Indiana had impressive turnout at its Democratic primary this week despite the April 28th US Supreme Court ruling that upheld the state’s voter photo identification requirement. (See US Legal Reporter April 28th entry at  http://reporter.uslegal.com/). As the new law was applied on Tuesday, persons without state or federal identification that included a photograph were not allowed to vote.

Interestingly, among those turned away were a group of Roman Catholic nuns of St. Mary’s Convent in South Bend, Indiana. Their expired passports were not accepted by a fellow nun who served as a polling inspector. These 12 nuns, all elderly and most of whom had been faithful voters during their lifetime, do not drive, and therefore, do not have driver’s licenses. The convent claims that the nuns knew of the photo requirement, and it will ensure that each nun that wishes to vote in the general election in November obtains proper identification. Indiana’s Secretary of State, Todd Rokita was not particularly compassionate towards those who were turned away, including the nuns, when he issued a statement emphasizing that the law is applicable to everyone and that voters over the age of 65 could vote by absentee ballot.

One purpose of the law is to prevent voter fraud, but opponents had argued that it negatively affected certain groups, such as minorities and, as is the case with the nuns, the elderly– two groups that are not as likely to possess such identification. (By the way, Indiana does not have a substantial record of voter fraud as it purportedly has never prosecuted a person for impersonating another voter). The law does allow for a voter without identification to cast a provisional vote and obtain the needed identification within ten days, but whether poll workers conveyed that message to all persons without identification is unclear. While the nuns were told of this option, at least one person, a student at Notre Dame, who presented her school ID and her out-of-state driver’s license, alleges she was not told about the provisional vote. Additionally, the nuns either refused the provisional ballots or were never given them due to the impossibility and impracticality of actually transporting these elderly persons, many of whom are wheelchair or walker-bound, to a motor vehicle branch and back within the allotted ten day period. (FYI: the voting Tuesday took place at the convent itself).

Jonah Goldman, who directs the Lawyers Committee’s Campaign for Fair Elections stated that the nuns and another person who was prevented from voting under the new law are “the face of the Supreme Court case” and many persons across the nation in states with voter identification laws were “being disenfranchised by a perceived, incorrect or illegal restrictive identification requirement” partly due to poll workers demanding more identification than the law requires.

As conveyed by John Borkowski, a lawyer who volunteered for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, who stated “[h]ere you have a bunch of nuns whose votes can’t be accepted by a bunch of nuns … who live with them in the polling place in their convent because they don’t have an ID,” isn’t this ironic? 

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/918857.html; http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1130//05-08-2008/20080508035002_4.html; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24490932/

DS

From Green Tech Blog, a story too good to pass up on inspiring little planes. There is a tenuous legal hook for this post, but mainly I was just wowed by these works of avionic art and wanted to share.  Don’t miss the gallery.

Light, electric powered planes built from carbon fiber are advancing to the point of initial economic viability ($77,000, $133,000 and $300,000 models are mentioned), but FAA rules are very restrictive on personal light aircraft.

However, FAA rules could change, possibly within the next year. The Experimental Aircraft Association announced Saturday that it has filed a request for the FAA to change how it classifies electric aircraft. If the group’s petition succeeds, the U.S. market could open up for other electric craft on the horizon.

Commenters to the article are not optimistic, citing the inability of most of us to navigate (drive) without mishap in two dimensions. Still, it’s a pretty dream.

B

I want to discuss how, at night, someone outside a moving vehicle can observe someone inside the vehicle and reasonably determine that the passenger has “move[d] his body as if he were reaching for a weapon.” This observational conclusion seems key to the policeman’s decision to open fire (in which other police immediately joined) upon Sean Bell and his friends (all of whom were unarmed), and to the Judge’s decision to acquit the policemen. Before discussing this point, some background.

This morning at Queens County Criminal Courts Building in New York City, Judge Arthur Cooperman acquitted three NYPD officers charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment after an eight week bench trial.

