News

Brady Violations Result in Habeas Relief for Pennsylvania Death Row Prisoner

Oct 31, 2014 No Comments

To correct a “grave miscarriage of justice,” Pennsylvania U.S. District Court Judge Anita Brody granted a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner and vacated his conviction and death sentence for a murder that “in all probability he did not commit.” The court found violations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) due to the state’s withholding of evidence.

James A. Dennis was convicted in Philadelphia for the October 22, 1991 killing of high school student Chedell Williams. Williams, 17, and a friend, Zahra Howard, were approached by two men who demanded they give up their earrings. The girls fled; Howard hid behind a fruit stand while Williams ran into the street.

The men chased Williams. One of them held a gun to her neck and shot her; they then jumped into a car and sped away. Williams was pronounced dead shortly after her arrival at a hospital.

Dennis’ conviction was “based on scant evidence at best,” the district court wrote in an August 21, 2013 ruling. “It was based solely on shaky eyewitness identifications from three witnesses, the testimony of another man who said he saw Dennis with a gun the night of the murder, and a description of clothing seized from the house of Dennis’ father that the police subsequently lost before police photographed or catalogued it.”

The police never recovered a weapon, never found the car used by the assailants and never found two accomplices described by witnesses. Judge Brody said confidence in Dennis’ conviction was significantly diminished by flaws with the investigation and prosecution of the case, and noted “There was virtually no physical evidence presented at trial.”

Jury’s Tasteless Gag Gifts to Judge and Bailiff Fail to Demonstrate Unfair Trial

Oct 28, 2014 No Comments

By Prison Legal News

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the denial of a death row prisoner’s habeas corpus petition that contended he was denied a fair trial by an impartial judge and jury because the jurors gave inappropriate gag gifts to the judge and one of the bailiffs.

The habeas proceeding involved Georgia death row prisoner Marcus A. Wellons, who was convicted of the murder and rape of a fourteen-year-old girl in 1989. During his trial, Wellons did not dispute that he had killed and raped the victim; rather, he claimed he was either not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill. After finding him guilty, the jury recommended a sentence of death for the murder and life for the rape.

Defense counsel learned during post-trial interviews that some jurors gave gag gifts to the judge and a bailiff either near the end of or immediately following the penalty phase of the trial. The judge received chocolate candy in the shape of a penis while the bailiff received chocolate in the shape of female breasts. Wellons’ counsel also learned that when the sequestered jurors dined at a local restaurant, the judge had spoken to them.

Motions for a new trial and for recusal of the judge were denied, Wellons’ convictions were affirmed on appeal and the Supreme Court denied review. Likewise, a state habeas petition was denied. After the federal district court denied Wellons’ habeas petition, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. This time, however, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and the matter was subsequently remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the “disturbing facts of this case.” The district court again denied relief and Wellons again appealed.

U.S. Citizens without Remedy in Military Torture Case

Sep 29, 2014 No Comments

By Derek Gilna / Prison Legal News

In an 8 to 3 decision, the en banc Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a ruling by Illinois U.S. District Court Judge Wayne Anderson, as well as an appellate panel that had partly affirmed that ruling, and held the judiciary should not “create a right of action for damages against soldiers who abusively interrogate or mistreat military prisoners, or fail to prevent improper detention and interrogation.”

The three appellate judges who dissented from the majority opinion argued that the plaintiffs, private American security contractors in Iraq, should have been afforded a Bivins remedy to redress their claims.

The dissent noted that both the facts and law provided an avenue by which Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, employees of Shield Group Security (also known as National Shield Security) stationed in Iraq, could seek damages for what they contended was torture by U.S. military personnel.

According to the en banc decision, “Vance came to suspect that Shield was supplying weapons to groups opposed to the U.S.,” and became an FBI informant. However, after the individuals they had fingered accused Vance and Ertel of “gun-running,” they were arrested by American military officials in April 2006.

They were then “held in solitary confinement and denied access to counsel … [and] interrogators used ‘threats of violence and actual violence, sleep deprivation and alteration, extremes of temperature, extremes of sound, light manipulation, threats of indefinite detention, denial of food, denial of water, denial of needed medical care, yelling, prolonged solitary confinement, incommunicado detention, falsified allegations and other psychologically-disruptive and injurious techniques.’” Vance and Ertel were classified as “security internees.”

Imprisoned “Pastafarian” Sues Nebraska Prison Officials; The Return of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Sep 22, 2014 No Comments

Prisoners face many challenges during their incarceration, including barriers to litigation against prison officials to preserve their constitutional rights. Those barriers are sometimes the result of the frivolous suits of others, as in the case of Stephen Cavanaugh, 23, serving a sentence of four to eight years at Nebraska State Penitentiary for attempted first-degree assault

Oregon Parole Board: “Don’t Have to Explain Nothing to Nobody”

Sep 3, 2014 No Comments

By Prison Legal News

For at least the fifth time, a state court has ordered the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) to provide more than boilerplate reasons for its decisions. There is little reason to believe, however, that the Board has any intention of complying.

Oregon law requires the Board to “state in writing the detailed bases of its decisions.” The Board is exempt, however, from a statutory requirement to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a Board decision in 1997, holding that despite the statutory exemption, the Board was required to “make findings of fact and provide an explanation as to why its findings lead to the conclusions that it reaches.” See: Martin v. Board of Parole, 147 Ore. App. 37, 934 P.2d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board must provide “some kind of an explanation connecting the facts of the case (which would include the facts found, if any) and the result reached.” See: Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Ore. 147, 957 P.2d 1210 (Or. 1998). This is commonly referred to as “the substantial-reason requirement.”

In 1999, the Board asked the Oregon legislature to overrule Martin. The proposed law change expressly relieved the Board of a duty to “explain how [its] order is supported by the facts and the evidence in the record.”

