- Posted March 02, 2011
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
SUPREMECOURTNOTEBOOK
Court says dying witness statement OK at trial
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a defendant in a murder trial who wanted to exclude the dying victim's identifying statements because the accused shooter had no chance to cross-examine the victim.
The court voted 6-2 that when the statements are made to police officers who are trying to deal with an "ongoing emergency," they can be admitted at trial without violating the Constitution's mandate that the accused have the chance to confront the witnesses against them.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the court's majority opinion over a furious dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia.
In this case, Anthony Covington, the victim of a shooting in Detroit, died hours after police found him in a parking lot with a gunshot wound to his abdomen. The victim identified his assailant as Richard Perry Bryant, who was later arrested, tried and convicted of the crime. Michigan's Supreme Court ordered a new trial, ruling that the statements should not have been admitted into evidence.
But Sotomayor said the Michigan court ruling could not stand. "At bottom, there was an ongoing emergency here where an armed shooter, whose motive for and location after the shooting were unknown, had mortally wounded Covington within a few blocks and a few minutes of the location where the police found Covington," she said.
Monday's decision is the first concerning the Constitution's confrontation clause to go against a defendant since a 2004 decision significantly strengthened the right to cross-examine witnesses.
Scalia, who has taken the lead on behalf of defendants in these cases, pilloried the court's opinion. He said Covington was trying to make sure that Bryant would be held accountable and the police, rather than worrying about safety, were more interested in investigating the crime. "Today's tale...is so transparently false that professing to believe it demeans this institution," Scalia said. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate, milder, dissent.
Justice Elena Kagan did not participate because, as a Justice Department lawyer, she signed a brief supporting the prosecutors.
The case is Michigan v. Bryant, 09-150.
Justices nix church appeal in defamation case
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has refused to toss out a defamation award to a fired pastor, despite claims by the church that dismissed him that its actions are protected by the Constitution's religious freedom guarantees.
The court on Monday rejected an appeal from the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel in Vernonia, Ore., asking the justices to throw out a $355,000 jury award.
Tim Tubra was fired as an interim pastor in 2004 after church officials accused him of misappropriating church money. Tubra sued the church for defamation after he learned that officials had made the accusation public in a letter read aloud to the congregation.
The church argued it has a right to speak to members about church matters without any interference from the courts.
An Oregon appeals court disagreed.
Texas killer
of two loses
high court appeal
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from a death row inmate in Texas whose lawyers say they have been unable to get a court to consider claims that their client is mentally retarded, and thus ineligible for execution.
The court did not comment Monday in rejecting an appeal from Milton Mathis, who was convicted in the shooting deaths of two men in 1998.
Mathis' lawyers said courts have never ruled on their contention, backed by expert testimony, that Mathis is mentally retarded. In 2002, the top U.S. court outlawed the execution of the mentally retarded.
The case is Mathis v. Thaler, 10-855.
Appeal over blocked taxicab rule rejected
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court won't let New York City force taxi operators to go green.
The high court refused Monday to hear an appeal by city officials who want to make cab companies buy more fuel efficient vehicles.
Federal judges had blocked the city's new taxicab fuel regulations.
City officials first wanted new taxicabs in 2008 to get at least 25 miles per gallon and 2009 taxicabs to achieve 30 miles a gallon. They then tried to force taxicab companies to go to hybrid cars by making it more expensive for them to buy fuel.
But federal judges say it's up to federal agencies, not local officials, to regulate fuel economy and emissions standards.
The case is New York City v. Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade, 10-618.
Published: Wed, Mar 2, 2011
headlines Oakland County
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- Judge is accused of using racial slur, vulgar terms and ‘libtard’ label for employee offended by his comments
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Colorado Supreme Court considers whether habeas petition can free zoo elephants
- 4th Circuit upholds $1M sanction for law firm that tried to ‘sabotage’ federal court’s authority
- Don’t give money to law schools unless they teach originalism, conservative federal appeals judge says
- Average BigLaw partner compensation increased 26% in 2 years, reaching this high-water mark