Matthew T. Mangino
The Pennsylvania Law Weekly
May 6, 2014
Prison is a terrible and lonely place. As a former member of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, I have visited many of Pennsylvania's prisons and have spent countless hours in correctional facilities interviewing inmates who are eligible for parole. Not everyone who is eligible for parole is granted parole.
There are many legitimate reasons to deny parole. Ongoing and persistent failure to conform conduct to prison rules; refusal or failure to complete rehabilitation programs; failure to take responsibility for one's criminal conduct; a pattern of past failures on parole; or a poor parole interview.
There is little an inmate can do to immediately correct a majority of the reasons for denying parole. Other than the passage of time along with a persistent effort to complete programming and a genuine commitment to planning a meaningful reintegration into society, inmates cannot easily undo a board action denying parole.
The passage of time means a longer period of incarceration. As a result, a two-to-four-year sentence becomes a three-to-four-year sentence. Is there anything an inmate can do? Prepare as thoroughly for a parole interview as a defendant prepares for trial. Seek the guidance of a skilled professional to assist in the preparation.
When I worked as a prosecutor, I was acutely aware of the time and effort that went into preparing for trial. Hours were spent preparing witnesses. Defense counsel spent an equal amount of time with witnesses and the defendant preparing for the hours, days or even weeks needed to try a case.
A half-century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the Sixth Amendment provided, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Fifty years later, the focus has evolved from merely the right to counsel to the right to effective representation. That representation has turned from ensuring a fair trial to ensuring effective assistance on matters such as plea bargaining and the collateral consequences of sentencing.
Why? A defendant's liberty is at stake.
The effective assistance of counsel can be the difference between two years in prison or five years; the difference between a felony conviction or the conviction of a misdemeanor. The effective assistance of counsel can be the difference between a favorable plea bargain or the wrath of a judge unimpressed with a defendant's presentation at sentencing.
In Pennsylvania, the assistance of counsel has not yet reached prospective parolees facing an interview with the board. Even though there are significant liberty issues at stake, offenders are not entitled to legal counsel.
In fact, the Commonwealth Court has said that the parole interview is not an adjudication. In Reider v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 514 A.2d 967 (1986), the court held that "parole, being a matter of administrative discretion and determination, is nonjudicial and not subject to judicial review under the law of Pennsylvania."
A defendant might have spent hours with his attorney preparing for sentencing in the hope of shaving a year or two off guidelines used for sentencing in Pennsylvania. The defendant may call witnesses and have letters of support to offer the judge.
The Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines permit a judge to impose a sentence outside the guidelines accompanied by a written explanation for the deviation. In Commonwealth v. Holiday, 954 A.2d 6 (2008), the Superior Court found that the sentencing guidelines have no binding effect and create no presumption in sentencing. They are advisory guideposts that must be respected and considered.
A lawyer can be the difference between an aggravated sentence or a mitigated sentence. A deviation from the guidelines can be compelling.
The board also utilizes guidelines in making parole decisions. Yet a parole interview, which could result in incarceration being extended a year or more, or even a board action requiring an inmate to serve the maximum sentence, is often conducted with little or no preparation and without the aid of legal counsel.
With an inmate's continued liberty at stake, shouldn't the system do more? There is no doubt that having counsel present during a parole interview would slow down an already overburdened system. However, encouraging legal counsel or parole counselors to assist inmates in their preparation for parole interviews could have an important impact on the process.
Getting inmates out of prison who deserve to be out could have an enormous impact on managing the size of Pennsylvania's prisons. As of Dec. 31, 2013, the Department of Corrections was housing 51,512 inmates in 26 state correctional institutions and community correction centers—109.7 percent of capacity.
During 2012 and 2013, the board cited the interview as one of the reasons for refusing parole in nearly one in three cases. As a result, the interview played a role in more than 5,500 refusals during that period.
Working with an inmate in preparation for a parole interview should include the following five-point plan:
• Enhance the inmate's ability to articulate the benefit from programming.
• Demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the crime and take responsibility.
• Convey empathy for the victims and society.
• Prepare and present a viable home plan.
• Assemble a written reentry plan and support group.
Each point of the plan should be examined and discussed in detail. This does not include the general advice about appearance, demeanor, eye contact and additional interview skills that any would-be job seekers should hone, let alone an inmate who could be left in prison for another year due to inadequate interviewing skills.
