Former Pennsylvania DA to be new drug czar

A former Pennsylvania district attorney, Tom Marino, will be President Trump's drug czar, according to a report from CBS News. Marino served as DA of Lycoming County, My time as DA in Lawrence County overlapped with Tom's from 1998 to 2002 when he became U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Marino, now a Congressman, has a congressional voting record as a hard-liner on marijuana issues, and he recently said that he'd like to put nonviolent drug offenders in some sort of “hospital-slash-prison,” reported the Washington Post.

As drug czar, Marino would oversee the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a branch of the White House that advises the president on drug policy issues. More than anything else, the office sets the tone of an administration's drug policy. Under President Barack Obama, for instance, the office quite publicly retired the phrase “war on drugs,” preferring rhetoric centered more on public health than criminal justice.

Whether that approach continues is something of an open question. Former drug czars from a more militant drug policy era have been publicly agitating to “bring back the war on drugs.” Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is moving to put criminal justice back at the forefront of drug policy.

To read more CLICK HERE

Professor examines DOJ shuttering of forensic science commission

Erin E. Murphy, a professor at New York University School of Law, is the author of “Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic D.N.A.” wrote an op-ed for the New York Times on the DOJ shutting down the National Commission of Forensic Science, here is an excerpt:

Prosecutors applauded the April 10 announcement by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the Department of Justice was disbanding the nonpartisan National Commission on Forensic Science and returning forensic science to law enforcement control. In the same statement, Mr. Sessions suspended the department’s review of closed cases for inaccurate or unsupported statements by forensic analysts, which regularly occur in fields as diverse as firearm and handwriting identification, and hair, fiber, shoe, bite mark and tire tread matching, and even fingerprinting analysis.

If all you knew about forensic science was what you saw on television, you might shrug off this news, believing that only the most sophisticated and well-researched scientific evidence is used to solve and prove crimes. But reality is different.

D.N.A.-exoneration cases have exposed deep flaws in the criminal justice system’s use of forensic science. Reforms have not come easy, but slow and plodding progress has been made. In 2005, the F.B.I. said that it would no longer conduct bullet-lead examinations after a review panel found matches essentially meaningless. A blue-ribbon panel of the National Academy of Sciences raised the same concern in a 2009 report that found nearly every familiar staple of forensic science scientifically unsound.

Prompted in part by that report, the Justice Department initiated a review of thousands of cases involving microscopic matching of hair samples. In 2015, the F.B.I. announced its shocking initial findings: In 96 percent of cases, analysts gave erroneous testimony. At a meeting last spring of the commission that Mr. Sessions just disbanded, the department said it would expand the view to include a wider array of forensic disciplines.

With the announcement by Mr. Sessions, this momentum comes to a screeching halt. Although forensic science would seem a low priority for an incoming attorney general, it is not altogether surprising that it was in Mr. Sessions’s sights. As a senator (and former prosecutor), Mr. Sessions made forensic science a priority. He sponsored and shepherded to passage the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act of 2000, which remains the signature federal funding mechanism for state all-purpose forensic labs. That might suggest that Mr. Sessions would care about the integrity of forensic science, but his enthusiasm has been for more — not better — forensic evidence. When the National Academy of Sciences’ scathing report was released, Senator Sessions simply waved it away, remarking, “I don’t think we should suggest that those proven scientific principles that we’ve been using for decades are somehow uncertain” — ignoring the panel of experts who had concluded just that.

To read more CLICK HERE

Sessions dumps National Commission on Forensic Science

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions will not renew the National Commission on Forensic   Science (NCFS), according to a statement, reported Juris. The NCFS is a 30-member group of scientists, academics, law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges originally commissioned in 2013 by the Department of Justice (DOJ) during President Obama's administration. 

The commission had responsibility for developing guidance concerning the intersections between forensic science and the courtroom and developing policy recommendations, including uniform codes for professional responsibility and requirements for training and certification. 

As the use of bite-mark analysis, hair and fiber sample analysis and even fingerprint analysis have been called into question, the NCFS was charged with standardizing national guidance for forensic science practitioners. Additionally, NCFS was to develop methods for forensic measurements and validate select existing forensic science standards.

The commission is set to expire April 23, and continued efforts to "advance forensic science and combat violent crime" will be handled by the Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety, a committee established by executive order under President Trump. Sessions commended the efforts of the NCFS in his statement.

As we decide how to move forward, we bear in mind that the Department is just one piece of the larger criminal justice system and that the vast majority of forensic science is practiced by state and local forensic laboratories and is used by state and local prosecutors. We applaud the professionalism of the National Commission on Forensic Science and look forward to building on the contributions it has made in this crucial field.

To read more CLICK HERE

The Atlantic: Black male inmates have a lower mortality rate than black men on the street

Mass incarceration overall hurts the health of Americans, leading to worse outcomes for the families and communities of men in prison, reported The Atlantic. The inmates themselves are at a very large risk of self-harm and violence immediately after their release. But a recent review of the impacts of incarceration on health published in The Lancet hints at a surprising upshot: Getting out of jail can be miserable, but going to jail can temporarily protect health—at least for some men.

For children and communities, the impacts of a parent’s incarceration are unequivocally bad, write study authors Christopher Wildeman of Cornell University and Emily Wang of Yale. Kids whose fathers go to jail are at increased risk of depression, anxiety, learning disabilities, and obesity, and they are more likely to do drugs later in life. Because criminal records dampen job opportunities, according to some studies people who live in neighborhoods with high levels of incarceration are more likely to experience asthma from dilapidated housing. These consequences are especially severe for children of color: Because black men are jailed disproportionately, a black child born in 1990 had a one-in-four chance of having their father imprisoned, Wildeman and Wong write.

