Re: LI Re:
"Steve Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- From: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 5:11 AM Subject: LI Re: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jamez :) Well I can't agree with you here. First off there are medical uses for marijuana. The relief it offers to cancer patients and those with MS and arthritis is unbelievable. And now some states are finally realizing that there is a use for it where it can help people instead of just taking it to get "high". A few months ago I was having a problem with my eyes which resulted in me having a migraine for 5 weeks, it ended up being to do with my eye sight but they couldn't test for glasses until the migraine had gone as I had lost most of the sight in my right eye. But anyway I had got very little sleep in that time and a friend called me and told me to get over, I made my excuses and he ended up driving over to pick me up. When we got there he rolled me the biggest joint you ever seen in your life, 10 minutes later apart from having a stupid smile on my face :-) I fell asleep and got nearly 12 straight hours which did me the world of good, it was the only thing in that time that helped as I was on very strong medication which was only of minor use anyway. Theres one medical use for you, and another thing which is worse going to work after you had chilled out with a joint or going to work with a hangover? Steve Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI U. S. Supreme Court -Bragdon v. Abbott
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-31 09:25:55 EST, you write: Infertility is an impairment of normal physiological function, not a physical impairment. Ron Ron, can you expand on that a bit? What other conditions would fit the same definition? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI legalization and decriminalization?
Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, I have grave misgivings about the State killing women, even conniving, grasping, selfish ones like Mrs. Buenoano. Her actions against her husband and son were no impulsive teenage rampage, but the deliberate diabolical plot of a woman who coldly murdered the members of her family for money, Nevertheless, I believe that the use of capital punishment against the normally "gentler" sex brutalizes society. If we aren't careful, we could easily regress to the days of puiblic hangings and drawing and quartering. Vi I disagree any guy who has played hockey will tell you that this normally gentler sex, isn't really all that gentle. The capacity to commit evil acts is human not male or female. Evil brutalizes society not a specific gender. Steve Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Monday's Jokes
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IRS letter: Editor's Note: Sometimes a story comes to our attention that needs no polishing or enhancement to make it a good Block tax story. This is one of those. It is a real letter submitted to the IRS in the midst of last year's weird and bizarre denial of dependents, exemptions, and credits. We believe the letter speaks for itself. Dear Sirs: I am responding to your letter denying the deduction for two of the three dependents I claimed on my 1994 Federal Tax return. Thank you. I have questioned whether these are my children or not for years. They are evil expensive. It's only fair that since they are minors and not my responsibility that the government (who evidently is taxing me more to care for these waifs) knows something about them and what to expect over the next year. You may apply next year to reassign them to me and reinstate the deduction. This year they are yours! The oldest, Kristen, is now 17. She is brilliant. Ask her! I suggest you put her to work in your office where she can answer people's questions about their returns. While she has no formal training, it has not seemed to hamper her knowledge of any other subject you can name; taxes should be a breeze. Next year she is going to college. I think it's wonderful that you will now be responsible for that little expense. While you mull that over keep in mind that she has a truck. It doesn't run at the moment so you have the immediate decision of appropriating some Department of Defense funds to fix the vehicle or getting up early to drive her to school. Kristen also has a boyfriend. Oh joy. While she possesses all of the wisdom of the universe, her alleged mother and I have felt it best to occasionally remind her of the virtues of abstinence, and in the face of overwhelming passion, safe sex. This is always uncomfortable and I am quite relieved you will be handling this in the future. May I suggest that you reinstate Joycelyn Elders, who had a rather good handle on the problem. Patrick is 14. I've had my suspicions about this one. His eyes are a little close together for normal people. He may be a tax examiner himself one day if you do not incarcerate him first. In February I was awakened at three in the morning by a police officer who was bringing Pat home. He and his friends were TP'ing houses. In the future would you like him delivered to the local IRS office or to Ogden, UT? Kids at 14 will do almost anything on a dare. His hair is purple. Permanent dye, temporary dye, what's the big deal? Learn to deal with it. You'll have plenty of time as he is sitting out a few days of school after instigating a food fight. I'll take care of filing your phone number with the vice principal. Oh yes, he and all of his friends have raging hormones. This is the house of testosterone and it will be much more peaceful when he lives in your home. DO NOT leave any of them unsupervised with