An inmate would benefit by a mock interview, sitting down face-to-face with someone familiar with the process who will take the inmate through the rigors of an interview.
Preparing an inmate for a parole interview is not coddling a criminal. Parole preparation is not providing an unfair advantage to a convict. Parole preparation is a smart way to get inmates out of prison who might otherwise stay behind bars because they cannot effectively articulate what they've learned and how they've changed.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George. His book, The Executioner's Toll, 2010, was recently released by McFarland & Co. Reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.
Visit the PLW
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Monday, May 5, 2014
The Vindicator: Ohio General Assembly must take action on revenge porn
Matthew T. Mangino
The Vindicator
May 4, 2014
Ohio legislators are looking the other way when it comes to “revenge porn.” That might be the right thing to do if you stumble upon revenge porn while surfing the Internet, but lawmakers refusing to take on the criminality of revenge porn is, at a minimum, irresponsible.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, revenge porn is the posting of nude or sexually explicit photographs or videos of people online without their consent, even if the photograph itself was taken with the victim’s consent.
Many relationships end in painful and ugly break ups. A spurned spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend may get revenge by sending photographs taken in private, intimate moments to websites set up specifically for these kinds of explicit photographs or videos.
In Ohio, hundreds of people are using the Internet to punish and humiliate ex-lovers and others by posting explicit photos and videos of them along with their names, addresses and other contact information, according to the Norwalk Reflector.
Silence not golden
Although the Ohio Legislature has been silent on the issue, the courts in Ohio have not. A judge recently imposed a $385,000 fine against Eric Chason and Kevin Bollaert, founders of the revenge porn website ugotposted.com, for broadcasting explicit images of an underage female. The plaintiff’s attorney told Forbes, “the message this $385,000 judgment sends to people who run revenge porn sites is unambiguous,” setting a strong legal precedent that will hopefully deter other would-be distributors.
The Pennsylvania Legislature has at least three pieces of legislation pending that deal with revenge porn. House Bill 1901 and Senate Bill 1167 provide for intimate partner harassment that is committed by exposing a photograph, film or videotape of an intimate partner who is nude or explicitly engaged in a sexual act. House Bill 2017 amends the definition of sexual offenses to include the unlawful dissemination of intimate images.
Last year, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the first state law criminalizing revenge porn. Bollaert, one of the defendants in the Ohio lawsuit, has been arrested in California under the new statute.
Bills were introduced or are pending in at least 27 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico in 2014. A revenge porn bill recently passed its first test in Colorado. The bipartisan proposal passed through the Colorado House Judiciary Committee by an 11-0 vote after members heard hours of testimony from anguished victims.
States acting
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, laws have been enacted in Idaho, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, and bills in Georgia and Maryland have passed and are awaiting the governors’ signatures. In New Jersey, similar legislation was passed in the wake of the tragic suicide of 18-year-old Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi who was videotaped without his consent during a sexual encounter with another male.
A growing number of women in Ohio are pushing back and advocating for new legislation to criminalize the cowardly conduct of ex-intimate partners.
Teacher’s aide
A Cincinnati teacher’s aide resigned after semi-nude pictures of her surfaced on a website. “I think I stopped breathing for a while,” Hollie Toups told WBNS-TV in Columbus. “I was at a store one day and somebody was like, ‘Hey, you’re the girl from that website.’”
Toups’ joined with Holly Jacobs, a Florida Ph.D. candidate and victim of revenge porn, to start a support group for victims. Jacobs’ created “End Revenge Porn,” an online hub for victims and advocates to discuss revenge porn. According to the New York Observer, the site is one of the most prominent resource platforms for revenge porn victims.
Now is the time for Ohio lawmakers to step up and make revenge porn a crime and make the purveyors of explicit images of unsuspecting, nonconsenting victims pay the price civilly and criminally.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010,” was recently released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino)
Visit the Vindicator
The Vindicator
May 4, 2014
Ohio legislators are looking the other way when it comes to “revenge porn.” That might be the right thing to do if you stumble upon revenge porn while surfing the Internet, but lawmakers refusing to take on the criminality of revenge porn is, at a minimum, irresponsible.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, revenge porn is the posting of nude or sexually explicit photographs or videos of people online without their consent, even if the photograph itself was taken with the victim’s consent.
