The High Court Rules No Redress in Nevada Courts for Wrong-Doing in Georgia That "Affects" Persons in Nevada

Today the United States Supreme Court reversed a ruling of the Ninth Circuit.  In Walden v. Fiore, the Court held that “a court in Nevada may [not] exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant on the basis that he knew his allegedly tortious conduct in Georgia would delay the return of funds to plaintiffs with
connections in Nevada.”  The Court reasoned that “a plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum.”  The Ninth Circuit held that personal jurisdiction in Nevada was proper because the defendant's allegedly tortious actions in Atlanta, Georgia affected persons with a “significant connection” to Nevada.
 Share

OJ Simpson's Chances For A New Trial

OJ Simpson's bid to get a new trial in his Nevada convictions for 19 various felony counts ranging from kidnapping, assault, robbery and the use of a deadly weapon, resulted in a five-day evidentiary hearing from May 13 to May 17, 2013, last week.  Simpson's Petition was filed with the Clark County District Court over a year ago on May 12, 2012.  Various witnesses testified, including Simpson himself, a first in any of his criminal prosecutions, and Simpson's trial attorney, Yale Galanter, whom Simpson claims was ineffective at trial, entitling Simpson to a new trial.  At the evidentiary hearing, Galanter passionately denied any error or omission on his part during Simpson's trial.

Simpson's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not uncommon when convicted criminal defendants have exhausted all their appeals as of right.  The claim is filed in the form of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and is based on an allegation that the petitioner's Sixth Amendement Constitutional right to assistance of counsel was violated and thus unvalidates the petitioner's conviction.  The petition must first be filed in the trial court.  The standard for showing ineffective assistance of counsel rising to a level that violates a defendant's constitutional rights to such a degree that would require a defendant to obtain a new trial is set forth in the 1984 United States Supreme Court decision of Strickland v. Washington, as adopted by the Nevada Supreme Court.in the case entitled Warden v. Lyons.

Under the Strickland standard, in order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel sufficient  to invalidate a judgement of conviciton, Simpson is required to denonstrate (1) that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that his counsel's errors were so severe that they rendered the jury's verdict unreliable.  The Nevada Supreme Court has held that the severity of the errors must have prejudiced the defendant to such a degree that but for the errors, the verdict would probably have been differenct.  According to Nevada case law, in deciding the petition the trial court need not address both components of the inquiry if Simpson makes an insufficient showing on either one.

The Strickland test is a high bar for a convicted defendant to overcome, and in Nevada, defendants' petitions have been denied even in cases where trial counsel admitted to embezzling large amounts of their clients' money, and in cases where a juror subsequently provided an affidavit indicating he witnessed the defendant's trial counsel sleeping during the trial.  Statistically speaking, it is not likely that Simpson's petition will be granted, so we may see an appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court in the future.

Share

Ninth Circuit Takes Up Unique Nevada Voting Law

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral argument regarding the constitutionality of a voting law unique to Nevada.  Nevada voters may choose to cast their ballot for "none of these candidates" in elections, though the choice cannot "win" the election.

The law has been on the books since the 1970's and was challenged last year by the Republican party as being unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit blocked a ruling by United States District Court judge Hon. Robert Jones siding with the Republican party, allowing the ballot choice to go forward for the 2012 national election. Oral agrument took place this morning before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit.

Share

Obamacare Mostly Constitutional, Says Divided Supreme Court

The much anticipated decision is in.  A divided court upheld the Affordable Care Act, dubbed "Obamacare."
The Supreme Court held that under the Act, Congress did not intend the penalty assessed if individuals did not obtain health insurance to be a tax, but that Congress's intentions were not controlling on the Court as to whether the penalty was actually a tax.  Thus, by ruling that the penalty was not intended to be a tax, the Court held that the Anti-Injunction Act is not implicated.  What this means, is that the Court did not dismiss this case and tell appellants to wait until they have actually paid the penalty before coming back to the Supreme Court and asking for a refund. Rather than having to wait until 2014 to decide the constitutionality of the individual mandate/penalty, the Court chose to dispense with the challenge to the ACA now.
The Court next held that Congress could not impose the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause.  But, the Court held, the Act can be upheld as arising under Congress's taxing authority.  In rejecting the Commerce Clause as authority for the individual mandate, the Court explained that the ACA did not regulate commerce so much as it required individuals to engage in it. So a mandate to purchase broccolli is not the next move for Congress.  This is the slippery slope where the Supreme Court drew its line.  The individual mandate to purchase health insurance is nevertheless constitutional.  In upholding the mandate, the Court explained that the tax was not so large that there is no choice but to purchase health insurance, and that not purchasing insurance has no legal consequences beyond payment of the tax.
The Court struck down the penatly assessed to States that choose not to participate in the expansion of Medicaide as being an unconstiutional use of Congress's spending power.  This the Court ruled however, does not invalidate the remaining provisions of the ACA.

