Initial, Hastily-Scribbled Thoughts on the Darren Wilson Grand Jury

[By popular request (i.e. at least one person), here are some thoughts* I jotted down on Facebook earlier today, partly in response to articles on NPR and Vox. Edited to correct spelling/grammar/formatting only.]

In a nutshell, the prosecutor presented exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, lobbed softball questions at the prospective defendant, and did just about everything he could to soft-pedal the case—given that the grand jury is supposed to be the time when the prosecutor presents a one-sided, self-serving narrative of the case in order to secure a conviction, I’m inclined to call bullshit on the whole thing.

A few other points:

1. Double jeopardy does not attach at the grand jury stage, so there is no legal reason why another grand jury couldn’t meet and indict Wilson. He is not “exonerated,” nor is he “not guilty” in a legal sense. In just about any other criminal proceeding, the prosecutor would be explaining that to us, instead of the other way around. Continue reading

Share

Bribery in a post-Citizens United World

If money is “speech” in an electoral context, what about during the course of governance?

Could direct payment of cash, or some other thing of value, to an official in exchange for some official action, or forbearance from some official action, be construed as a very convincing argument that is protected by the First Amendment?

To give an example, suppose two people have separate meetings with an official regarding a pending application for, say, a building permit. The first person is a resident of a neighborhood that adjoins the property on which the proposed project will be built. That person explains to the official that the project will cause substantial noise pollution at all hours of the day and night, will depress property values to a significant degree, and will cause all of the residents of the neighborhood to develop a non-fatal condition that causes them to grow additional heads that emit flatulence from their mouths, which will cause unemployment problems.

Like this, but I guess with more farts.

The second person meets with the official and explains that the briefcase in his hand has $1 million in cash that will belong to the official if the permit is issued. Continue reading

Share

He Made the Case Pretty Easy for Them

The legal underpinnings of the charge of “attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization” seem like they could become constitutionally problematic fairly quickly, but in this particular case, the defendant sure seems to have done prosecutors’ jobs for them:

An American teenager disgusted with the American way of life has been arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare International airport after he allegedly tried to travel to the Middle East to join and fight with ISIS.

Federal prosecutors announced on Monday that FBI agents arrested 19-year-old Mohammed Hamzah Khan, of suburban Bolingbrook, on Saturday evening before he boarded a flight to Istanbul, Turkey, via Vienna.

They accuse him of attempting to travel overseas to support terrorism which carries a maximum sentence of 15-years and Khan is also charged with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

*** Continue reading

Share

What I’m Reading, October 6, 2014

Battered, Bereaved, and Behind Bars, Alex Campbell, BuzzFeed News, October 2, 2014

Lindley’s case exposes what many battered women’s advocates say is a grotesque injustice. As is common in families terrorized by a violent man, there were two victims in the Lindley-Turner home: mother and child. Both Lindley and Titches had suffered beatings for months. But in all but a handful of states, laws allow for one of the victims — the battered mother — to be treated as a perpetrator, guilty not of committing abuse herself but of failing to protect her children from her violent partner.

***

No one knows how many women have suffered a fate like Lindley’s, but looking back over the past decade, BuzzFeed News identified 28 mothers in 11 states sentenced to at least 10 years in prison for failing to prevent their partners from harming their children. In every one of these cases, there was evidence the mother herself had been battered by the man.

***

These laws make parents responsible for what they did not do. Typically, people cannot be prosecuted for failing to thwart a murder; they had to have actually helped carry it out. But child abuse is an exception, and the logic behind these laws is simple: Parents and caregivers bear a solemn duty to protect their children.

Road Hazard: Recalled But Not Repaired, Rachel M. Cohen, The American Prospect, Fall 2014 Continue reading

Share

Ebola Quarantine in Dallas

You should not panic over the first reported case of Ebola in the United States, specifically right here in Texas (albeit in Dallas, but that’s still Texas.)

State health officials have reportedly enacted quarantine procedures for members of the person’s family. This could lead to our other favorite subject for freak-outs, some sort of shadowy government takeover under the guise of a communicable disease quarantine, or total government incompetence, or some inexplicable combination of the two. I did a Storify to explain why you shouldn’t worry about that, either.

