Supreme Court makes it harder to convict for political corruption.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of a federal statute on political corruption will make it  harder for the prosecution to convict.  The ruling may encourage more corruption.  Congress needs to change the statute but must be careful not to facilitate conviction of innocent politicians.
"The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to vacate former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell’s public corruption conviction will significantly limit prosecutors’ ability to bring cases against politicians suspected of malfeasance and could spell trouble for the Justice Department in ongoing, high-profile cases, legal analysts said.
The ruling, which narrows what constitutes criminal corruption, will be an immediate boon for Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who is awaiting an appeals court ruling in a corruption case, experts said. Lawyers for former New York State Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver (D) said the ruling also will be central to their client’s bid to overturn his conviction.
The facts of each case are different, and the high court’s decision in the McDonnell case provides no guarantees for anyone else. But lawyers said the Supreme Court has forced the Justice Department to reevaluate what it considers criminal when it comes to politicians interacting with those who give them money.

[McDonnell’s case might help others accused of corruption]

“It just raises the standard of prosecution to a very, very high level,” said Jessica Tillipman, an assistant dean at the George Washington University Law School who teaches an anti-corruption seminar. “I think it’s going to make it a lot easier for politicians to accept gifts and hospitality and payments in return for taking action.”

McDonnell, a Republican, and his wife, Maureen, were convicted in September 2014 of providing various sorts of help to Richmond businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. in exchange for $177,000 in loans, vacations and luxurious gifts. The former governor was sentenced to two years in prison, his wife to a year and a day.
McDonnell’s challenge to his conviction was largely based on the argument that he neither performed nor promised to perform any so-called “official acts” for Williams, and that jurors were instructed wrongly on what could constitute official acts.
Prosecutors had alleged McDonnell crossed the line by arranging meetings for Williams with state officials, allowing Williams to use the governor’s mansion for a luncheon on the day his product, a dietary supplement called Anatabloc, was being launched and personally touting the supplement to state human resources officials.

That was part of a broader effort, prosecutors alleged, to have Anatabloc studied by state researchers or included in the state’s health plan.
The Supreme Court ruled that jurors were instructed wrongly on the topic. An official act, the justices said, “must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific.”
“Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event — without more — does not fit that definition of ‘official act,’” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the opinion. The justices remanded the case to a federal appeals court and left open the possibility that McDonnell could be re-tried if prosecutors had evidence to show that the former governor agreed to pressure state researchers to study Anatabloc or force the supplement’s inclusion in the state health plan."
'

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS GUN BAN FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS

fAfter reflection, I changes the original post. This case was not about the Second Amendment, and the Court continues to avoid clarifying the Amendment, not having decided a Second Amendment case since 2010, in spite of the raging controversy over gun control and the Second Amendment.

"The Supreme Court ruled  [6-2] Monday to uphold a federal law that prohibits those convicted of domestic violence from owning guns, regardless of whether the violence was premeditated or not.
The case in question involved two Maine men who claimed they should not be barred from owning firearms after pleading guilty to hitting their partners. Both men had been charged with possessing guns while having past domestic abuse misdemeanor convictions.
The justices rejected arguments from the men that the law only covers premeditated acts of abuse, not acts of abuse committed in the heat of an argument."

See the syllabus and opinion here. One of the problems with the holding is that it deprives the defendant of his Second Amendment right to possess firearms for life, for a misdemeanor. Such strong collateral consequences are usually reserved for felonies.  Here the ban could be imposed for  a misdemeanor reckless assault.  This seems too much of a collateral consequence of a conviction for a misdemeanor.

Sotomayor and Thomas dissented on the statutory interpretation issues.  Only Thomas mentioned the Second Amendment.

“Section 922(g)(9) does far more than “close [a] dangerous loophole” by prohibiting individuals who had committed felony domestic violence from possessing guns simply because they pleaded guilty to misdemeanors. Ante, at 1 (internal quotation marks omitted). It imposes a lifetime ban on possessing a gun for all non felony domestic offenses, including so-called infractions or summary offenses. §§921(a)(33)(A)(ii), 922(g)(9); 27 CFR §478.11 (2015) (de­fining a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to include crimes punishable only by a fine). These infractions, like traffic tickets, are so minor that individuals do not have a right to trial by jury. See Lewis v. United States, 518 U. S. 322, 325–326 (1996).