girls, explosives, inflammables, inflatables, vehicles, or telephones. (I'm sure that you will find telephones a source of unimaginable amusement, and be sure to lock out the 900 and 976 numbers!) Heather is an alien. She slid through a time warp and appeared quite by magic one year. I'm sure this one is yours. She is 10 going on 21. She came from a bad trip in the sixties. She wears tie-dyed clothes, beads, sandals, and hair that looks like Tiny Tim's. Fortunately you will be raising my taxes to help offset the pinch of her remedial reading courses. Hooked On Phonics is expensive so the schools dropped it. Good news! You can buy it yourself for half the amount of the deduction that you are denying! It's quite obvious that we were terrible parents (ask the other two) so they have helped raise this one to a new level of terror. She cannot speak English. Most people under twenty understand the curious patois she fashioned out of valley girls/boyz in the hood/reggae/yuppie/political doublespeak. I don't. The school sends her to a speech pathologist who has her roll her R's. It added a refreshing Mexican/Irish touch to her voice. She wears hats backwards, pants baggy and wants one of her ears pierced four more times. There is a fascination with tattoos that worries me but I am sure that you can handle it. Bring a truck when you come to get her, as she sort of "nests" in her room and I think that it would be easier to move the entire thing than find out what it is really made of. You denied two of the three exemptions so it is only fair you get to pick which two you will take. I prefer that you take the youngest, I still go bankrupt with Kristen's college but then I am free! If you take the two oldest then I still have time for counseling before Heather becomes a teenager. If you take the two girls then I won't feel so bad about putting Patrick in a military academy. Please let me know of your decision as soon as
Re: LI legalization and decriminalization?
Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, My point was not that the women involved in these gruesomw murders deserved anything better than they got, but that such acts further brutalize society to the point we are on the verge of killing even our children in lethal chambers. And there are far, far more men committing horrible crimes than there are women committing them. Crime among males is so common that I'm not sure we can afford not to execute some of the worst offenders for our own protection. Women can also fight with men shoulder to shoulder in combat, but again I call upon my own gender bias to say I hate to see them on the front lines in a war. For one thing men are much better fighters. Most women realloy are the gentler sex. These are just one woman's opinion. Vi I still disagree, men and women do think differently and have different approaches to problem solving but if you look, you will see that women have the ability to be just as distinguished in battle or as violent as men. Its just that women have been told for hundreds of years now that there place is in the home and many feel that is right. If you think about it women make great technicians, great pilots, and formidable snipers (one of the best shots in the British army is a woman, she can shoot someone in the temple from 3 miles away) . Not because they are any more intelligent, or aggressive but because they approach things differently. Steve Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Re:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jamez, Nice to see a new face. I see two fallacies in your argument. One, that everything the government does makes sense. And two, if your argument is valid then alcohol and tobacco would also be illegal. Bill On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:36:51 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamez) writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamez) writes: The whole concept of legalising Marijuana here in the states is absurd! The people who are "pro-cannabis" contend that Marijuana causes no physical harm to the human body, and that the drug may also serve as a "painkiller". This argument was obviously thought up while they were high! If there is no proof of the defects Marijuana causes, then why else would the governement outlaw the drug in the first place? The government must have some reason to make marijuana illegal, or else their actions would be unjust to American citizens. One of the primary functions of our government is to provide society with protection, and outlawing marijuana completes this purpose. Suppose a person abuses Marijuanahe/she smokes about ten joints a day. This abuse will inevitably have an effect on the human body, causing the person to get "high". During this ultimate "high", the person is much more apt to cause danger among others (as well as to him or herself), but thanks to our government, people are prevented from doing so. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Which Polls Do You Believe?