|
CHAIR’S MESSAGEgg
|
|
Ken Lay's unfortunate death is a
reminder to us all that the criminal process has a human face. While the
interests of all those who lost money and jobs during Enron's collapse
cannot be ignored, it is also a sad fact that defendants and their families
are often terribly impacted by criminal investigations and trials. These
and other issues will be discussed and debated during the Section's Council
Meeting and at CLE's in conjunction with the ABA
Annual Meeting in Hawaii
next month. I urge all to participate.
▬ Michael S. Pasano
|
UPCOMING EVENTS…
|
|
2006 ABA/ABA Money Laundering Enforcement Conference
Expanding risks,
intensified regulatory scrutiny, conflicting guidance on SAR obligations –
these are all legal challenges bankers are facing every day. On October
8-10, 2006 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, Washington, DC, over 1,000
bankers will assemble to learn ways to address these legal challenges. The
conference not only provides instruction from the nation’s top AML/BSA
experts, it also creates opportunities to network with bankers and lawyers from
around the country. Several sessions are geared toward attorneys working in
the AML arena.
|
|
|
Juvenile Justice Conference August 23rd in DC
From Truancy to Zero
Tolerance: The Changing Border of
Education and Juvenile Justice
Panelists will include Karen
Mathis (Moderator), ABA President-Elect, Denver, CO; Robert Schwartz,
Executive Director, Juvenile Law Center,
Philadelphia, PA;
Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, St. Paul,
MN; Prof. Joe Tulman, Univ. of Dist. of
Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, Washington,
DC; and Barbara Flicker, Consultant, Los Angeles, CA. The program will be followed by a
reception and the Livingston Hall Award ceremony.
|
Criminal Justice
Section Calendar of Events
|
Date
|
Event Name
|
Location
|
|
August 3-6, 2006
|
Criminal Justice Section Annual Meeting Programs
ABA Annual Meeting
|
Honolulu, HI
|
|
August 23, 2006
|
Juvenile Justice Conference
|
Washington, DC
|
|
Sept. 28-29, 2006
|
National Institute: Securities
Fraud
|
Washington, DC
|
|
Oct. 8-10, 2006
|
Money Laundering Enforcement Conference
|
Washington, DC
|
|
Nov. 2-5, 2006
|
Criminal Justice Section 2006
Fall Meeting
|
New Orleans, LA
|
|
Oct. 16-17, 2006
|
National Institute on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
|
Washington, DC
|
|
Feb. 7-13, 2007
|
ABA 2007 Midyear Meeting
|
Miami, FL
|
|
March 1-2, 2007
|
National Institute: White Collar Crime
|
San Diego, CA
|
|
May 10-12, 2007
|
Criminal Justice Section 2007
Spring Meeting
|
Mackinac Island, MI
|
|
Aug. 9-14, 2007
|
ABA 2007 Annual Meeting
|
San Francisco, CA
|
Other Upcoming Events:
(non-ABA co-sponsored
events are listed for reference only and do not imply ABA endorsement)
SECTION NEWSgg
Judge Alex M.
Calabrese has been selected to receive the Lawyer as Problem Solver Award by the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution. The award will
be presented during the Joint Section Reception – “Beyond Borders,”
Friday, August 4, 6:00pm – 8:00pm, US Army Museum, Waikiki, Hawaii.
Judge
Calabrese is
an Acting Supreme Court Justice of the State of New York
and the Presiding Judge of the Red Hook Community Justice Center,
which is one of the most comprehensive community courts in the United States.
NEW RESOURCESgg
On June 8, 2006, the Vera
Institute’s Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s
Prisons released Confronting Confinement, a report on violence and abuse in U.S. jails and prisons, the broad
impact of those problems on public safety and public health, and how
correctional facilities nationwide can become safer and more effective.
The CJS Juvenile Justice Committee
is developing At Risk Youth Project Resources to support ABA President Elect Karen Mathis’s At Risk Youth Project,
including a new web resource on Model Truancy Programs.
At the 2006 ABA Annual
Meeting, the House of Delegates will be considering Proposed ABA Criminal Justice
Standards on DNA Evidence, six recommendations on behalf of the Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions, and a resolution calling on the United States Government to increase efforts to end
the ongoing atrocities in Darfur.
U.S.
SUPREME COURT CASESgg
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (6/29/06)
By a 5-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military
tribunals for suspected terrorists imprisoned at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens
stated that the administration will need to come up with a new policy to
prosecute at least ten "enemy combatants" (a suspect that can be
held without charges in a military prison without the protections of the U.S.
criminal justice system, such as the right to counsel) awaiting trial. The justices stated that the proposed
trials were illegal under U.S.
law and international Geneva
conventions. The tribunals must be
understood to incorporate at least the barest of those trial protections that
have been recognized by customary international law. The decision did not address the
government's ability to detain suspects.
Clark v. Arizona (6/29/06)
By a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that Arizona's
law on the insanity defense is not too restrictive in limiting evidence
defendants can present at trial. The
justices affirmed the murder conviction of Eric Clark, who thought he was
being pursed by space aliens when he killed an Arizona police officer. Under Arizona's law, defendants may be found
guilty except insane if they prove they were so mentally ill that they did
not know what they did was wrong. Writing for the majority, Justice Souter
stated that Arizona's rule serves to preserve the state's chosen standard for
recognizing insanity as a defense and to avoid confusion and misunderstanding
on the part of jurors. The state can
limit psychiatric testimony to avoid such confusion given the often dueling
opinions of experts and inability of anyone to truly know what is in someone
else's mind.
Clark was convicted of
first-degree murder in an Arizona
state court. At trial, the defense tried to present evidence that, due to
mental illness, Clark did not “knowingly and intentionally” commit the
murder. The trial court refused to admit the evidence, ruling that it could
only be used to establish insanity as an affirmative defense. The trial court
then ruled that Clark’s evidence of mental illness did not meet the burden of
proof required for the insanity defense, which requires proof that the
defendant had a qualifying mental illness that prevented him from
understanding that the criminal act was wrong. Clark appealed, arguing that
the narrowness of the insanity law and the trial court’s refusal to permit
evidence of mental illness to negate the intent requirement for murder
violated Clark’s right to Due Process under
the Fourteenth Amendment. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s
decision, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied discretionary review.
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (No. 04-10566) (6/28/06)
Bustillo v. Johnson (No. 05-51)
By a 6-to-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled against two foreign suspects who argued that an international
treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, required police to
inform them that they had a right to contact their governments when they were
arrested. The treaty requires
competent authorities to tell a consulate when one of its citizens has been
arrested. The justices did not decide
whether the treaty requires suspects to be informed of such a right.
Writing for the majority, Chief
Justice Roberts stated that the two men, one from Honduras
and the other from Mexico,
are not entitled to suppression of statements to police or another chance to
raise objections based on the treaty after failing to do so at trial. He concluded that such remedies are too
harsh for the treaty's requirements - if it exists - that only deals with
notification and does not require consulates to provide assistance to
suspects.
Kansas v. Marsh (6/26/06)
By a 5-to-4 vote, the United
States Supreme Court held that the Kansas Supreme Court incorrectly
interpreted the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual
punishment to strike down the state's death penalty statute. |
