Lyle Dennison is a long time reporter who is very well respected.  His “beat” is the United States Supreme Court. He writes  in SCOTUS blog about one of today’s United States Supreme Court arguements: 

Argument Preview: Sorting Out Competency

Lyle Denniston Reporter

At 10 a.m. Tuesday, the Supreme Court will begin hearing two cases — for a total of eighty minutes – on issues surrounding claims of incompetency by individuals convicted of state crimes, and the effect such claims may have on federal court review of their cases.  In the first case, Ohio’s state solicitor general, Alexandra T. Schimmer, will represent state officials, and Scott Michelman of the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C., will represent the prisoner, Sean Carter.  In the second case, the U.S. government will have ten minutes in the middle of the argument, largely to support the state officials in the cases.  Speaking for the government will be Ann O’Connell, an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General.  Representing the state of Arizona in the second case will be its attorney general, Thomas C. Horne.   Speaking for the prisoner, Ernest Valencia Gonzales, will be an assistant federal public defender, Leticia Marquez, of Tucson. The full SCOTUS coverage of the case can be found at:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/argument-preview-sorting-out-competency/.

 BIPARTISAN BILL WOULD STOP LGBT DISCRIMINATION DURING JURY SELECTION PROCESS 

(Washington, D.C.) –U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Susan Collins (R-NH) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced a bipartisan bill that would prevent discrimination against LGBT citizens during the federal jury selection process. The Jury ACCESS (Access for Capable Citizens and Equality in Service Selection) Act of 2012 would amend the federal statute to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” meaning that striking jurors on that basis would be prohibited in federal courts. 

“Discriminating against a potential juror because of sexual orientation or gender identity is unacceptable, and it should not be tolerated,” Shaheen said. “Our country is founded on principles of inclusion and acceptance and the jury selection process should be no different.”

“Jury service is an important public service,” Collins said.  “Our bill would prohibit potential jurors from being dismissed for service in federal trials based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

“The jury box is intended to protect the rights of all Americans by providing a defendant with a fair hearing from a cross-section of the whole community, without discrimination,” said Whitehouse.  “This legislation will help ensure that LGBT Americans are fairly represented on juries, and I look forward to working with Senators Shaheen and Collins to move the bill forward.”

“Arbitrary and discriminatory exclusion of LGBT jurors has no place in our federal courts.  We appreciate the bipartisan leadership of Senators Shaheen, Collins and Whitehouse to help ensure every American is guaranteed the right to be judged by a jury of his or her peers,” said Allison Herwitt, Legislative Director, Human Rights Campaign.

“Extending federal jury non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation and gender identity is truly a step forward for the LGBT movement and a notable achievement for the entire LGBT community. We applaud the Senator’s efforts for bringing equality to the forefront of the judicial process,” said D’Arcy Kemnitz, Executive Director, National LGBT Bar Association.

The United States Code does prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin and economic status.  However, there is no federal prohibition on discriminating against jurors based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  Currently, California and Oregon have legislation prohibiting exclusion from jury service in state court on that basis.  Minnesota has proposed legislation that is pending. 

The bill is endorsed by the following groups: Human Rights Campaign, Family Equality Council, Third Way, National LGBT Bar Association, ACLU, Lambda Legal, Immigration Equality Action Fund, Alliance for Justice, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

A number of judges around the country will soon find on the courthouse doorsteps lawyers seeking immediate relief for election contests. Thanks to the Federal Judicial Center, there is a terrific resource available for judges.

http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/autoframe?openform&url_l=/public/home.nsf/inavgeneral?openpage&url_r=/public/home.nsf/pages/1570

The National Center for State Courts has put out a Call for Submissions for its Future Trends in State Courts publication.

This book (which is also available online) is widely read and influential in the court world.  It has often had useful articles on access issues.

So folks might want to think about offering submissions.  The call is below.

Future Trends in State Courts is an annual, peer-reviewed publication that highlights innovative practices in critical areas that are of interest to courts, and often serves as a guide for developing new initiatives and programs, and informing and supporting policy decisions.  Future Trends in State Courts is the only publication of its kind and enjoys a wide circulation among the state court community. It is distributed in hard copy and electronically.

Submissions for the 2013 edition are now being accepted. Please email abstracts of no more than 500 words to Carol Flango at cflango(at)ncsc.org. Visit the Future Trends in State Courts website at www.ncsc.org/trends  for more information.

The current issue is here.

Prior issues are here.