Sean Bell was killed by a 50+ bullet barrage as he left his bachelor party at the Kalua Cabaret with friends Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield who were wounded multiple times in the shooting.

Officers Michael Oliver, 36, and Gescard Isnora, 29, stood trial for manslaughter while Officer Marc Cooper, 40, was charged only with reckless endangerment. Two other shooters weren’t charged. Oliver squeezed off 31 shots; Isnora fired 11 rounds; and Cooper shot four times.

The defense, which requested a non-jury trial, relied upon self-defense (statute text, see Sec. 35 et. seq.) as justification for the shooting. The District Attorney’s Office, which found itself in the unusual position of prosecuting city police officers (but did not opt to appoint a special prosecutor) had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that self-defense was not justified.

Judge Cooperman read his opinion (transcript) from the bench. Let’s examine that opinion to deduce the facts as the Judge found them to be after hearing the evidence. The police were there undercover, investigating possible prostitution at the club. One officer witnessed a verbal altercation between Bell’s group (including Guzman) and another group of men.

And, the court finds, another threat was made by Joseph Guzman to retrieve a gun [from a car outside]. At that point, nothing of a criminal nature had taken place. But, having witnessed that provocative confrontation … the undercover officers became concerned and followed the group around the corner to Liverpool Street [where the three men got into the Nissan Altima].

…

The Altima, which was driven by Mr. Bell, sped away from its parked position, struck defendant Isnora [who claimed the car bumped his leg] and collided head on with the [unmarked] police van that had entered Liverpool Street. The Altima then went into reverse, backed up onto the sidewalk, struck a gate and then went forward and to the right, striking the police van again. As this was happening, defendant Isnora — who testified in the grand jury — observed Mr. Guzman, the front passenger, move his body as if he were reaching for a weapon.

Defendant Isnora yelled, “gun” and fired.

Other officers, indicted and unindicted, joined in from different locations on the street.

Note that nowhere in the opinion did the Judge find that any officer ever identified (or successfully identified) himself as such to the men in the car — a point that was disputed at the trial. Bell’s group could have easily believed they were being assaulted by persons following them out of the club. For a very nice NYTimes graphical walk-through of the incident, see here (but remember this is not evidence).

Judge Cooperman could have relied on the ramming of the unmarked (see photos from previous link) police van as a display of deadly force justifying a like response — but he did not so rely. Neither did he rely on the bumping of officer Isnora as Bell accelerated away in the Altima. Not surprising really, since either of these incidents — especially at the low speed at which they must have happened — is arguably not demonstrative of deadly force. Instead, the key evidence relied on to justify the gunfire is that which seems most unreliable: Isnora’s claim that he saw a passenger “move his body as if he were reaching for a weapon,” upon which Isnora yelled “gun!” and opened fire.

Think about this for a moment. It was dark. There is no indication that an interior light was on inside the Altima. Any outside lighting would reflect off the car windows, making observation of the interior more difficult. As the Altima moved around, presumably trying to maneuver/muscle past the blocking van, what could Isnora really have seen? What sort of body movement, exactly, visually translates as “reaching for a weapon” as opposed to something else — any of the infinite other purposeful or non-purposeful movements Guzman may have made as the car jolted around in the alley?

Isnora’s claimed observation being of the most self-serving variety possible (justifying a homicide!), one would think that a more rigorous evaluation of the forensic validity of the observation would have been conducted, and presumably the prosecutor attempted to refute the claim. What we know from the Judge’s verdict is that he seems to have wholeheartedly accepted the fact and accuracy of the Isnora’s physically dubious observation, and used it as the keynote of his written opinion.

I realize the burden of proof was on the DA to show that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the shooting was unjustified, but it seems from the opinion that the Judge relied on Isnora’s “observation” as the chief obstacle to the DA’s meeting his burden of proof. I will be watching for more news out of the trial with an eye to this issue, and will update my opinion here as new facts warrant me adjusting it.