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:26:38 -0800 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Creative statistics" is certainly nothing new, but is unquestionably an area in which Bill Clinton and his friends excel. Take for instance the President's sky-high job approval numbers. While the media marvels that, despite everything, people are generally happy with a President who isn't rocking the boat of prosperity, they completely fail to report the real story: U.S. News and World Report's latest poll reveals that fully 50 percent of Americans disapprove of the President as a person, with a mere 36 percent supporting him. Even worse still, Mr. Clinton's support among Democratic women has dropped a whopping 17 percent. In an impeachment scenario the results of this are obvious: Americans might think their accountant or lawyer or nanny competent, but if they caught her taking bribes from family enemies or sexually assaulting their children, her job would evaporate. No wonder the President hasn't given an interview since January 21st. A lack of proof is all that keeps the pink slip away. Twisted polling numbers of this sort will ultimately have little effect, because the legal process will grind on relentlessly, without any regard to them. Ron HI Ron, Are creative statistics also used in the one you posted about the gun law in Georgia? G Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Gun Ownership As a Deterrent?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Kathy, Crime went down in a lot of other areas that did not legalize guns. I wonder how they explain that one. :) Let's face it. We have the highest number of guns per capita than most any other country in the world. And our crime rate (particularly the murder rate) is one of the highest in the world. Especially when you consider crimes committed by citizens against fellow citizens. IMO, anyone who argues that these two things are not related is simply kidding themselves. I'm not saying that total gun control or a ban on gun ownership should be enacted. But I DO think some common sense controls need to be in place. Many of them have been enacted already, but typically due to the effects of a strong gun lobby, the legislation is so watered down by the time it is passed that it has little or no effect. Until we wake up to the real problem we will continue to have incidents like the one in Jonesboro, IMO. Bill On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:51:48 -0500 Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Most likely they'll say it's a coincidence or a fluke. Crime went down in Houston also when they legalized guns. Yet again people don't like acknowledging that. Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kennesaw, Georgia: having passed a city ordinance requiring every household to own a gun, the town saw a 70% drop in violent crime within twelve months, and has not had a single rape or murder since 1984. In the words of the study, citizen gun ownership makes "crime. . .a risky business indeed!" How do the liberal gun-control advocates argue with the statistics? Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Some Random Comments On The Latest Allegations Against Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:04:33 -0800 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: . I agree with Lott. This one is certainly not like Anita Hill. Bill: You really don't agree with Sen Lott, a Republican conservative, do you? I think his statement that this is not an Anita Hill, means that there are much more substantial allegations against Clinton, than the offense that Anita Hill took at Clarence Thomas' sexual innuendo jokes. Ron HI Ron, LOL...gee, is that like the criticism the right wingers are launching at NOW and other feminists concerning their support of Anita Hill and their lack of support for Paula Jones. Gee, did Senator Lott back ol Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill forhmmmpolitical reasons? And now he's backing Jones et al forhmm...political reasons. As usual, Lott and others apply a very convenient double standard here. And to diminish Hill's accusations to taking offense at sexual innuendo jokes is to completely mis-state the issues in her case. I agree with Lott. The Clinton situation is nothing like the Anita Hill situation. Unless you want to include the political motives of those on both sides. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Yes, Sooz, We Do Kill Kids
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry IMHO this is a post done by a desperate person, as everyone knows the DP and the laws surrounding it have all changed. It's pretty pathetic when you have to go back over 50 years to support your argument. If you want to seriously discuss this issue at least use the laws and guidelines we're under now. It would be like me talking about cruel and unusual punishment that we submit prisoners to and using the example of the men sentenced to work on slave ships. I would be laughed at for that type of reasoning. There isn't a comparison, just as your assertion that the U.S. kills kids under the DP in the US and current sentencing guidelines show that not to be true. Show me one person in the US who was under the age of 18 that was executed after 1972. To save you some time I'll let you know right now, you won't be able to, since it hasn't happened. Yet you can try to find someone. Use current information for a current debate. Comparing the 1940's and the 1990's is ridiculous to me. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - June 16, 1944: George Stinney Jr. (14) is executed in South Carolina's electric chair. He was only 5'-1" tall and weighed 95 pounds. A local paper reported that the guards had difficulties strapping him onto the chair and attaching the electrodes. --- Since 1990 only five countries including the United States have sentenced those convicted of crimes when they were minors to death. With appeals you are correct that 16- and 17-year-olds are likely to mature before we execute them. No minimum age: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington Minimum age 14: Arkansas Minimum age 15: Louisiana, Virginia Minimum age 16: Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Wyoming Minimum age 17: Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas Total: 25 states allow executions for juvenile offenses (Source: Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau) [I have no explanation for the reason the 11- and 13-year-olds in Jonesboro cannot be tried as adults according to news reports. There may have been changes in the law since the above data was compiled.] Damien Echols was 17 years old when he supposedly participated in the murder of three small boys. He was convicted in West Memphis, Arkansas, in a wave of hysteria over satanic cults with laughable evidence. In his case some prison guards were actually fired for permitting his daily sodomization by another prisoner on death row over a period of weeks. His prospects for eventual exoneration are quite guarded under current rules for appeals. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Yes, Sooz, We Do Kill Kids
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry IMHO this is a post done by a desperate person, as everyone knows the DP and the laws surrounding it have all changed. The laws I gave you were the most recent I found. I will be glad for any updates. It's pretty pathetic when you have to go back over 50 years to support your argument. If you want to seriously discuss this issue at least use the laws and guidelines we're under now. It would be like me talking about cruel and unusual punishment that we submit prisoners to and using the example of the men sentenced to work on slave ships. I would be laughed at for that type of reasoning. There isn't a comparison, just as your assertion that the U.S. kills kids under the DP in the US and current sentencing guidelines show that not to be true. Show me one person in the US who was under the age of 18 that was executed after 1972. To save you some time I'll let you know right now, you won't be able to, since it hasn't happened. Yet you can try to find someone. If a 16-year-old commits a murder and is sentenced to die in a subsequent trial, you may find comfort in his sitting in prison for a decade or two while he waits for his death sentence to be carried out. My interpretation is that we kill kids, one of only 6 countries that do. There are currently a number of men sitting on death row for murders committed when they were juveniles. Use current information for a current debate. Comparing the 1940's and the 1990's is ridiculous to me. I remember the 1940's quite well. Slave ships are before my time. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - June 16, 1944: George Stinney Jr. (14) is executed in South Carolina's electric chair. He was only 5'-1" tall and weighed 95 pounds. A local paper reported that the guards had difficulties strapping him onto the chair and attaching the electrodes. --- Since 1990 only five countries including the United States have sentenced those convicted of crimes when they were minors to death. With appeals you are correct that 16- and 17-year-olds are likely to mature before we execute them. No minimum age: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington Minimum age 14: Arkansas Minimum age 15: Louisiana, Virginia Minimum age 16: Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Wyoming Minimum age 17: Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas Total: 25 states allow executions for juvenile offenses (Source: Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau) [I have no explanation for the reason the 11- and 13-year-olds in Jonesboro cannot be tried as adults according to news reports. There may have been changes in the law since the above data was compiled.] Damien Echols was 17 years old when he supposedly participated in the murder of three small boys. He was convicted in West Memphis, Arkansas, in a wave of hysteria over satanic cults with laughable evidence. In his case some prison guards were actually fired for permitting his daily sodomization by another prisoner on death row over a period of weeks. His prospects for eventual exoneration are quite guarded under current rules for appeals. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Black Widow Executed
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 12:12 PM 3/30/1998 -0500, you wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So where's the outrage? Where was the press? Why no interviews on TV? This lady had the same criteria as Tucker did, oh except for one thing she wasn't as young or as pretty. Is that what a women needs to get those against the death penalty to notice her? I'm sure some will disagree with me strongly, but in this case the actions of the silent speak a lot louder than the words of those after the fact. Good question. And I don't disagree at all. They both got what they deserved. Len Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I lost the actual decision when I sent the original. :( So I added it on here. Sue Hi Terry: I thought that this one would interest you. Sue UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER No. 96-1133 -- Argued November 3, 1997 -- Decided March 31, 1998 44 M.J. 442, reversed. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1133.cpanel.html = A polygraph examination of respondent airman indicated, in the opinion of the Air Force examiner administering the test, that there was "no deception" in respondent's denial that he had used drugs since enlisting. Urinalysis, however, revealed the presence of methamphetamine, and respondent was tried by general court- martial for using that drug and for other offenses. In denying his motion to introduce the polygraph evidence to support his testimony that he did not knowingly use drugs, the military judge relied on Military Rule of Evidence 707, which makes polygraph evidence inadmissible in court-martial proceedings. Respondent was convicted on all counts, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed, holding that a per se exclusion of polygraph evidence offered by an accused to support his credibility violates his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. Held: The judgment is reversed. 