Today in Supreme Court History: February 23, 1905

2/23/1905: Lochner v. New York argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (decided February 23, 2005): unwritten state policy of segregating new double-celled prisoners by race must be examined under “strict scrutiny” (unknown how this turned out)

Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544 (decided February 23, 2004): prosecution for cocaine possession can proceed despite police disposal of cocaine seized; defendant had been on the lam for 10 years, disposal was per normal procedures, and presence of cocaine at trial was unlikely to be exculpatory (to state the obvious)

Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307 (decided February 23, 2011): Court cannot review state’s dismissal of habeas proceeding; failure to meet state statute of limitations was “independent state ground” for dismissal

Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (decided February 23, 2011): federal regulation allowing option of simple lap belt (I miss those) vs. lap-and-shoulder belt did not preempt state law claim that fatal accident would have been prevented had manufacturer installed lap-and-shoulder belt

Packer Corp. v. Utah, 285 U.S. 105 (decided February 23, 1932): upholds against discrimination, Dormant Commerce Clause and due process arguments Utah statute prohibiting tobacco advertising on billboards and placards but not in newspapers or magazines (the public can’t avoid seeing billboards, but to see an ad in a newspaper you have to buy it)

[Michael P]

unknown how this turned out

Looks like the state settled the case: https://correctionalnews.com/2008/07/27/california-prisons-end-housing-segregation/

But things changed slowly, at least through 2010: https://berkeley.news21.com/behindbars/2010/08/07/integrating-californias-prison-cells/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for this.

If racial tensions exist, it seems safer to keep the prisoners segregated, at least at first. We’re not talking about separate not being equal (the “black” cell blocks weren’t worse than “white” cell blocks, at least that wasn’t the allegation, and they can always move the prisoners around anyway). The “go slow” approach mentioned in the article seems the best approach.

[defaultdotxbe]

I recall on of those "life on the inside" TV shows (probably Lockup?) where they featured a prison in Colorado that separated inmates by race, it wasn't cell by cell though, they had a whole cell block for black inmates, one for hispanic, and one for white. This would have been around 2010.

The series described it as innovative and credited it for a reduction in violence in the prison.

[Dan Schiavetta]

A privately owned prison, I assume.

[John F. Carr]

On disappearing evidence: Somebody told a story online, maybe even on the conspiracy blog, that I really want to be true. It was a drug trial. The prosecution pulled out an exhibit, the drugs seized from the defendant. (Presumably a chain of custody was established.) The defendant told his lawyer, those aren't my drugs. The lawyer asked that the exhibit be tested in court. Negative. The police had stolen the drugs and substituted something innocent in their place.

Criminal lawyers – could that really have happened as described? The courtroom drama part. I know police do steal from the evidence locker.

On the FMVSS case (seat belt rules): I remember a court ruling that a federal decision not to require antilock brakes on trucks did bar states from finding lack of such brakes to be negligent design. Perhaps that was overruled by Williamson v. Mazda.

[SMP0328]

In Williamson, the Court distinguished (not overruled) Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). Geier dealt with airbags.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks !

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, Sonja Farak was actually turned in by honest cops who noticed that the pills they had sent to UMass for testing weren't the ones they got back and weren't even all the same.

https://www.amherstbulletin.com/Archives/2015/07/j10druglabfolo-hg-070815

[Dan Schiavetta]

Criminal lawyers make a point of never asking their clients what happened.

I wonder if they would make an exception for when their client pokes them in the ribs at trial and says, “those are not the pills!” Do they close their ears and say “I don’t want to hear it!”?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can see the DA asking "how do you know?"

Isn't it an admission he HAD pills?

[Dan Schiavetta]

My point is, more generally, when the prosecution puts on an exhibit which the defendant knows is fraudulent. The state witness authenticates it. How would the defense attorney know it’s fake (and the witness is committing perjury) if he closes his ears to what his client is telling him?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't it still an admission he had pills?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Get away from the pills — I’m talking about some piece of evidence that would be incriminating. It could of course be something perfectly legal.