The Oregon judiciary, however, did not appreciate such overt disrespect for its authority. James Nass, appellate legal counsel for the Oregon Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, opposed the Board’s proposed legislation, SB 401.

Thousands Await Clemency for Drug Sentences

Jul 18, 2014 No Comments

Today — July 18, 2014 — an important vote will occur. The United States Sentencing Commission will vote on the 2 Point Reduction Law, which potentially may reduce the sentences of many federal inmates. In late December, the president commuted the prison sentences of eight inmates. The inmates who were spared were convicted of nonviolent

Brief Prison Stays

Jun 10, 2014 No Comments

By CorrectionsOne.com

A law that allows brief jail stays for parole violations is getting mixed reviews from corrections officials and law enforcement agencies in Reno County, which has used the provision more than any other Kansas county.

The law enacted last July lets offenders avoid having their parole revoked if they spend a few days in jail. Reno County has made more use of the law than any other county per capita, Secretary of Corrections Ray Roberts said.

Roberts and other corrections officials say the law has helped reduce jail overcrowding, while some Reno County critics contend it is difficult to enforce and ineffective, The Hutchinson News reported.

The legislation allows judges to impose two- or three-day jail stays if an offender violates parole. If violations continue, judges can order a 120-day prison stay, followed by 180-day sentences. If the violations continue after that, offenders must serve the rest of their underlying prison sentences.

Department of Justice Announces New Standards for Initiative on Executive Clemency

May 8, 2014 No Comments

By Christopher Zoukis / BlogCritics.org

On April 23, 2014, Attorney General of the United States, Eric H. Holder, Jr. announced a new initiative intended to encourage appropriate candidates to petition for executive clemency from the President of the United States.

The initiative comes amid public statements by Holder and other top federal officials suggesting President Barrack H. Obama may eventually issue hundreds, if not thousands, of commutations to federal prisoners, mostly for non-violent drug offenders sentenced under now mostly discarded sentencing policies that affected a disproportionate number of minorities.

The April 23, 2014 announcement has prompted the Department of Justice (DOJ), through the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to set forth specific standards for the new initiative, and announces the formation of the Clemency Project 2014, a consortium of defense attorneys and non-profit organizations who have volunteered to assist some candidates for clemency advance their petitions.

The Criteria for Clemency

While the Constitution accords the President the authority to bestow clemency on anyone, the 2014 initiative is targeted at clemency for a specific profile of offenders. According to a Federal Bureau of Prisons announcement made on May 5, 2014, it invites petitions from “non-violent federal inmates who would not pose a threat to public safety if released.” The announcement stated that the initiative is limited to inmates who:

Seventh Circuit Upholds FTCA Venue Transfer

May 7, 2014 No Comments

By Prison Legal News

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the transfer of a former federal prisoner’s negligence action from Illinois to Kansas.

Daniel Hudson relocated to Illinois following his release from a federal prison in Kansas. He filed a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit in U.S. District Court in Illinois, alleging that Kansas medical staff had negligently misdiagnosed a blood clot in his leg.

The district court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the case to a federal court in Kansas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), because the principal witnesses were located in Kansas and the per-judge caseload in that state was lighter than the caseload in Illinois.

Hudson then filed a mandamus petition with the Seventh Circuit, seeking to return venue to Illinois. He argued that he and five of his witnesses – including three treating physicians – resided in Illinois.

The Court of Appeals agreed that mandamus was the proper method to challenge the district court’s transfer order: “The grant of the government’s motion to transfer the case was an unappealable interlocutory order, but an unappealable order can in exceptional circumstances be reviewed by a mandamus proceeding. The grant of a motion to transfer is an appealing candidate for such review.”

Ninth Circuit: 9-Year Detention Pending Civil Commitment Proceeding Warrants Habeas Relief

Apr 15, 2014 No Comments

By Prison Legal News

In March 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s dismissal of a pro se habeas petitioner’s claim that his 9-year detention while waiting for the State of California to initiate civil commitment proceedings was unconstitutional.

Just before convicted rapist Bobby Joe Knight’s scheduled release from prison in 2004 after serving a 20-year sentence, the state filed a civil petition against him under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 6600, et seq. The Los Angeles County Superior Court ordered that Knight be held in a secure facility pending trial.

Knight remained in custody, as no effort was made to bring the state’s petition against him to trial. Incredibly, between 2004 and 2009, Knight’s counsel requested (or stipulated to) continuances of the case. Not content with the quality of his representation – being deprived of one’s liberty indefinitely, without due process of law, can be frustrating – Knight repeatedly requested that he be appointed new counsel.

Exasperated, he filed a habeas corpus petition in state court in April 2009, claiming that his lengthy detention was unconstitutional. The petition was denied, and Knight’s counsel and the government agreed to still more continuances.

News

Brady Violations Result in Habeas Relief for Pennsylvania Death Row Prisoner

Jury’s Tasteless Gag Gifts to Judge and Bailiff Fail to Demonstrate Unfair Trial

U.S. Citizens without Remedy in Military Torture Case

Imprisoned “Pastafarian” Sues Nebraska Prison Officials; The Return of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Oregon Parole Board: “Don’t Have to Explain Nothing to Nobody”

Thousands Await Clemency for Drug Sentences

Brief Prison Stays

Department of Justice Announces New Standards for Initiative on Executive Clemency

Seventh Circuit Upholds FTCA Venue Transfer

Ninth Circuit: 9-Year Detention Pending Civil Commitment Proceeding Warrants Habeas Relief

Categories

Categories

Archives

Our Prison Books

Federal Prison Information

About Us

Consulting Services

Early Release Options

Our Prison Books

Primary Office