Upcoming will be a civil case and a potential federal civil rights prosecution.

Paultre Bell, Guzman and Benefield have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in federal court that has been stayed pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Guzman was shot 16 times, and four bullets, too dangerous to remove, remain in his body, according to his lawyer, Sanford Rubenstein.

Federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York have been monitoring the trial. In the event of an acquittal, it is likely authorities would conduct a review to determine whether there were any civil rights violations.

I’ll add news on those as it develops.

B

On rare occasions, the disparate worlds of “the law” and “particle physics” collide (pun intended). Now is such a one.

This summer, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) will begin experiments with its Large Hadron Collider (LHC), an incredibly complex circular tube 27 kilometers long through which atoms and bits of atoms will be accelerated (in opposite directions) to a reported 99.9999991% light speed under the French/Swiss countryside. Upon attaining such speed, the particles will be smashed together head-on, and the resulting debris will be documented by sensors.

Wikipedia lists the following as some of the questions to be investigated (just breeze through):

• Is the popular Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses in the Standard Model realised in nature? If so, how many Higgs bosons are there, and what are their masses?
• Will the more precise measurements of the masses of the quarks continue to be mutually consistent within the Standard Model?
• Do particles have supersymmetric (”SUSY”) partners?
• Why are there apparent violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter? See also CP-violation.
• Are there extra dimensions indicated by theoretical gravitons, as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we “see” them?
• What is the nature of dark matter and dark energy?
• Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces?

To which I, a devout man of science, reply: “Have we solved world hunger yet?” There, it’s been said — whether tongue-in-cheek… I, even I, can’t immediately decide. That dilemma however, is far from the point. Back to the collision of disparate worlds, and forward to the explosion of them.

Turns out, there are safety concerns:

Michelangelo L. Mangano, a respected particle physicist who helped discover the top quark in 1995, now spends most days trying to convince people that his new machine won’t destroy the world.

“If it were just crackpots, we could wave them away,” … “But some are real physicists.”

Mangano and his colleagues are pretty sure the device is safe. Among other comforting nuggets, they say that cosmic rays have been impacting at LHC-type speeds in the vicinity of Earth’s moon for eons, and the moon is still there.  

Luis Sancho, a noted physicist and author, isn’t so sure. So concerned are Sancho and fellow physicist Walter Wagner, that they’ve — no joking — filed suit in the US District Court for Hawaii to block the start-up of the LHC until a detailed safety review has been completed and peer-reviewed. The two are irritated that a 1999 review for a less powerful collider in the United States is the only safety review posted by CERN for LHC, when a fresh review had been promised by Jan 1, 2008. 

Sancho fears that either a microscopic black hole, or an ultra-dense ”strangelet,” (both of which are expected to be produced in the LHC by its proponents) could destroy Earth. LHC proponents claim that any black hole produced would instantly dissipate due to (theoretical) ”Hawking radiation” and any strangelet produced would be both unstable and wrongly charged to pose a threat, also dissipating in a virtual instant. Sancho notes that Einstein’s theories contradict the notion of Hawking radiation, and Einstein has mainly been proven right, eventually.

James Gillies, a CERN spokesman, told New Scientist magazine that fears were overrated:

The lawsuit’s claims are “complete nonsense.” “The LHC will start up this year, and it will produce all sorts of exciting new physics and knowledge about the universe,” he said, adding: “A year from now, the world will still be here.” 

The world will still be here, unless they’re wrong, as Sancho notes in his affidavit:

As Nobelist Frank Wilczek, the author of a ‘safety document’ for the far less powerful RHIC collider, said at a conference at MIT:

“It was easy to make the report because if something goes wrong then … (‘shrugging his shoulders and laughing’)” …

Obviously meaning that neither he, nor CERN could be blamed, since the planet and all courts and citizens that might retrospectively judge their foolishness would be gone.