From Pamela Casey of the National Center for State Courts:

The National Center for State Courts began a new initiative last March to assist courts with their efforts to expand access to justice, especially for poor and low income individuals. I am pleased to represent AJA on the Advisory Committee for the initiative and to announce the launch of the new Center on Court Access to Justice for All. The Access Center, available at www.ncsc.org/atj<http://www.ncsc.org/atj>, offers resources on 15 different access to justice topics such as caseflow management and access services, the judicial role in promoting access, and triaging access services. The Access Center also has technical assistance available to help courts gain specific expertise on implementing an access to justice program, practice or service (e.g., starting a self-help center or volunteer legal services program for self-represented litigants). During the next year, the Access Center will offer Access Briefs and webinars on various access issues. I encourage you to visit the new Access Center Web site often and to take advantage of its resources and technical assistance. The Access Center is funded by the Public Welfare Foundation and also works closely with the ABA Resources Center for Access to Justice Initiatives.

Although one might overstate the case, there is a lot of national interest in improving the pre-trial release process in state courts. Chief Judge Eric Washington who recently finished his term as Chair of the Conference of Chief Justices has been passionately interested in the issue. Attorney General Holder has been issued in the issue. The Pretrial Insitute grows, but before anyone jumps to the conclusion that pretrial release will be soon miraculously reformed, pause, take a deep breath, and gather your senses. There are structural issues that inhibit reform. Frequently, there is no lawyer present when bail is set. Once set, it can be hard to get an honest re-evaluation and/or the damage is done. If you spent a few days in jail and as a result  lost your job, to be sure the reconsideration that led to your release is great, but the job may well still be lost. Douglas Colbert’s article is worth reading:

Colbert on Counsel at the Initial Bail Hearing

Douglas Colbert (University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law) has posted When the Cheering (for Gideon) Stops: The Defense Bar and Representation at Initial Bail Hearings (The Champion, June 2012, p. 10-14) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This article suggests that the absence of representation at the beginning of a State criminal prosecution must come to a screeching halt. The criminal defense bar should take a leadership role and dedicate Gideon’s anniversary to making certain that an accused’s right to the effective assistance of counsel begins at the initial bail hearing. Indeed, guaranteeing vigorous representation should be the defense bar’s number one priority.

The United States Supreme Court announced that it will decide when law enforcement officers must get a warrant before ordering a blood test on an unwilling drunken-driving suspect.

The issue has divided federal and state courts around the country, and the Justices on Tuesday agreed to take up a case involving a disputed blood test from Missouri. In Missouri v. McNeely

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_v_McNeely_358_SW3d_65_Mo_2012_Court_Opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court said, ”

The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in the landmark case of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). There, the Supreme Court provided a limited exception to the warrant requirement for the taking of a blood sample in alcohol-related arrests. Id. at 772, 86 S.Ct. 1826. The holding, which was expressly limited to the facts of that case, ultimately rested on certain “special facts” that might have led the officer to reasonably believe he was faced with an emergency situation in which the delay in obtaining a warrant would threaten the destruction of evidence. Id. at 770-71, 86 S.Ct. 1826. The threat of evidence destruction was caused by the fact that the percentage of alcohol in a person’s blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops and because time had to be taken both to investigate the accident scene and transport the defendant to the hospital. Id. These events left no time for the officer to seek out a judge to secure a search warrant. Id. Schmerber held that these “special facts” permitted a warrantless blood draw. Id., at 771, 86 S.Ct. 1826.

The patrolman here, however, was not faced with the “special facts” of Schmerber. Because there was no accident to investigate and there was no need to arrange for the medical treatment of any occupants, there was no delay that would threaten the destruction of evidence before a warrant could be obtained. Additionally, there was no evidence here that the patrolman would have been unable to obtain a warrant had he attempted to do so. The sole special fact present in this case, that blood-alcohol levels dissipate after drinking ceases, is not a per se exigency pursuant to Schmerber justifying an officer to order a blood test without obtaining a warrant from a neutral judge.”

 (Reuters) – The use of special license plates by New York judges is ethical, a state ethics panel has concluded, as the state Commission on Judicial Conduct nears completion on a review of whether judges use the plates to avoid traffic tickets.

 In a three-paragraph opinion released last week, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics said that while it is improper for judges to use the “prestige” of their office to advance private interests, special license plates do not rise to that level. The decision was prompted by an inquiry from an unnamed judge.

 “The otherwise lawful display of a license plate duly issued by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles is not rendered ethically impermissible merely because the license plate indicates that the vehicle registrant is a judge,” wrote the 26-member panel, which is chaired by former First Department justice George Marlow. For the complete story see:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/09_-_September/Special_license_plates_for_NY_judges_are_ethical__panel/. Although the plates create no ethical issue there are security concerns about the use of special plates for judges or vanity plates that indicate that you are a judge. See the previous post by Timm Fautsko of the National Center for State Courts.