority to hear extraordinary cases under advisory mandamus in order to settle the matter.
What’s the dumbest thing you’ve done lately? Whatever it is, it probably doesn’t compare to the losing streak that is the life of Roldy Francois, a former (and present) felon.
Francois appropriated the identification of Efrain Baez, whose social security card and birth certificate were stolen, along with his briefcase. He then obtained a Florida driver’s license, which was used to purchase firearms, go to shooting ranges, to receive a speeding ticket, and even in the occasional social situation.
That’s all garden-variety stupid — the sort of idiocy associated with your everyday criminal.
It’s a fine line between domestic terrorism and enemy combatant, isn’t it? Dzhokhar Tsarnaev allegedly took up arms against the people of the United States. He committed despicable acts of terrorism and, some might argue, treason. For that, he will face charges in a civilian federal criminal court in the First Circuit, despite calls from many lawmakers to try him in a military commission. It’s the right choice.
He is an American citizen who committed an act of terrorism on American soil. So did Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh. They received the benefits and protection of the civilian criminal justice system. So do serial killers. Mass shooters, like James Holmes, do too, if they survive that long.
Jeffrey Baird thought he got a friendly discount when his friend, who was a weapons collector, offered to sell him a 45 ACP Smith & Wesson revolver — an excellent choice for the money. A quick scan of Internet classifieds yields a price range of around $900. He got it for $200.
The seller, Michael Hatch, claims that he told Baird that the weapons were “hot” and that Baird should’ve known that the guns were out of his price range.
Oh, caveat emptor, Baird.
You might have heard of James “Whitey” Bulger. He was the alleged head of the Winter Hill Gang, also known as Boston’s chapter of La Costra Nostra. During his time as the mob boss, he is alleged to have played a part in the deaths of at least nineteen men. In 2011, after being on the lam in Santa Monica, California for over ten years, he was identified, extradited, and set for prosecution.
You probably haven’t heard of the Honorable Judge Richard G. Stearns. His long and distinguished legal career includes stops, and supervisory positions, in the United States Attorney’s Office. Though his office was not tasked with investigating Bulger, the defendant still argues for his recusal due to the appearance of bias.
Why? To understand that, you’ll need a bit more background on the Bulger case.
As our dear First Circuit court has remained relatively silent for the past week, we thought it might be a good opportunity to discuss an ongoing debate in First Circuit states: the proper limits on drone usage.
As the usage of drones increases, and the acquisition costs decrease (a Maine agency just acquired a $300 drone out of “curiosity”) the potential for a pummeling of privacy rights looms. With telephoto lenses, night-vision, and other photography enhancements, the day where a law enforcement agency can cheaply and easily track and photograph your every move is nearly at hand, and it has many Americans concerned.
The ACLU has a great roundup of pending legislation in over thirty states to limit or prohibit the use of drones. There are a few notable local developments in New Hampshire and Maine that are worth taking a closer look at.
Frederick Gates burned through six court-appointed attorneys, filed a salmagundi* of pretrial motions, entered a guilty plea mid-trial, and then attempted to withdraw that plea. After all of that, he complains about Speedy Trial Act (STA) violations.
Sometimes, if you throw enough crap at the wall, some of it will stick and the court will be forced to address speedy trial issues of first impression. That’s not what happened here.
This week Judge Bruce Selya, our favorite First Circuit wordsmith, explained that Gates’ STA arguments just didn’t stick..
Jason P. Fiume was convicted of wife beating in 2010, which predictably resulted in a protective order. As nearly as predictable was the response: defiance. He attempted to contact her via Facebook, text messaging, emailing, phone calls, and possibly via pigeon carrier, though the pigeons were never recovered. When his overtures were not reciprocated, he traveled from New York to Maine and left a message on the tree outside her parents' house, where she was staying.
The grand gesture was met not with love and reconciliation, but with the federal criminal charge of interstate travel with the intent to engage in conduct that transgresses a court-imposed protection order. He pled guilty, but was sorely disappointed by the presentencing investigation report, which recommended the following:
It is enough to make you defenestrate your lunch. By going beyond the exigible using supererogatory vocabulary, Judge Selya just took the simple matter of appealing a plea bargain and made it far more complicated.
Glen Rivera-Orta pleads guilty to leading a drug ring. The plea calls for a few levels of enhancement and a downward departure. The judge sentences him to the nadir of the range. Like many defendants, he suffers buyers’ remorse shortly thereafter and tries to appeal. Only, he waived the right to appeal as part of the deal itself.