Here are some choice tidbits from Sancho’s affidavit, filed in support of his motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.

As of today, the exact probability of a possible runaway reaction that converts the Earth into strange matter, or converts the Earth into a black hole, is unknown, and is entirely dependent on alternative theories, which are still disputed. Those theories convert those experiments in probabilistic events similar to the toss of a coin: If theory A is right or Parameter C has certain unknown value we will become annihilated.  If instead, theory B is right or Parameter C has a different unknown value, we will survive without any adverse consequence. …

CERN chooses selectively only those theories about black holes and dark matter that favor the position of ‘no risk’.  It is for that reason that it promotes and affirms as an ‘absolute truth’ the outdated 1974 thesis of black hole ‘evaporation’ postulated by Dr. Hawking, explained in the previous paragraphs.  Indeed, CERN bases all its hopes of human survival in its report of safety on 6 words:  “Black holes will evaporate via thermal radiation”; 6 words that seem enough for CERN to calm mankind. Yet Thermal Radiation, the so-called “Hawking radiation”, is quite disputed, since there is not a single proof whatsoever that has shown that black holes will evaporate once created. …

Thus, we come to the conclusion that CERN will cause 2 events [creation of a stable black hole or a stable strangelet] that can destroy the planet, each with approximately a ±50% chance of occurring, as there are equally respectable, alternative theories and parameters in both cases for which no certain estimates can be made.  On that basis, a simple calculation of probabilities shows that the real risk of these proposed experiments can be as high as 75% when we combine 2 possible events, each one with a 50% chance. …

In ethical, moral and hence legal terms (as I believe The Law is the practical expression of human ethics), it is self-evident that even a reduced possibility, as those initially considered by CERN, of a 1-10% chances of extinguishing the Earth, would create a “theoretical potential” 6 billion x 1-10% = 60-600 million potential legal holocaust victims, still the biggest genocide in the history of mankind.  It would be also the biggest environmental crime of history, far more harmful than Global Warming, as it could mean the destruction of all life forms on this planet.

Ever heard the canard that our lack of evidence of other advanced civilizations in the galaxy could be due to their consistently obliterating themselves once their particle physics experiments reach a certain level? Makes you wonder.

What would it be like, to be sitting at your desk as the world is converted into strange matter or crushed in an expanding black hole in a matter of hours or minutes?

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened. — Obi-Wan Kenobi, sensing the destruction of Alderaan

Supposedly (at bottom), there is an initial hearing scheduled before a magistrate judge in Hawaii on June 16. I will try to discover what info is available thereafter. Though I sympathize with their contrarianism, I figure Sancho and Wagner are probably wrong, and the Earth is safe. But it will be interesting to see how the court handles such heavy science. Let’s hope these guys don’t have to update their website. Like the old Chinese proveb says, you can bask in the glow of being right, or you can just bask in the glow.

B

I previewed the Heller case six months ago here. Check that for a primer. Oral argument (transcript) was held yesterday, in this, the momentous Second Amendment gun rights case. In the balance: whether and to what degree a governmental entity may regulate the possession of firearms - a major social/cultural issue in American political life.

Two excellent articles discussing the case and the oral argument can be found here (I tend to agree) and here.

From another great set-up piece:

In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger even described the “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups [the National Rifle Association] that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Great quote. I laughed. The last time the High Court considered the Second Amendment (United States v. Miller (1939)), it sided with the militia-centric view and allowed ample regulation. 

After yesterday’s oral argument, however, it appears to many commentators that a five Justice majority is ready to find an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, with a corresponding reduction of regulation. Looking forward to the Opinion(s) in this case.

B

An update on the story I first mentioned here.

To refresh your memory (or check above link), contractor Robert Kitts found lots of antique cash (worth $500K+ to collectors) stuffed in the walls he was tearing out, then got into a dispute with the owner, Amanda Reece, about ownership of the loot. Identifying mark “P. Dunne” was found on the packages of bills. Court date was set.