Share

The Statute of Limitations Is Probably Less than 3,000+ Years

So it seems unlikely that any sort of legal claim would succeed here:

There is virtually no evidence outside the Bible that the ancient Jews fled Egypt in an exodus, but one Egyptian political scientist says they fled with gold and treasures and now they must give it all back — with 3000 years worth of interest, of course.

Good luck, I guess, though.

Share

Inciting Violence

There may be a serious problem with understanding the legal definition of “incitement”:

Fox News contributor Father Jonathan Morris on Sunday called for officials in Oklahoma City to shut down a Satanic black mass because he said worshippers were “inciting violence” by mocking Christians.

***

[I]n a segment titled “The Fight For Faith” on Sunday, Morris explained to the hosts of Fox & Friends that he felt “bad” for anyone who participated in the event.

“You get yourself into something that is, first of all, satanic, that is supernatural,” he said. “They believe that as soon as you connect yourself with evil, evil stuff happens. I feel very bad for them.”

Morris acknowledged that Satanists had a “political right” to worship, but he said that the city also had a “responsibility to defend the good governance of its people.” Continue reading

Share

You May Keep Your Backwoods Stereotypes

You know how people sometimes mock certain states of the union as being backward places that allow first cousins to get married? Have you ever wondered how many of those places actually allow that? After a friend brought it up on Facebook yesterday, I decided to waste a fair amount of time doing some research—miraculously, without ever having to Google anything related to marrying one’s first cousin.

Laws against marrying family members are based on concepts of consanguinity, a word which shows up in many of these statutes. A first cousin is in the fourth degree of consanguinity.

I was just curious to see how the stereotypes held up to actual law. I only looked at the U.S. states that seem like they might most often fit into a certain stereotype. As it happens, they are all “southern” states. Some of the states that have perhaps been the subject of the most mockery actually do not allow first-cousin marriage, while others—including my home state of Texas—do.

Later, I might look at the states whose denizens might consider themselves more cultured or enlightened to see what their laws have to say. (Spoiler alert: you can legally marry your first cousin in California and New York.) With regard to the “southern states,” six states do not allow first cousins to get married, and eight do.

I had research help from a website called CousinCouples.com, which actually exists.

No First Cousins: Continue reading

Share

Points for Effort in the Marriage Equality Cases?

The oral arguments in the Seventh Circuit case involving the marriage statutes in Indiana and Wisconsin sounds like they were extremely uncomfortable for those states’ attorneys general. In a way, I feel bad for the two attorneys who had to argue the case, but then again, they were trying to steer an obviously sinking ship. Ed Brayton posted some highlights from the hearing. This bit between the judges and Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher seems like the trial advocacy equivalent of being rapped on the hand with a ruler:

JUDGE POSNER: “You allow the homosexual couples to adopt. Why don’t you want their children to have the same advantages as children adopted by heterosexual couples?”

FISHER: “The question is what can we do to nudge heterosexual couples who may produce children, you know, unintentionally to plan for this—to plan for the consequences and appreciate the consequences of sexual behavior. Those consequences don’t arise with same-sex couples. It’s not in the context of adoption that marriage—”

JUDGE POSNER: “But you’re not answering my question. You’ve got millions of adopted children, and a lot of them—200,000 or more—are adopted by same-sex couples. Why don’t you want their children to be as well off as the adopted children of heterosexual couples?” Continue reading

Share

Ferrari v. Deadmau5, the Nyan Cat Debacle

Deadmau5, the DJ with the quirky sense of spelling, bought a Ferrari 458 Italia and tricked it out with a Nyan Cat wrap. He called it the Purrari. I say “called” because he removed the wrap after receiving a cease and desist letter from Ferrari. Someone asked me about the legal issues, I guess because I still play a lawyer on Facebook, so I looked into it.

It sounds like the issue is with his modification of the Ferrari emblem. Deadmau5 hasn’t released the actual C&D letter, but he has apparently said that it mostly involved the modified logo on the car and the floormats.

As a general rule, I think that (a) a person can do whatever they want with property they purchase, but (b) the seller might continue to own intellectual property rights associated with that product. I bought the Macbook on which I am typing this, and I am free to slap bumper stickers on it or use a marker to make the Apple logo look like a butt. I do not have any rights to use the Apple logo elsewhere, though. That doesn’t describe Deadmau5’s situation for several reasons. Continue reading

Share