Many relationships end in painful and ugly break ups. A spurned spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend may get revenge by sending photographs taken in private, intimate moments to websites set up specifically for these kinds of explicit photographs or videos.
In Ohio, hundreds of people are using the Internet to punish and humiliate ex-lovers and others by posting explicit photos and videos of them along with their names, addresses and other contact information, according to the Norwalk Reflector.
Silence not golden
Although the Ohio Legislature has been silent on the issue, the courts in Ohio have not. A judge recently imposed a $385,000 fine against Eric Chason and Kevin Bollaert, founders of the revenge porn website ugotposted.com, for broadcasting explicit images of an underage female. The plaintiff’s attorney told Forbes, “the message this $385,000 judgment sends to people who run revenge porn sites is unambiguous,” setting a strong legal precedent that will hopefully deter other would-be distributors.
The Pennsylvania Legislature has at least three pieces of legislation pending that deal with revenge porn. House Bill 1901 and Senate Bill 1167 provide for intimate partner harassment that is committed by exposing a photograph, film or videotape of an intimate partner who is nude or explicitly engaged in a sexual act. House Bill 2017 amends the definition of sexual offenses to include the unlawful dissemination of intimate images.
Last year, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the first state law criminalizing revenge porn. Bollaert, one of the defendants in the Ohio lawsuit, has been arrested in California under the new statute.
Bills were introduced or are pending in at least 27 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico in 2014. A revenge porn bill recently passed its first test in Colorado. The bipartisan proposal passed through the Colorado House Judiciary Committee by an 11-0 vote after members heard hours of testimony from anguished victims.
States acting
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, laws have been enacted in Idaho, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, and bills in Georgia and Maryland have passed and are awaiting the governors’ signatures. In New Jersey, similar legislation was passed in the wake of the tragic suicide of 18-year-old Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi who was videotaped without his consent during a sexual encounter with another male.
A growing number of women in Ohio are pushing back and advocating for new legislation to criminalize the cowardly conduct of ex-intimate partners.
Teacher’s aide
A Cincinnati teacher’s aide resigned after semi-nude pictures of her surfaced on a website. “I think I stopped breathing for a while,” Hollie Toups told WBNS-TV in Columbus. “I was at a store one day and somebody was like, ‘Hey, you’re the girl from that website.’”
Toups’ joined with Holly Jacobs, a Florida Ph.D. candidate and victim of revenge porn, to start a support group for victims. Jacobs’ created “End Revenge Porn,” an online hub for victims and advocates to discuss revenge porn. According to the New York Observer, the site is one of the most prominent resource platforms for revenge porn victims.
Now is the time for Ohio lawmakers to step up and make revenge porn a crime and make the purveyors of explicit images of unsuspecting, nonconsenting victims pay the price civilly and criminally.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010,” was recently released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino)
Visit the Vindicator
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Lethal injection is not the only method of execution in America
Lethal injection is not the only method of execution in America. According to the Washington Post, eight states also allow electrocution (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia). Three states allow the gas chamber (Arizona, Missouri, Wyoming) and three other states allow hanging (Delaware, New Hampshire and Washington). Two states allow the firing squad (Oklahoma and Utah), though only technically; Oklahoma allows the use of a firing squad but only if other methods are found to be unconstitutional. Utah banned firing squads in 2004 but said it would make an exception for death-row inmates who picked the method before it was outlawed.
Some states have similar rules to Oklahoma, allowing for certain methods if lethal injection is unavailable or found unconstitutional; others had acted like Utah, discontinuing a method but allowing inmates sentenced or found to have committed their crime before the method was dropped to select it.
To read more Click Here
Some states have similar rules to Oklahoma, allowing for certain methods if lethal injection is unavailable or found unconstitutional; others had acted like Utah, discontinuing a method but allowing inmates sentenced or found to have committed their crime before the method was dropped to select it.
To read more Click Here
Saturday, May 3, 2014
GateHouse: Supreme Court leaves child pornography restitution muddled
Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
May 2, 3014
Crime victims achieved a significant milestone recently when attorney Paul G. Cassell represented before the U.S. Supreme Court a crime victim named “Amy.” Amy was videotaped being raped by her uncle as a child, and those assaults are some of the most widely distributed images of child pornography ever produced.
When Cassell appeared before the Supreme Court, it was the first time that a lawyer had argued on behalf of a crime victim for enforcement of her own rights in a criminal case filed by government prosecutors.
