FSP-Microcosm News-Global Community Report: Rule of Law

Showing posts with label Rule of Law. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Activist Post Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Program September 25, 2015 cannabis_oilBy Jay Syrmopoulos In a precedent-setting case, a state judge ruled this month that the mother of a New Jersey teenager with epilepsy, who is also her legal medical caregiver, cannot go to her school to administer her daughter’s cannabis oil. The oil treatments, which are legal in the state, control the young girl’s seizures and allow her to function normally in school, according to her parents. In its opinion, the court reasoned that state and federal laws prohibiting drug possession on school grounds takes precedence over the students’ right to use medical cannabis derivatives. This ruling is in spite of the fact that New Jersey has already legalized cannabis for medical use. This court setback is the third such defeat for the Barbour family, who have vowed to continue appealing. According to legal experts, this case is believed to be the first of its kind in the United States. Administrative Law Judge, John S. Kennedy ruled in January and again on appeal in August that the Larc School and the Maple Shade school district are stuck in a legal quandary. If allowed to administer the drug, the school nurse would be violating state laws, which ban the use of drugs in school zones and federal law that deems pot possession a crime. According to a report by NJ.com: Roger and Lora Barbour have sued to require the nurse at their 16-year-old daughter’s special education school in Bellmawr administer cannabis oil, just like the nurse dispenses prescribed medication to other students. Since April, Genny has attended only half-days of school so she can be home for her lunchtime dose of homemade oil, diluted in a small glass of cola. In his 11-page ruling, the judge wrote that the family failed to show that their daughter would suffer “irreparable harm” if she were denied her medicine during the school day. Read More Here

September 25, 2015

In a precedent-setting case, a state judge ruled this month that the mother of a New Jersey teenager with epilepsy, who is also her legal medical caregiver, cannot go to her school to administer her daughter’s cannabis oil.

The oil treatments, which are legal in the state, control the young girl’s seizures and allow her to function normally in school, according to her parents.

In its opinion, the court reasoned that state and federal laws prohibiting drug possession on school grounds takes precedence over the students’ right to use medical cannabis derivatives. This ruling is in spite of the fact that New Jersey has already legalized cannabis for medical use.

This court setback is the third such defeat for the Barbour family, who have vowed to continue appealing. According to legal experts, this case is believed to be the first of its kind in the United States.

Administrative Law Judge, John S. Kennedy ruled in January and again on appeal in August that the Larc School and the Maple Shade school district are stuck in a legal quandary. If allowed to administer the drug, the school nurse would be violating state laws, which ban the use of drugs in school zones and federal law that deems pot possession a crime.

According to a report by NJ.com:

Roger and Lora Barbour have sued to require the nurse at their 16-year-old daughter’s special education school in Bellmawr administer cannabis oil, just like the nurse dispenses prescribed medication to other students. Since April, Genny has attended only half-days of school so she can be home for her lunchtime dose of homemade oil, diluted in a small glass of cola.

In his 11-page ruling, the judge wrote that the family failed to show that their daughter would suffer “irreparable harm” if she were denied her medicine during the school day.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Hmmmm Factor : The death of the presumption of innocence

A dirty secret of the American judicial system is that juries are hardly fair and impartial

Jury selection these days is done with a wink and a nod. (REUTERS/Art Lien)

