Mark Mimura Named Canyon Co. Public Defender

The current contract holders, Wiebe & Fouser, have sued the county for terminating their contract and for providing inadequate resources for indigent defense. A hearing on their motion for injunctive relief is set for July 7.

http://www.idahopress.com/news/?id=24372

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/818058.html?story_link=email_msg

Juveniles in Adult Confinement at Heightened Risk of Sexual Victimization

The Prison Rape Elimination Commission, created by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, issued its final report this week.

Prison sexual abuse is common. A 2007 survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that 4.5 percent of prisoners had experienced some form of sexual abuse within the previous 12 months. While 4.5% might seem insignificant, it is more than 65,000 victims given the large number of prisoners.

The full report is 276 pages long and I haven't read it, but while skimming it one of the Commission's findings stood out: "Juveniles in confinement are much more likely than incarcerated adults to be sexually abused, and they are particularly at risk when confined with adults."

We all suspected this, of course, but with the way Idaho Courts are waiving juveniles into adult courts even when all the experts agree it is not appropriate and then handling out lengthy prison sentences like Halloween candy, it might be worth citing this study to prosecutors and judges.

The full report can be found at: http://nprec.us/files/pdfs/NPREC_FinalReport.PDF

Bastille Day RSVP Link Fixed

The RSVP link on the right hasn't been working for everyone, but I think I've fixed it.

Please give it a try and let us know that you're coming to the party.

SCOTUS Opinions Today

SCOTUS issued opinions interpreting the Fourth and Sixth Amendments today.

In the Confrontation Clause case, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Court held, 5-4, that a lab chemist must be called to testify in order to admit at trial an analysis that certain substance was cocaine. (We need to read this case with an eye toward challenging the admission of BAC readings in DUI cases without expert testimony.)http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-591.pdf.


In the Fourth Amendment case, the Court held that a strip search of a 13-year-old by school officials who suspected her of possessing prescription strength ibuprofen was unreasonable. (Nevertheless, the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity because the law in this area was not clearly established.) Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf


I believe this completes the criminal law related cases before the Court this term. The final cases will be released on Monday.

Thanks JD. Job Well Done.

Thanks for filling in as SCOIDBlog administrator. And, by the way, that outfit works for you.

I'm back from the land of deep fried cod and soggy chips. (Flaccid Fries?) There's a lot of history in Britain and, as they say, it could have been ours too, if we'd only paid our taxes. Luckily we didn't. While I was there, their appellate court upheld the application of a statute which takes away the right to a jury trial.

In the case at question, the defendant is charged with an armed robbery where 1.75 million pounds was stolen. (That's a lot of money, even in a country where a mini-pizza and a pint of beer can set you back $30.) At his first trial, he had a heart attack, but his co-defendants were acquitted. At the second, the jury hung. The third was a mistrial after allegations of jury tampering were made by the government. (Ironically, the cost of the three trials has been about 22 million pounds!)

Pursuant to a 2003 statute, a defendant can be tried before a single judge if there is a "real and present danger" that jury tampering will occur. However, no evidence of jury tampering has ever been presented in open court or even given to defense lawyers. One of his solicitors said that "The ruling has been made on the basis of secret material which we have never seen, presented by witnesses whose identity – other than their rank in the Metropolitan police – has not been disclosed to us."

According to the Times of London this will be the first non-jury criminal trial in England in the last 400 years!

Disappointing news from the land that gave us the right to a trial by jury.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/18/john-twomey-trial-without-jury

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6528322.ece

Interesting SCOTUS Opinions Released Today!

Quoting the SCOTUS Blog, (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/), the SCOTUS ruled today, 5-4, "that an individual whose criminal conviction has become final does not have a constitutional right to gain access to evidence so that it can be subjected to DNA testing to try to prove innocence." The case, District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, and can be found here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-6.pdf

In a second opinion released today, "the Court, dividing 6-3, decided that if a jury finds an individual not guilty on some counts, but can’t agree on the others, prosecutors may not try that individual again on the “hung” counts if they had a common element with those on which the jury acquitted." Yeager v. U.S. Following the lead of the infamous maverick state governor, credit is due to the SCOTUS Blog. The opinion can be retrieved here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-67.pdf

Gone for summer but not finished with business...

Today, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals finished their respective Spring 2009 terms. The Court of Appeals will begin its Fall 2009 term on August 18th, while the Supreme Court will resume on August 19th.

In the interim, there are several outstanding opinions due in notable criminal appeals. A brief highlight of the opinions we can look forward to in the upcoming weeks includes: Valvold v. State, where the Supreme Court will evaluate the retroactivity of Estrada; State v. Turpen, where the Supreme Court will hopefully provide guidance and teeth to Idaho's expungement statute; and State v. Meister, (on review from the Court of Appeals) where the Court will evaluate, among other things, the admissibility of alternate perpetrator evidence.