Now an initial hearing has been had on the matter, reported in a nice article here.

Heirs of P. Dunne have been located by genealogist Ray Whitaker, who finds people for a living. Their attorney has now entered the fray.

At the hearing in early February, Magistrate Judge Charles Brown was informed that most of the money was gone. From the article:

Brown turned to Reece. “How much is left?”

“About $18,000,” Reece said sheepishly. It was stashed in her 71-year-old mother’s safety deposit box in South Carolina. She refused to say how she spent it.

It wasn’t noted in the article whether there were any punitive measures in the offing for Reece’s spending of the money. If she did “spend” it, she sure got a bad exchange rate, the money being worth about triple its face value to collectors. Perhaps if no court had ordered her not to spend it, she could do so without consequences. Could Kitts’ lawyer have obtained an injunction? If the money (or part of it) is found to have belonged to someone else, the true owner(s) may have a civil remedy (lawsuit) against Reece for her reckless spending while she knew ownership was in dispute.

The remainder of the funds were ordered placed in a lock box, only accessible by the lawyers involved. A new court date (presumably for a trial) is being set. More reports from me when I get news.

B

If you’re like 57% of Americans polled for a Bankrate.com article by Cheryl Allebrand, you don’t have a Last Will and Testament (commonly referred to as a “will”).

USLegalForms.com, has specialized in providing state-specific wills to our customers since 1996. Our innovative “online questionnaire” takes your information in a few clicks, and your will is mailed or emailed to you.

Since the introduction of our user-friendly questionnaire, our will sales have soared. Going to a local attorney for a will would likely cost you at least $200. We provide a will complying with your state’s law for the affordable price of $20.

Join the growing number of Americans rising to the responsibility of planning their estate with a will from USLegalForms.com, the best source for legal forms on the web.

B

As I suspected, the “letter from the grave” was too much to overcome. After 32 hours of deliberation over three days, Mark Jensen was found guilty of murdering his wife. Interestingly, the much-fought-over letter was deemed to fall within the “dying declaration” exception to the Hearsay Rule by the Wisconsin Supreme court, which expanded the traditional parameters of the “dying declaration” exception to include this letter.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/21/jensen.verdict/index.html

B

You might want to exchange that recently-purchased ‘HD DVD’ player/recorder.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/02/19/toshiba.hdd/index.html

Remember when Sony’s Betamax technology lost out to VHS in the 1980’s? (My family had a Betamax, and it was the best VCR I’ve ever used). Well, Sony has won this round. Its Blu-ray high-definition technology has knocked out competitor Toshiba’s ‘HD DVD’ technology. The two formats used different hardware to provide high-def, and Toshiba has just announced they will discontinue all efforts at producing HD DVD products.

The final cards fell when Wal-Mart, Netflix and Warner Brothers all announced they would move exclusively to Blu-ray DVDs.

Winners: Disney, 20th Century Fox, MGM, Dell, Panasonic, and Philips, who backed Blu-ray.

Losers: Paramount, Universal Pictures, Microsoft, Sanyo, and NEC, who backed Toshiba’s HD DVD technology.

In a nutshell, Toshiba was unable to capture the world-wide retail space that Sony commanded. Consequently more consumers acquired Blu-ray technology, leaving HD DVD without a market.

Here’s a recent comparison contrast of the two technologies… now largely moot.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-8900_7-5600201-1.html

B 

Interesting case and test of “Reasonable Doubt” standard.  Not-guilty will be a surprise. If you look up information about poisons on line, and then that type of poison is found in the victim’s stomach… that’s a strike against you, regardless of whether or not the prosecutor’s expert overstated the amount of poison present. The victim’s letter expressing fear that her husband was trying to kill her doesn’t help either.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/19/jensen.trial.ap/index.html

B