All nine Supreme Court justices recognized that possession of child pornography is not a victimless crime. Although a victory for crime victims, the court’s ultimate decision is a little murky.
Last month, in Paroline v. U.S., the court acknowledged that “every viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the crime.” The court also agreed that victims of child pornography are entitled to restitution from those who possess the images of abuse.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote on behalf of a narrow five-member majority. He said that damages must be based on the proportion of harm that each defendant caused to the victim. “Of course the victim should someday collect restitution for all her child pornography losses, but it makes sense to spread payment among a larger proportion of offenders.”
He did not say how a trial court should calculate those payments.
Through intensive counseling, Amy was getting her life in order when, as a teenager, she discovered that images of her abuse were being traded on Internet porn sites. She found herself back in counseling and her losses were calculated at nearly $3.4 million.
Kennedy said paying nothing should not be an option. “One reason to make restitution mandatory for crimes like this is to impress upon offenders that their conduct produces concrete and devastating harms for real, identifiable victims.”
But Kennedy said, according to the Washington Post, that making each defendant liable for the total amount would be so “severe” as to raise constitutional questions. Instead, Kennedy said, there should be “reasonable and circumscribed” restitution that “comports with the defendant’s relative role.”
The problem is the Supreme Court did not explain how to determine the amount of restitution owed. Without the court’s guidance on how to calculate what an individual defendant owes, the victim’s access to restitution may be considerably delayed.
The concern is not without merit. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing a mentally disabled person violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision contained a loophole that rendered it virtually meaningless in many cases. The decision in Atkins v. Virginia bewilderingly included “we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restrictions upon its execution of sentences.”
The result was a whole bunch of confusion. Individual states came up with individualized methods for determining mental disability. In fact, Atkins, the decision’s namesake, was sent back to Virginia and resentenced to death.
Now, 12 years later, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear another mental disability case with an eye toward cleaning up the mess created by Atkins. Hall v. Florida was recently argued before the court. Sixty-eight-year-old Freddie Lee Hall is challenging the state’s use of a rigid IQ cutoff to determine mental disability. In Florida, an IQ higher than 70 categorically means an inmate is not mentally disabled.
Will victims of child pornography have to wait an additional 12 years before the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to clarify what it failed to clarify in the Paroline decision?
Amy’s attorney is not optimistic. “As Amy has recognized, the Supreme Court’s split-the-difference ruling promises her that she will receive full restitution ‘someday,’?” Cassell wrote. “I just wonder how far in the future that someday will be.”
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010” was recently released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
Visit the Column
GateHouse News Service
May 2, 3014
Crime victims achieved a significant milestone recently when attorney Paul G. Cassell represented before the U.S. Supreme Court a crime victim named “Amy.” Amy was videotaped being raped by her uncle as a child, and those assaults are some of the most widely distributed images of child pornography ever produced.
When Cassell appeared before the Supreme Court, it was the first time that a lawyer had argued on behalf of a crime victim for enforcement of her own rights in a criminal case filed by government prosecutors.
All nine Supreme Court justices recognized that possession of child pornography is not a victimless crime. Although a victory for crime victims, the court’s ultimate decision is a little murky.
Last month, in Paroline v. U.S., the court acknowledged that “every viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the crime.” The court also agreed that victims of child pornography are entitled to restitution from those who possess the images of abuse.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote on behalf of a narrow five-member majority. He said that damages must be based on the proportion of harm that each defendant caused to the victim. “Of course the victim should someday collect restitution for all her child pornography losses, but it makes sense to spread payment among a larger proportion of offenders.”
He did not say how a trial court should calculate those payments.
Through intensive counseling, Amy was getting her life in order when, as a teenager, she discovered that images of her abuse were being traded on Internet porn sites. She found herself back in counseling and her losses were calculated at nearly $3.4 million.
Kennedy said paying nothing should not be an option. “One reason to make restitution mandatory for crimes like this is to impress upon offenders that their conduct produces concrete and devastating harms for real, identifiable victims.”
But Kennedy said, according to the Washington Post, that making each defendant liable for the total amount would be so “severe” as to raise constitutional questions. Instead, Kennedy said, there should be “reasonable and circumscribed” restitution that “comports with the defendant’s relative role.”