44 M.J. 442, reversed. JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-D, concluding that Military Rule of Evidence 707 does not unconstitutionally abridge the right of accused members of the military to present a defense. Pp. 4-9, 11-14. (a) A defendant's right to present relevant evidence is subject to reasonable restrictions to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. See, e.g., Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 55. State and federal rulemakers therefore have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence. Such rules do not abridge an accused's right to present a defense so long as they are not "arbitrary" or "disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve." E.g., id., at 56 . This Court has found the exclusion of evidence to be unconstitutionally arbitrary or disproportionate only where it has infringed upon a weighty interest of the accused. See, e.g., id., at 58. Rule 707 serves the legitimate interest of ensuring that only reliable evidence is introduced. There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable: The scientific community and the state and federal courts are extremely polarized on the matter. Pp. 4-9. (b) Rule 707 does not implicate a sufficiently weighty interest of the accused to raise a constitutional concern under this Court's precedents. The three cases principally relied upon by the Court of Appeals, Rock, supra, at 57, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23, and Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302-303, do not support a right to introduce polygraph evidence, even in very narrow circumstances. The exclusions of evidence there declared unconstitutional significantly undermined fundamental elements of the accused's defense. Such is not the case here, where the court members heard all the relevant details of the charged offense from respondent's perspective, and Rule 707 did not preclude him from introducing any factual evidence, but merely barred him from introducing expert opinion testimony to bolster his own credibility. Moreover, in contrast to the rule at issue in Rock, supra, at 52, Rule 707 did not prohibit respondent from testifying on his own behalf; he freely exercised his choice to convey his version of the facts at trial. Pp. 11-14. THOMAS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-D, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II- C, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and SCALIA and SOUTER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which O'CONNOR, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #748
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-31 11:25:29 EST, you write: HI Doc, Most of those shows are scripted and the roles played out by people to incite the audience and suck in the big TV viewers. It's like pro wrestling. Bill That's a relief. I know things are weird out there, but not that weird! Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI U. S. Supreme Court -Bragdon v. Abbott
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah, thanks. I was wondering about things like ostomies, the need for oxygen, etc. Is the line between disability and physiological impairment clear? Doc Clearly the distinctions are not clear and that is why the AIDS patients are seeking restitution under the ADA, I guess the Supreme Court will have to clarify the question: "What is a disability?" Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Anti-Spam Law Passed by Washington State
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron, Are these unsolicited e-mail you're referring to? Or those stupid ads that pop up and you have to click "No Thanks" to continue the sign on process? I get those ads all the time, but no spam e-mail at all. I get a few spam e-mail on juno, but not many. I believe that the law only applies to unsolicited e-mail, certainly not ads which pays for Juno, I guess. Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Anti-Spam Law Passed by Washington State
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:59:26 -0800 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron, Are these unsolicited e-mail you're referring to? Or those stupid ads that pop up and you have to click "No Thanks" to continue the sign on process? I get those ads all the time, but no spam e-mail at all. I get a few spam e-mail on juno, but not many. I believe that the law only applies to unsolicited e-mail, certainly not ads which pays for Juno, I guess. Ron In that case I must be lucky because I don't get any spam on my AOL e-mail account. Of course, as soon as I say that.. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #748
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:20:00 EST DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-31 11:25:29 EST, you write: HI Doc, Most of those shows are scripted and the roles played out by people to incite the audience and suck in the big TV viewers. It's like pro wrestling. Bill That's a relief. I know things are weird out there, but not that weird! Doc HI Doc, LOLbut it IS scary when the evolution of some things tends to take them farther out on the weird spectrum. It's all about ratings, which is all about dollars. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Now this is Amazing!