   Share

Arizona's Immigration Law Is Mostly Unconstitutional, Says US Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court handed down its long anticiated ruling in Arizona v. Untied States, putting at issue Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB 1070, passed in 2010.  The Ninth Circuit struck down the law in its entirety, and Arizona appealed to the US Supreme Court. Today, the US Supreme Court struck down three of four provisions as violating the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
The Arizona law sought to criminalize the failure to comply with federal registration requirements for illegal alieans, and seeking employment or engaging in work in Arizona while being an illegal alien. SB 1070 also gave authority to Arizona law enforcement to arrest without a warrant anyone who the officer had probable cause to believe is an illegal alien, and to stop, detain or arrest to determine a person's immigration status.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution has been interpreted to provide that in areas where the federal government intends that its laws occupy the entire subject matter of that law, no state can enact laws that attempt to address that subject matter.  It has long been held that the federal government occupies the entire subject matter of immigration and that states cannot regulate this subject matter.  In striking down the criminal elements and the authority to arrest without a warrant granted by SB 1070, the US Supreme Court pointed out that the federal government has established that illegal alien status is a civil, not criminal matter, and that the federal government has the sole discretion to make such policy decisions regarding immigration and its enforcement.  The Court stated, "Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime."  The Court went on to state that the federal government has the power to consider equities in forming policies regarding enforcement of the federal immigration laws.
This particular point gets to the heart of the matter.  Arixona's SB 1070 sought to make criminals of immigrants, who may be hard working, otherwise law abiding residents.  This is not Arizona's call. This is the federal government's call.  The scare tactics employed by Arizona law makers that illegal aliens are all rampant, violent criminals, casts a net that ensnares workers trying to make a living and who make a positiove contribution to society.  Enacting laws based on fear and ignorance harken back to some of the darker moments in human history, and should have no part in this country's democratic society.  Additionally, the Supremacy Clause prevents the 50 states from enacting 50 different sets of immigration laws, as the federal government already has a body of law in place. 
The Court upheld the provision of SB 1070 that authorizes Arizona law enforcement to "make a 'reasonable attempt . . . to determine the immigration status' of any person they stop, detain, or arrest . . ."  The Court emphasized that SB 1070 provided that the "stop and check" provision could not be the result of racial profiling and that communication between federal and state authorities was inherent and imperative. 
Despite holding the challenge to the stop and check provision of SB 1070 as being premature because Arizona courts did not have an opportunity to interpret how it will be enforced, the Court specifically left open future challenges to the stop and check provision based on Arizona's enforcement and interpretation of its law.



Share

US Supreme Court Vacates Seventh Circuit's Opinion for Failure to Consider All of Death Row Inmate's Arguments

 The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Corcoran v. Indiana, 558 U.S. __ (2009), to death row 
inmate Joseph Corcoran in his appeal from the Seventh Circuit's reinstatement of his death sentence. 
Corcoran's habeas corpus Sixth Amendment challenge to his death sentence was granted by the 
district court but overturned by the Seventh Circuit.

In granting Corcoran's Habeas Corpus Petition, the district court stated Corcoran's other arguments 
against his death sentence were rendered moot. On appeal by Indiana, the Seventh Circuit failed to 
provide any explanation for disposing of Corcoran's other arguments, which included claims that the 
trial court committed various errors at sentencing, Indiana's capital sentence statute is unconsti-
tutional, prosecutorial misconduct at sentencing, and that Corcoran should not be put to death 
because he is mentally ill. The Supreme Court concluded the Seventh Circuit erred by not considering 
or explaining its disposal of Corcoran's other arguments, and remanded the case for resentencing.
Share