The problem is the Supreme Court did not explain how to determine the amount of restitution owed. Without the court’s guidance on how to calculate what an individual defendant owes, the victim’s access to restitution may be considerably delayed.
The concern is not without merit. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing a mentally disabled person violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision contained a loophole that rendered it virtually meaningless in many cases. The decision in Atkins v. Virginia bewilderingly included “we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restrictions upon its execution of sentences.”
The result was a whole bunch of confusion. Individual states came up with individualized methods for determining mental disability. In fact, Atkins, the decision’s namesake, was sent back to Virginia and resentenced to death.
Now, 12 years later, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear another mental disability case with an eye toward cleaning up the mess created by Atkins. Hall v. Florida was recently argued before the court. Sixty-eight-year-old Freddie Lee Hall is challenging the state’s use of a rigid IQ cutoff to determine mental disability. In Florida, an IQ higher than 70 categorically means an inmate is not mentally disabled.
Will victims of child pornography have to wait an additional 12 years before the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to clarify what it failed to clarify in the Paroline decision?
Amy’s attorney is not optimistic. “As Amy has recognized, the Supreme Court’s split-the-difference ruling promises her that she will receive full restitution ‘someday,’?” Cassell wrote. “I just wonder how far in the future that someday will be.”
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010” was recently released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
Visit the Column
Friday, May 2, 2014
The Cautionary Instruction: U.S. Supreme Court takes on cellphone privacy
Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
May 2, 2014
Last fall, the Washington Post reported that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told a room full of college students that the biggest constitutional challenge facing the court was "the fundamental principle underlying what constitutional protection is and apply[ing] it to new issues and new technology."
The Supreme Court took on another aspect of that challenge this week, hearing arguments in two cases, Riley v. California, No. 13-132, and United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212.
The Court is considering whether police need a warrant to search the contents of a cellphone seized when making an arrest. Each case deals with similar, but not identical, technologies. The Wurie case is out of Massachusetts and deals with an old-style flip phone, while the Riley case out of California deals with a smartphone.
The Obama administration and the California Attorney General’s Office urged the court to endorse a bright-line rule that would allow police to search the full content of any cellphone, tablet, or laptop computer being carried by anyone arrested by authorities for any reason.
Sixteen states’ attorneys general asked the Supreme Court to equate the privacy of handheld data with that of “information on paper or in other documentary forms.” The National Sheriffs’ Association and related law enforcement agencies argued that warrantless search of cell phones is justified in the face of “time-sensitive accessibility” features like password locks.
Critics say cellphones, particularly smart phones, and other electronic devices increasingly hold or provide access to the most private details of a person’s life -- including personal photos, videos, messages, names of friends and associates, banking and financial information, and medical records, among others.
Justice Antonin Scalia did not seem deeply troubled by the prospect of a cellphone search during an arrest. However, he suggested that it should be limited to evidence of the crime for which the individual was arrested.
Justice Anthony Kennedy brought up a perceived conflict in allowing warrantless cellphone searches in connection with arrests for serious crimes while denying police that right in the case of lesser offenses.
The most vocal defender of smartphone privacy was Justice Elena Kagan, who said she was troubled by the notion that police could confiscate and copy someone’s phone just because he or she was arrested for driving without a seatbelt.
“People carry their lives on cellphones,” she declared.
Scalia seemed to agree. “It seems absurd you should be able to search that person’s iPhone because of an arrest for a minor crime,” he said.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George, P.C. He is the former district attorney of Lawrence County and just completed a six year term on the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. His weekly column on crime and punishment is syndicated by GateHouse New Service. You can read his musings on the criminal justice system at www.mattmangino.com and follow Matt on Twitter @MatthewTMangino. His new book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010: The Crimes, Arrests, Trials, Appeals, Last Meals, Final Words and Executions of 46 Persons in the United States is now available from McFarland & Company publishers.
Visit Ipso Facto
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
May 2, 2014
Last fall, the Washington Post reported that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told a room full of college students that the biggest constitutional challenge facing the court was "the fundamental principle underlying what constitutional protection is and apply[ing] it to new issues and new technology."
The Supreme Court took on another aspect of that challenge this week, hearing arguments in two cases, Riley v. California, No. 13-132, and United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212.
The Court is considering whether police need a warrant to search the contents of a cellphone seized when making an arrest. Each case deals with similar, but not identical, technologies. The Wurie case is out of Massachusetts and deals with an old-style flip phone, while the Riley case out of California deals with a smartphone.
