Criminal Defense News of the Week
by: Sduclos • November 20, 2012 • no comments
2,000 Exonerations in 23 Years There is no official record system for exonerations of convicted criminals in the country. Instead, interest groups and researchers have been left to their own devices to comb state records to determine the number of people who were convicted and later exonerated of their charges. According to a new report by the University of Michigan and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern, that number is now 2,000 for the past 23 years. See more on CBS News.
'Clatsop County DA Makes a Grab for Astoria DUIIs' A Marion County Circuit Court Judge ruled that all cases of DUIIs in Astoria should go to the Clatstop County DA rather than to the city's municipal department. Clatsop County DA Josh Marquis says there were wide discrepancies in how the DUII cases were being handled by Astoria city attorneys which prompted his efforts to take over the cases. See more in the Oregonian.
Civil Forfeiture Law - Evading State Law and Making Bucks Local police departments can get around state civil forfeiture law under a federal statute that allows for "equitable sharing" between local and federal government. This means that the local department can collect a greater portion of the bounty by working with the feds than just following state law and collecting it themselves. Here's just one example of the madness: Tewsksbury, Mass. is colluding with the feds to take a 50-year old (and unmortgaged) motel from a mom and pop because over the course of 10 years, about 30 customers were arrested on drug charges. The feds claim that the motel rooms were an instrument to the crime and thus subject to forfeiture. For more, read the Washington Post article.
SCOTUS Grants Cert on FISA Challenge Last Monday, SCOTUS agreed to hear a case concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the government to wiretap international communications. Along with other groups, attorneys representing prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay argue that the law violates their rights under the Fourth Amendment and forces them to communicate with their clients in person exclusively to avoid the surveillance. Read more in NYT.