[defaultdotxbe]

Maybe the pills he had were Tylenol for his migraines. The defendant can say "those aren't the pills they took from me" without necessarily admitting the pills he did have were illegal.

Of course if his previous story had been he didn't have any pills at all that can open him up to new charges (perjury, obstruction, etc) but those might be lesser charges than drug trafficking.

[John F. Carr]

As the story was told, the defendant volunteered the facts to his lawyer and the lawyer then adopted a trial strategy that would be counterproductive in a normal case.

Imagine if O.J. Simpson is on trial and the prosecution waves a bloody glove around. O.J. whispers to his lawyer, "the bloody glove I threw away was a size 9 and that's a size 7." Now the defense attorney knows trying the gloves on will make a great visual.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He didn’t have to know that. O.J. for some reason was allowed to put on latex gloves before trying on the gloves in question in front of the jury. Nobody fits into their own gloves if they put latex on first.

[David Nieporent]

Is having pills illegal?

[Dr. Ed 2]

" The lawyer asked that the exhibit be tested in court. Negative"

I doubt that there ever would be an actual test in court -- depending on exactly how it was done, you'd have to cart in a lot of expensive (and quite fragile) equipment, likely calibrate it because it had been moved, verify the calibration, etc. Some tests involve seeing what colors a substance gives off when burned -- and unless you have a fume hood venting this outdoors, you are going to be filling the courthouse full of things you really don't want people breathing. (Not just drugs, but drugs -- although some of the other stuff would be worse.)

Besides, all Luke Ryan had to do was prove that Farak was impaired when she conducted the tests, and it helped that she was nice enough to keep records on her drug usage for her psychologist.

I don't think he EVER showed that what his clients had wasn't actually what the cops claimed it was -- only that there was reasonable doubt. Much as a drunk driver can sort-of drive, my guess is that Farak more-or-less got most of her tests right -- it's just that it didn't meet "beyond reasonable doubt."

[John F. Carr]

Maybe I was thinking of the district court decision that was reversed in Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280 (1995) but the details don't match my memory. An APA challenge had invalidated a federal regulation requiring antilock brakes. If the regulation had been in effect it would have preempted state laws on the subject. Plaintiffs sued a manufacturer claiming lack of ABS was a design defect. The District Court ruled their claim was preempted by federal law, but the Appeals Court and Supreme Court disagreed. With no nationwide regulation in effect Georgia was free to make up its own rules.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"disposal was per normal procedures"

Sniffing out crime!

(just a little joke)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Interstate highways cross state lines -- and once you pass the last exit in a state, all the traffic inherently is going to be going into the next state.

So you have a McDonalds in that next state, on the border, and want to put up a billboard saying "McDonalds Next Exit -- open 24 hours" -- and you want to put this about 5 miles back so that traffic going 70 MPH has enough time to (a) decide to stop and (b) safely take the exit. (Yes, you *can* take an exit from the left lane at 70 MPH -- but it's definitely NOT recommended...)

That's definitely interstate commerce -- being interfered with by the other state's billboard restrictions. Remember that the exit is too close to the state line for you to have the billboard in your state, although you do erect a 50 foot high sign on your store.

Another example -- there are loopholes that allow billboards in some places along Interstate highways in Massachusetts. Fireworks are strictly illegal in Massachusetts, but legal in New Hampshire and there are stores along the border.

One such billboard is visible from I-91 North some 20 miles and 7 exits from the *Vermont* border -- and while the first Vermont exit is Brattleboro, if you go down the hill and across the river, you are in Hinsdale, NH -- where there is a fireworks store. Which, last I knew, was advertising its location and products on this billboard.

Even though fireworks are illegal in Massachusetts.

[defaultdotxbe]

Its the same thing in IL, even summer there are dozens of billboards for IN fireworks stores all along 80 and 94 in IL.

One store will put ads on the all of last 5-10 billboards before the borders (and another will have a single one that says "Fewer billboards, better selection, lower prices" which I always find amusing)