Today the majority expands §922(g)(9)’s sweep into patently unconstitutional territory. Under the majority’s reading, a single conviction  under a state assault statute for recklessly causing an injury to a family member—such as by texting while driving—can now trigger a lifetime  ban on gun ownership. And while it may be true that such incidents are rarely prosecuted, this decision leaves the right to keep and bear arms up to the discretion of federal, state, and local prosecutors.

We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly. At oral argument the Government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction pun­ishable only by a fine. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36–40. Compare the First Amendment. Plenty of States still criminalize libel. See, e.g., Ala. Code. §13A–11–160 (2015); Fla. Stat.§836.01 (2015); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:47 (West 2016);Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 94, §98C (2014); Minn. Stat. §609.765 (2014); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §644:11 (2007); Va. Code Ann. §18.2–209 (2014); Wis. Stat. §942.01 (2005). I have little doubt that the majority would strike down an absolute ban on publishing by a person previously convicted of misdemeanor libel. In construing the statute before us expansively so that causing a single minor reckless injury or offensive touching can lead someone to lose his right to bear arms forever, the Court continues to “relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6).”

 

TEXAS ABORTION LAW STRUCK DOWN

Although this case did not involve criminal sanctions, they too would be struck down.  For instance, if a physician were criminally prosecuted for performing and abortion without having hospital privileges, that conviction would be struck down as being unconstitutional.
"The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas’ sweeping abortion restrictions Monday, declaring they pose an unconstitutional burden on women seeking to end their pregnancies.
In a 5-3 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the four Democratic-appointed justices to toss out Texas’ 2013 regulations on abortion doctors and clinics. The decision sets a national precedent that will curtail how far states can go to restrict abortion, with abortion rights activists saying it bolsters their fight against similar restrictions across the country.
The requirements that doctors who perform abortions maintain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and all abortions be performed in hospital-like surgical centers have caused more than half of the state’s abortion clinics to close.
The ruling ends a three-year saga that put Texas in the national spotlight for the broad sweep of its attempt to restrict abortion access. The initial effort to pass the law was temporarily derailed by a filibuster in the state Senate, with then-Sen. Wendy Davis drawing worldwide attention for her talkathon to block the law.
In the Texas case, Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt, a group of abortion providers sued to block the laws, saying they placed an undue burden on women seeking the procedure."

Based on existing precedents, this was clearly the correct decision.  I and many others predicted this result when the Court first took the case.  It is difficult to believe that 3 Justices actually belived Texas' contention that protecting women's health, rather than restricting access to abortions was the real purpose of the law.

See the syllabus and full opinion here.

The "Affirmative Consent" Model--is it appropriate for criminal cases?

What should be the standard for proving consent, or lack of consent, in forcible rape/sexual assault cases.  A new concept, "affirmative consent" is emerging, but has not yet been incorporated into the criminal law anywhere in the U.S.   Would such a standard we workable and reasonable in the criminal context--or is it unrealistic?

Consent from the person you are kissing — or more — is not merely silence or a lack of protest, Shafia Zaloom, a health educator at the Urban School of San Francisco, told the students. They listened raptly, but several did not disguise how puzzled they felt.

“What does that mean — you have to say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes?” asked Aidan Ryan, 16, who sat near the front of the room.

“Pretty much,” Ms. Zaloom answered. “It’s not a timing thing, but whoever initiates things to another level has to ask.”

The “no means no” mantra of a generation ago is being eclipsed by “yes means yes” as more young people all over the country are told that they must have explicit permission from the object of their desire before they engage in any touching, kissing or other sexual activity. With Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature on a bill this month, California became the first state to require that all high school health education classes give lessons on affirmative consent, which includes explaining that someone who is drunk or asleep cannot grant consent.

Can government constitutionally make it a crime to refuse to submit to a blood test after a DWI arrest?

Does the U.S. Constitution permit a state to make it a crime to refuse to submit to a blood-alcohol test after being arrested for DWI? The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that it did not.  The statutes are unconstitutional.  They held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless breath tests after a DWI arrest but prohibits warrantless blood-alcohol test after being arrested for DWI.  More specifically, the exception to the general  requirement of a warrant, allowing warrantless searches after lawful arrests,  extends to breathalyzer tests, but NOT to blood-alcohol testing.

For more see this link at my other blog, crimelawandjustice.blogspot.com
http://crimelawandjustice.blogspot.com/2016/06/good-supreme-court-decision-on-blood.html