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A LAWYER WHO took heroin and cocaine every day while trying a murder case in 1984 did not necessarily provide ineffective assistance of counsel, a Brooklyn federal judge has ruled. While asserting that the use of drugs by attorney Michael Noble, who later was convicted on drug charges and disbarred, was "reprehensible," Eastern District Judge Eugene H. Nickerson said it did not automatically establish ineffective representation. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, noted Judge Nickerson in Badia v. Artuz, 95-CV-3212, one claiming ineffective assistance must show that the lawyer's performance fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness" in order to prevail. "Petitioner's claim cannot simply rest on Mr. Noble's admissions that he was on drugs during the entire trial. Petitioner must show that Mr. Noble's handling of the trial was affected by his drug usage." The petitioner, Edwin Badia, was convicted of murder in February 1984 and sentenced to a prison term of 20 years to life. He was represented throughout the trial in Brooklyn Supreme Court by Mr. Noble. In April 1984, Mr. Noble was convicted in Manhattan federal court for conspiracy to distribute narcotics and obstruction of justice. He was later disbarred. After Mr. Noble's trial, Mr. Badia learned that the attorney had been addicted to drugs for seven years. In addition, Mr. Noble later declared that he used both heroin and cocaine every day during Mr. Badia's trial. Mr. Badia moved in state court to have his conviction vacated. That application was rejected and the denial was affirmed on appeal. He then filed a writ of habeas corpus in Brooklyn federal court, alleging that Mr. Noble's drug use during the trial prejudiced him in several respects. First, Mr. Badia argued that Mr. Noble should have presented the defense of extreme emotional disturbance rather than justification. He further contended that Mr. Noble's closing statement placed the burden on the defendant to prove innocence, that the lawyer had failed to hire a private investigator, and that he did not interview defense witnesses until the day of trial. Finally, Mr. Noble failed to inform his client of a plea offer of manslaughter with a proposed sentence of 12 -1/2-to-20 years. Judge Nickerson rejected all but one of Mr. Badia's claims. Mr. Noble's choice of the justification defense, "while unsuccessful, was not unreasonable," Judge Nickerson said. "It is not the role of this court to second-guess the trial strategy developed by Mr. Noble for his client." 'Sloppy' Lawyering Mr. Noble's "misstatement of the law" in the closing statement was corrected by the trial judge's instruction to the jury, "which properly placed the burden of proof on the government," the judge added. As for the lawyer's failure to hire an investigator or to interview witnesses before trial, Judge Nickerson characterized that conduct as "sloppy," but "not unreasonable." But Judge Nickerson did find an unresolved issue regarding the plea offer, noting that testimony given by Mr. Badia and Mr. Noble on that question at a 1987 state hearing was contradictory. Concluding, therefore, that he could not decide whether Mr. Badia actually knew of the offer based on the motion papers, Judge Nickerson ordered a hearing to supplement the record. Mr. Badia, who is incarcerated in the Fishkill Correctional Facility, represented himself. Assistant Kings County District Attorney Ann Bordley represented the government. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