The Obama administration and the California Attorney General’s Office urged the court to endorse a bright-line rule that would allow police to search the full content of any cellphone, tablet, or laptop computer being carried by anyone arrested by authorities for any reason.
Sixteen states’ attorneys general asked the Supreme Court to equate the privacy of handheld data with that of “information on paper or in other documentary forms.” The National Sheriffs’ Association and related law enforcement agencies argued that warrantless search of cell phones is justified in the face of “time-sensitive accessibility” features like password locks.
Critics say cellphones, particularly smart phones, and other electronic devices increasingly hold or provide access to the most private details of a person’s life -- including personal photos, videos, messages, names of friends and associates, banking and financial information, and medical records, among others.
Justice Antonin Scalia did not seem deeply troubled by the prospect of a cellphone search during an arrest. However, he suggested that it should be limited to evidence of the crime for which the individual was arrested.
Justice Anthony Kennedy brought up a perceived conflict in allowing warrantless cellphone searches in connection with arrests for serious crimes while denying police that right in the case of lesser offenses.
The most vocal defender of smartphone privacy was Justice Elena Kagan, who said she was troubled by the notion that police could confiscate and copy someone’s phone just because he or she was arrested for driving without a seatbelt.
“People carry their lives on cellphones,” she declared.
Scalia seemed to agree. “It seems absurd you should be able to search that person’s iPhone because of an arrest for a minor crime,” he said.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George, P.C. He is the former district attorney of Lawrence County and just completed a six year term on the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. His weekly column on crime and punishment is syndicated by GateHouse New Service. You can read his musings on the criminal justice system at www.mattmangino.com and follow Matt on Twitter @MatthewTMangino. His new book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010: The Crimes, Arrests, Trials, Appeals, Last Meals, Final Words and Executions of 46 Persons in the United States is now available from McFarland & Company publishers.
Visit Ipso Facto
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Mangino talks about botched execution on WKBN-TV
Watch the interview Click Here
Legal analyst Matthew Mangino told WKBN-TV the United States Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection in not cruel and unusual punishment, nor does is violate the Eighth Amendment. But Tuesday night in Oklahoma, corrections officials stopped the execution of 38-year-old Clayton Lockett.
They claim Lockett was unconscious, but witnesses said he was twitching, mumbling and clenching his teeth.
A doctor determined Lockett’s vein had exploded. He died of a heart attack 43 minutes after the first drug was administered.
“You had an execution. It was stopped. If he wasn’t executed and he died, it wasn’t by natural causes because we know he was administered drugs,” said Mangino. “How do you determine what happened there? Was it homicide?”
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin is calling for a full review of the state’s execution protocol. She ordered a 14-day stay for another inmate scheduled to be executed two hours after Lockett.
Even the White House Wednesday was asking, what happened?
“Even when the death penalty is justified, it must be carried out humanely,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. “I think everyone would recognize that this case fell short of that standard.”
Ohio’s January execution of Dennis McGuire lasted 26 minutes; the longest since the state resumed executions in 1999. Like Lockett, officials say McGuire was asleep and unconscious despite making snorting and gasping sounds.
“When a person dies, they are going to move, they are going to gasp, they are going to snore, that happens commonly no matter what kind of death it is,” said Mahoning County forensic pathologist Dr. Joseph Ohr.
Legal analyst Matthew Mangino told WKBN-TV the United States Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection in not cruel and unusual punishment, nor does is violate the Eighth Amendment. But Tuesday night in Oklahoma, corrections officials stopped the execution of 38-year-old Clayton Lockett.
They claim Lockett was unconscious, but witnesses said he was twitching, mumbling and clenching his teeth.
A doctor determined Lockett’s vein had exploded. He died of a heart attack 43 minutes after the first drug was administered.
“You had an execution. It was stopped. If he wasn’t executed and he died, it wasn’t by natural causes because we know he was administered drugs,” said Mangino. “How do you determine what happened there? Was it homicide?”
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin is calling for a full review of the state’s execution protocol. She ordered a 14-day stay for another inmate scheduled to be executed two hours after Lockett.
Even the White House Wednesday was asking, what happened?
“Even when the death penalty is justified, it must be carried out humanely,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. “I think everyone would recognize that this case fell short of that standard.”
