News from Mississippi
|
Man's capital punishment successfully appealed hours before his scheduled execution
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
|
|---|
| In an unprecedented decision, a Mississippi man's lethal injection was postponed indefinitely by the state's Supreme Court just hours before his execution.[3]
Willie Jerome Manning, convicted of killing two college students in 1994 and scheduled to be executed on May 7, appealed last week to retest DNA evidence for hair and fingernail samples linked to the crime. The request came in light of a recent FBI acknowledgement that, during the 1994 hearing, one of its agents had given erroneous testimony about evidence analysis.[3]
The agent, Chester E. Blythe, had testified that hair from an African American had been found in one of the victims cars, a statement which, according to the Justice Department, "exceeded the limits of science." They determined that it was out of an examiner's scope to attribute the hairs to a particular race and that Blythe should have instead only testified that the hairs had traits similar to those of an African American. There was speculation that this element of the case was only highlighted out of racial prejudice, as Manning is black.[3][4]
David Voisin, Manning's lawyer, wrote in the appeal,
| “
|
Willie Manning is about to be put to death based in part on testimony that the FBI and the Department of Justice now admit was false. Mississippi officials cannot stand by and let this execution proceed.[3][2]
|
”
|
Added the court's only black jurist, Associate Justice Leslie D. King,
| “
|
It is clear that the sole purpose in presenting the hair evidence was to have the jury conclude (1) hair from an African American was found in the car . . . (2) Manning is an African American, (3) therefore, Manning killed [the victims].[3][2]
|
”
|
The stay of execution, granted by the court in an 8-1 majority, will give the FBI time to retest the DNA evidence with new technology before further evaluating the case.[5] |
|
|
News from New York
|
Court rules teacher can't be fired for inappropriate Facebook post
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
|
|---|
| The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division has protected the job of Christine Rubino, a teacher who turned to Facebook to vent her frustrations about her students.
The Facebook post, which followed news of the drowning of a NYC student during a field trip, was as follows:
| “
|
After today, I am thinking the beach sounds like a wonderful idea for my 5th graders! I HATE THEIR GUTS! They are the devils (sic) spawn![6][2]
|
”
|
When one of Rubino's friends commented about letting a student float away. Rubino responded, "I wld (sic) not throw a life jacket in for a million!!”[6]
One of Rubino's Facebook friends told the school's assistant principal about the remarks, which led to an investigation and a recommendation by a hearing officer to terminate her. However, Rubino challenged the recommendation and was supported in both trial and intermediate appellate courts.
The courts pointed to Rubino's 15 years of experience as a teacher and the fact that her comments did not reach any of her students, but only her Facebook friends. The trial court stated,
| “
|
[W]hile students must learn to take responsibility for their actions, they should also know that sometimes there are second chances and that compassion is a quality rightly valued in our society.[6][2]
|
”
|
The Appellate Division, in their ruling on May 7, 2013, explained that the termination "has been held to shock one's sense of fairness where the petitioner had a long and otherwise unblemished employment history.”[6] |
|
|
News from Tennessee
|
Horse-soring suspect charged and evicted
Court: Blount County General Sessions Court, Tennessee
|
|---|
| On May 8, 2013, Blount County General Sessions Court Judge William R. Brewer ordered Larry Joe Wheelon evicted from a horse barn he had been renting in Maryville, Tennessee. The owners of the barn sought his eviction after Wheelon had been charged with aggravated cruelty to livestock.[7]
Earlier this year, on April 18, the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Agriculture raided Wheelon’s barn and found nineteen horses with their legs wrapped in plastic, a chemical odor in the air, and nearby containers of mustard oil – all indicative signs of soring.[8]
Soring, according to the Humane Society of the United States, involves the “intentional infliction of pain to a horse's legs or hooves in order to force the horse to perform an artificial, exaggerated gait. Caustic chemicals—blistering agents like mustard oil, diesel fuel, and kerosene—are applied to the horse's limbs, causing extreme pain and suffering.”[9] Such a practice is widely used in the Tennessee Walking Horse Show industries, where judges often reward the horses whose artificial gaits, known as the “Big Lick” gait, can be contrived by the practice of soring.[9]
Other methods of soring include pressure shoeing, whereby either a foreign object, such as a screw or golf ball, is inserted between the front hooves and the shoes, or the hooves are cut painfully close to the quick and the horse shoe is nailed directly on to the exposed and often bleeding surface. Another method involves the use of chemicals to cause open wounds to the front legs and then wrapping metal chains around the legs so that the chains continue to abrade the sores each time the horse walks. The prized Big Lick gait is then accomplished when the horse must shift its weight to its back legs in order to avoid the pain caused by the soring to its front hooves.[9]
Soring is often used on the Tennessee Walking Horse which has been bred to create a distinct gait and docile nature. The practice of soring has been illegal since the passage of the Horse Protection Act (HPA) in 1970, a federal law that specifically addresses soring and is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).[10]
In addition to his eviction, Wheelon has been charged with one felony count of animal cruelty and may face additional charges. He is currently out on a $5,000 bond and will appear in court later this month.[8]
The horses were seized by the Blount County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and, in conjunction with Horse Haven Rescue of Tennessee and the Humane Society of the U.S. and Tennessee, were transported to an undisclosed location where they are now in the process of recovery and doing great.[8] |
|
|
News from Utah
|
Grandmother's adoption fight gives more people a 'right to be heard in court'
Court: Utah Supreme Court
|
|---|
| In 2011, Seana Collins fought hard to prevent a foster family from adopting her grandson. The child of her 14-year-old daughter, Collins raised the boy as if he were her own until 2010, when the state removed the boy from her home due to parental neglect (on the part of the 14-year-old). When Collins petitioned for custody but failed repeatedly to meet the deadlines imposed by the state to prove she was a fit guardian, the state allowed another family to adopt the child, who is now 5 years old. The state is strict with its designated deadlines, explaining that they are important because moving from family to family is traumatic for a child.[11]
Collins was unable to afford counsel when she initially brought suit in 2011, but she now has a team of attorneys. Those lawyers have taken her appeal all the way to the Utah Supreme Court. On May 9, 2013, that court determined that the juvenile court which first heard the case erred when it allowed the adoption to proceed as a result of a procedural/clerical problem. As a result, the case has been remanded for a new hearing.
The question presented during oral arguments, heard in October 2012, was "whether an apparent filing mistake should prevent Collins from being considered to adopt him."[11]
Justice Thomas Rex Lee appeared to be disappointed with the rigid procedural decision of the juvenile court. He stated,
| “
|
putting blinders on and ignoring a competing adoption petition, particularly when it’s a relative . . . how can that be in the best interests of the child?[11][2]
|
”
|
"Best interests of the child" is a popular phrase in family law. It is the typical standard by which cases concerning anything related to a child's well-being are usually decided. It is broad in scope, thus covering an immense amount of concerns, including who is best suited to care for a parent-less child.[12]
Though the state was quick to point out that the Utah Supreme Court's ruling does nothing to currently change the custody situation, Collins’ attorney Ronald Wilkinson praised the decision. He explained that it sets a precedent for putting the best interests of children first.[13] Further, another attorney representing Collins, Sara Pfrommer, said "the decision means everyone who has an interest in adopting a child now has the right to be heard in court."[13]
Collins will get another day in court to prove she is a able to care for her grandson, though the battle may be harder this time around. She will now oppose not only the state but the boy’s adoptive parents. |
|
|