But, paradoxically, going to prison can actually improve health—at least temporarily—for some inmates. Black male inmates, the authors write, have a lower mortality rate than similarly aged black men who aren’t in jail. The reason? 

The risk of death from violent accidents, overdoses on drugs or alcohol, and homicides is much lower in prison than it is in the neighborhoods where these men would be living otherwise. What’s more, before the Affordable Care Act was passed, many states made it all but impossible for low-income, childless men to obtain health care. Under the ACA, 32 states expanded Medicaid to cover all poor adults, but 19 have not. Because of that, Wildeman and Wang write, prison is the first time many incarcerated young men receive regular health care.

The drop in mortality “is just an indicator of how dangerous the environment for African-Americans is on the outside, rather than being a function of how good the medical care is that they’re receiving” in prison, Wildeman told me.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino explains 'Nuclear Option' on WFMJ-TV Weekend Today

Watch my interview on WFMJ-TV Weekend Today about the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch.  To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Arkansas Eight gets day in court as executions loom

Tomorrow a hearing will begin in federal court in Little Rock, Arkansas regarding a lawsuit filed by the Arkansas Eight--death row prisoners scheduled for execution this month. The lawsuit asserts that the proposed execution schedule is a violation of the Eighth Amendment and their right to counsel. 

On February 27, 2017, Governor Asa Hutchinson announced that he was scheduling two executions to occur back-to-back on each of the following days: April 17, 20, 24, and 27, 2017. The Governor’s stated reason for the compressed schedule is that Arkansas’s supply of the controversial drug midazolam will expire at the end of April 2017. Midazolam has been implicated in botched executions across the country.  

Arkansas death-row prisoners have filed a lawsuit arguing that the state’s unprecedented schedule of eight executions in a ten-day span amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, violates their right to counsel, and violates their right to access the courts and to counsel during the executions. No state has attempted to conduct executions at this pace in at least half a century. The prisoners have filed the Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The prisoners also filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, which asks the federal court to stay the executions pending full consideration of the lawsuit.

The Complaint states:  

“Taking into consideration the complexity of the procedure for each Plaintiff, the added pressure of eight executions in ten days, the lack of time necessary for review, and the lack of experience of those involved at the highest levels—combined with the use of a drug that is insufficient for its intended purpose and that has caused botched executions in the past—there is a substantial and objectively intolerable risk of suffering and harm to Plaintiffs.” 

To read complaint CLICK HERE

GateHouse: The Senate is the only victim of ‘Nuclear Option’

Matthew T. Mangino

GateHouse Media

April 7, 2017

Congratulations, Neil Gorsuch. You are the newest member of the United States Supreme Court. The question is at what cost?

The Republican-led U.S. Senate invoked the so-called “Nuclear Option.”

Former Republican leader Trent Lott coined the term to describe a rule change that would ban judicial filibusters and allow up-or-down votes on the president’s nominees.

A filibuster generally refers to extended debate that delays a vote on a pending matter, while cloture is a device to end debate. Filibusters are used by opponents of a nominee or legislation, while cloture is filed by supporters. Under the Senate rules as they existed yesterday, it took 60 votes for the cloture-ending debate.

In 1917, the Senate voted to empower a supermajority of 67 votes for cloture. In 1975, the Senate lowered the supermajority to 60 votes. The last Supreme Court nominee who faced a cloture vote was Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006. In Alito’s situation, cloture passed with 75 votes and he proceeded to a vote of the full Senate where he was confirmed.

The late Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist, faced a cloture vote on his confirmation to the high court and later on his confirmation as chief justice. In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s nominee for chief justice, Justice Abe Fortas lost a cloture vote. Fortas later withdrew.

The relatively rare filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation began this week. The Republicans did not have enough votes for cloture. Seemingly, the debate would continue and Gorsuch’s confirmation would not come up for a vote.

With no hope of confirmation does Gorsuch withdraw? No, the Republicans change the rules, instead of needing 60 votes for cloture the rule change provides a simple majority — 51 votes — for cloture, debate ends and Gorsuch becomes the 113th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

What is apocalyptical about changing the rules? The Senate likes to think of itself as the greatest deliberative body in the world. The filibuster and cloture votes have long been revered as tools that prevent hasty legislation and the confirmation of extreme nominees.

A rules change on Supreme Court nominees would be momentous for the Senate, which prides itself on bipartisanship and consent from all senators. Some warn that a rules change could begin to unravel Senate traditions and perhaps end up in the complete elimination of the filibuster — which could alter the reputation of the Senate.

As Democrats lament the dismantling of Senate traditions, they need look back only a few years for the impetus for this week’s action. In 2013, Democrats were in the majority and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada was their leader. He was upset about the blockage of President Barack Obama’s nominees to federal appellate courts. Democrats pushed through a rules change lowering the vote threshold for cloture for court nominees — except those for the Supreme Court — from 60 votes to a simple majority vote.

The current situation was certainly exacerbated by the Republicans’ refusal, for nearly a year, to grant a hearing to Merrick Garland, President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court seat that Gorsuch will now occupy.

The ultimate result of the “Nuclear Option” is this president, and future presidents, will no longer need to look to more moderate nominees to the Supreme Court, they can pick more ideological nominees capable of winning only on a party-line vote, with no real concern for working across the aisle to build consensus.

The U.S. Senate, long admired as a body steeped in history and above partisan bickering and back-biting, has taken yet another step toward mediocrity and public indifference.

— Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit the column CLICK HERE