Imagine you are a defendant awaiting trial on criminal charges that could send you to prison for the rest of your life. You are sitting at the counsel table during voir dire, the process by which a jury is selected before a trial.
The prosecutor asks a potential juror: "You haven’t heard any evidence. How would you vote?" The potential juror responds: "I would have to vote guilty."
Your trial judge pipes up. He's supposed to ensure that you receive a fair trial and that the jurors who will sit in judgment upon you are neutral, objective, and willing to see and hear the evidence with an open mind. The judge asks the prospective juror: "Could you return a verdict of not guilty if the government doesn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?" The would-be juror responds: "I don't think I would be able to."
The prosecutor — who wants this juror on the panel because he wants to convict you — presses on. He asks the juror: "Let's say the victim takes the stand [and] you flat-out don't believe her. In fact, you think she's lying. You look at her [and conclude], 'I don't believe a word coming out of her mouth.' Are you going to convict this man anyway?"
The potential juror responds: "That depends. I still feel he was at fault."
How would you feel if this juror were allowed to join the panel that determined your fate? Would you feel as though you had received a fair trial by an impartial panel, as the Sixth Amendment commands? Or would you feel that the trial judge had failed to protect your presumption of innocence?
My guess is you would feel cheated. I know I would. But yet this precise scenario unfolded in California in 2009. This juror was allowed to serve on this trial. And to date, no judge has declared it a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.
Now, in this particular case, the defendant, Jose Felipe Velasco, was accused of an extremely heinous crime. He was an alleged serial child rapist who had gotten a 14-year-old girl pregnant after having some form of sex with her 21 times. But that should not change our minds about whether this man should be presumed innocent and be entitled to a fair trial. Indeed, this is precisely why we have constitutional rights in criminal cases — so that fairness and due process come even to the despised.
R. Scott Moxley, a veteran reporter and columnist for OC Weekly, brought this story to national prominence this week — and it's a remarkably ugly picture in every way. Not only were the charges awful, not only is this defendant as unsympathetic a figure as the criminal justice system churns out, but the way the case was handled was ignoble, too. Thousands of years' worth of the presumption of innocence shouldn't go out the window just because a defendant is accused of heinous crimes.

Read More Here

.....

The Washington Post

The myth of the impartial juror

By Radley Balko

Crazy story from the OC Weekly about a sex crimes case in California.

After an Orange County prosecutor gave an opening statement, Juror 112 notified [Judge David] Hoffer that based on her own experiences she believes criminals should forgo trials in such sexual assault cases and go straight to prison to spare victims additional turmoil.
The prosecutor then asked the juror: “You haven’t heard any evidence. How would you vote?”
Juror 112 responded, “I would have to vote guilty.”
Statements by lawyers are not evidence, and Hoffer followed up with the juror, according to court transcripts reviewed by the Weekly.
The judge asked if she could return a verdict of not guilty if the government couldn’t prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“I don’t think I would be able to,” the juror replied.

Read More Here

.....

Thursday, August 15, 2013

A New Jersey federal district court judge granted motions for a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of a dangerous state law that would put online service providers at risk creating liability based on "indirect" publication of content by speech platforms.

Cartoon depicting violation of first amendment rights online

Image Source : techfreep.com
******************************************************************************
August 9, 2013

Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction to Protect Free Speech after EFF Challenge

Court Blocks Enforcement of Dangerous New Jersey Law
Newark, NJ - A New Jersey federal district court judge granted motions for a preliminary injunction today, blocking the enforcement of a dangerous state law that would put online service providers at risk by, among other things, creating liability based on "indirect" publication of content by speech platforms.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argued for the injunction in court on behalf of the Internet Archive, as the statute conflicts directly with federal law and threatens service providers who enable third party speech online.
"The Constitution does not permit states to pass overbroad and vague statutes that threaten protected speech. The New Jersey statute created that threat and the court was right to block it," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "Similarly, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prohibits the state from threatening to throw online providers in jail for what their users do and the statute violated that rule as well. We are grateful that the court recognized the importance of these bedrock principles to online libraries and other platforms that make the Internet the vital and robust tool it is today."
The New Jersey law at issue is an almost carbon-copy of a Washington state law successfully blocked by EFF and the Internet Archive last year. While aimed at combatting online ads for underage sex workers, it instead imposes stiff criminal penalties on ISPs, Internet cafes, and libraries that "indirectly" cause the publication or display of content that might contain even an "implicit" offer of a commercial sex act if the content includes an image of a minor. The penalties – up to 20 years in prison and steep fines – would put enormous pressure on service providers to block access to broad swaths of otherwise protected material in order to avoid the vague threat of prosecution.
"Within the past month, we've seen a coalition of state attorneys general ask Congress to gut CDA 230 to make way for harmful laws like New Jersey's," said Zimmerman. "This misguided proposal puts speech platforms at risk, which in turn threatens online speech itself. Law enforcement can and must pursue criminals vigorously, but attacking the platforms where people exercise their right to free speech is the wrong strategy."
Backpage.com separately filed suit against this law, represented by the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine, who also joined today's argument.
For more on this case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/internet-archive-v-hoffman
Contact:
Matt Zimmerman
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
mattz@eff.org