Ohio’s January execution of Dennis McGuire lasted 26 minutes; the longest since the state resumed executions in 1999. Like Lockett, officials say McGuire was asleep and unconscious despite making snorting and gasping sounds.
“When a person dies, they are going to move, they are going to gasp, they are going to snore, that happens commonly no matter what kind of death it is,” said Mahoning County forensic pathologist Dr. Joseph Ohr.
Florida carries out 16th execution under Governor Rick Scott
The 19th Execution of 2014
Florida executed Robert Hendrix on April 23, 2014. He was convicted of murdering two relatives to prevent one of them from testifying against him in a burglary trial, reported The Christian Science Monitor.
Hendrix was pronounced dead at 6:21 p.m. at Florida State Prison in Starke, shortly after the lethal injection procedure began. He made no final statement.
Hendrix was convicted of the 1990 murders of Elmer and Michelle Scott at their Lake County home.
Prosecutors said Hendrix killed the couple because Elmer Scott intended to testify against him. But Hendrix's attorney said no forensic evidence links his client to the murders, and the witnesses against him were unreliable.
Hendrix was the fourth person executed in Florida this year and the 16th since Gov. Rick Scott took office in 2011.
The victims' daughter, Rachel Scott, was only 5 months old when her parents were killed. She was home in her crib but was not harmed, and said she hopes her parents are remembered for who they were as people.
"I plan on keeping them alive in my heart and suggest everyone else do the same. I will always continue to tell their story," she said.
Elmer Scott's sister, Lisa Hunt, said the execution brought a sense of relief. Lisa is also a cousin of Hendrix.
Scott had already made a plea deal with prosecutors in the armed burglary case in which he and Hendrix broke into a house but only Scott was caught. His cooperation led investigators to arrest Hendrix. In the weeks leading up to his trial, prosecutors say, Hendrix told friends he would kill Scott rather than return to prison
Prosecutors say that on the night of the murders, Hendrix's live-in girlfriend — Denise Turbyville — drove him from Orange County, where they lived, to the Scotts' trailer in neighboring Lake County and dropped him off.
Michelle Scott welcomed Hendrix into the trailer, and told him Elmer Scott was in the bathroom shaving and would be out shortly. When Elmer Scott came out, Hendrix asked to use the bathroom. When he left the bathroom, Hendrix fired shots at Elmer Scott and then grabbed a knife and attacked Michelle Scott, according to prosecutors.
To read more Click Here
Florida executed Robert Hendrix on April 23, 2014. He was convicted of murdering two relatives to prevent one of them from testifying against him in a burglary trial, reported The Christian Science Monitor.
Hendrix was pronounced dead at 6:21 p.m. at Florida State Prison in Starke, shortly after the lethal injection procedure began. He made no final statement.
Hendrix was convicted of the 1990 murders of Elmer and Michelle Scott at their Lake County home.
Prosecutors said Hendrix killed the couple because Elmer Scott intended to testify against him. But Hendrix's attorney said no forensic evidence links his client to the murders, and the witnesses against him were unreliable.
Hendrix was the fourth person executed in Florida this year and the 16th since Gov. Rick Scott took office in 2011.
The victims' daughter, Rachel Scott, was only 5 months old when her parents were killed. She was home in her crib but was not harmed, and said she hopes her parents are remembered for who they were as people.
"I plan on keeping them alive in my heart and suggest everyone else do the same. I will always continue to tell their story," she said.
Elmer Scott's sister, Lisa Hunt, said the execution brought a sense of relief. Lisa is also a cousin of Hendrix.
Scott had already made a plea deal with prosecutors in the armed burglary case in which he and Hendrix broke into a house but only Scott was caught. His cooperation led investigators to arrest Hendrix. In the weeks leading up to his trial, prosecutors say, Hendrix told friends he would kill Scott rather than return to prison
Prosecutors say that on the night of the murders, Hendrix's live-in girlfriend — Denise Turbyville — drove him from Orange County, where they lived, to the Scotts' trailer in neighboring Lake County and dropped him off.
Michelle Scott welcomed Hendrix into the trailer, and told him Elmer Scott was in the bathroom shaving and would be out shortly. When Elmer Scott came out, Hendrix asked to use the bathroom. When he left the bathroom, Hendrix fired shots at Elmer Scott and then grabbed a knife and attacked Michelle Scott, according to prosecutors.
To read more Click Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
