Bass Reeves

This summer Walt Disney is set to release The Lone Ranger starring Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer. The story, of course, is nothing new. The Lone Ranger today is an icon of the 20th century. His story represents a romanticized version of the “Wild West” with all its rough and tumble glory. The Lone Ranger is a hero, saving the lives of innocent settlers and catching outlaws with the aid of his faithful friend, Tonto. Yet the image of the Masked Avenger that movies and TV have painted in our mind may not be entirely accurate. In the past, men like Clayton Moore, Chad Michael Murray, and now, Armie Hammer, have played the leading role of the Lone Ranger. A closer look at the historicity of the Lone Ranger’s story however, suggests the possible inspiration for the legendary figure to be Bass Reeves, an often forgotten former slave and U.S. Marshall in the Indian Territory in the years preceeding the Civil War.

Bass Reeves was born in 1838 in Crawford County, Arkansas, a child of slaves. He grew up in Grayson, Texas after his owner, William S. Reeves relocated. During the Civil War, Bass claimed to have fought under the leadership of William Reeves’ son, Col. George Reeves in the Battles of Pea Ridge (1862), Chickamauga (1863), and Missionary Ridge (1863). Bass Reeves’ family however, claims an alternative story which suggests that between 1861 and 1862, Reeves attacked his owner in an argument over a card game and escaped into Indian Territory. Though the truth has yet to be determined, historians consider it unlikely that Reeves ever served in the last two battles. Regardless, after the war, it is understood that Reeves served as a guide for U.S. government officials as they passed through Indian Territory.

In 1875, Reeves began his career as a deputy U.S. Marshal under the guidance of Federal Judge Isaac Parker of the Western District of Arkansas. Roaming a 75,000 mile area in what is now mostly Oklahoma, Reeves was responsible for chasing and apprehending criminals. To do his job, Reeves employed a number of clever tricks and techniques all too reminiscent of the well known Masked Avenger. As a 6’2″ man, Reeves learned from the Native Americans how to make himself appear smaller on his strong white and grey horse. At times he would surprise outlaws by adopting their clothing and mannerisms. Just as the Lone Ranger gave out silver bullets, so too did Reeves give out silver dollars as calling cards. Reeves was also often accompanied by one particular Native American, whose name is unfortunately unknown to historians at this time. According to contemporary reports, Reeves apprehended more than 3,000 outlaws and killed 14 during his time as a marshal. Many of the criminals he apprehended were sent to Detroit to serve their time. Interestingly enough, it was in Detroit that the Lone Ranger radio program first aired.

What the Lone Ranger did in movies, Bass Reeves did in real life. Known for wielding a rifle along with two pistols on either hip and being a dangerously accurate shot, Reeves no doubt had an intimidating presence. It was his unwavering dedication to his job however, that gave Reeves his serious reputation throughout the West. Despite his success, Reeves was forced to retire in 1907 when Oklahoma became a state due to the strict Jim Crow laws. Sadly, his larger than life persona has since been lost in the annals of history. While the story of the fictional Lone Ranger comes back time and time again, the true story of Bass Reeves continues on without much notice.

For additional information refer to:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1699393/Bass-Reeves

http://www.librarything.com/topic/132044

Richmond Phillips

This past Monday, Maryland courts found former police officer Richmond Phillips guilty of the first degree murder of his mistress Wynetta Wright and their infant child Jaylin. According to the prosecution, Phillips shot and killed 20-year-old Wright in May 2011 after a heated argument regarding a child support dispute. He then proceeded to drive 11-month-old Jaylin to a nearby apartment complex, and left her to die inside her mother’s SUV as temperatures in the car rose to a sweltering 125 degrees. The search for Wright’s body began when she failed to show up for the paternity hearing, and her body was found days later in the park where the dispute had taken place.

The case against Phillips gained momentum as Kimberly Everett, another of Phillip’s mistresses at the time of the dispute, stepped forward with incriminating testimony regarding the murder weapon. Everett reported that Phillips was in possession of a “small caliber” gun matching the .22 caliber gun used in the murder. Phillip’s defense responded to these charges arguing that the evidence was too circumstantial for a conviction and that his client “didn’t do this thing”. Regardless, Phillips was charged with the murder of both his mistress and daughter, and faces life in prison without the possibility of parole plus 20 years.

Over the last year and a half, this case has attracted substantial media attention and has been met with a heated public response. Though it is not uncommon for such cases to attract public attention, Phillip’s respected position as a law enforcement officer clearly played a role in the case’s popularity. As community leaders and role models, police officers are held to a higher ethical standard than the ordinary citizen. As they swear in the police Oath of Honor, a public statement of commitment to ethical behavior, officers are expected to uphold both the constitution and public trust in the people they serve. Leaders in the force are charged with ensuring that such ethical standards are adhered to within the organization. Therefore the case raises important questions regarding police oversight and their duty to uphold these ethical standards in the private, as well as public, sphere.

Contemporary Issues in Crime:

In your opinion, does one’s position as a public servant and law enforcement officer hold them to a higher private ethical standard above those of an ordinary citizen?

Should our government play a larger role in the oversight of law enforcement activity?

For additional information regarding the case refer to: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57563905-504083/d.c-police-officer-fatally-shot-mistress-left-child-to-cook-in-car-prosecutors-allege/

By Laura Bonomini

Despite decades of vehement denial, the infamous cyclist and philanthropist Lance Armstrong openly admitted
to a career-long history of doping during an Oprah interview that was broadcast this past Monday. His televised confession comes in the wake of the International Cycling Union’s (UCI) decision to strip Armstrong of his record-breaking seven Tour de France titles in response to evidence uncovered in a 2012 investigation by the United States Anti-Doping Association (USADA).

Lance Armstrong

The 1,000 page report put together by USADA contains testimony from nearly a dozen of Armstrong’s former teammates detailing the sophisticated and professional doping program which Armstrong allegedly spearheaded¹. According to the report, Armstrong not only participated in illegal drug use himself, but actively controlled the doping culture of the entire U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team. Many speculate that his televised confession is the first step towards a full confession, which may in turn reduce the period of his ban from competitive sports.

Armstrong Career & Doping Allegations
Lance Edward Armstrong, 41, began his athletic career as a triathlete at the young age of 16. In 1992 he turned to the world of professional cycling with the Motorola Cycling Team, and went on to win the World Championship and his first Tour de France title in 1993². In 1996 his career seemed to be reaching a tragic end when Armstrong was diagnosed with stage three testicular cancer. However he emerged triumphant and cancer free the following year, gaining him an idol-like status internationally. He continued on to co-found the largely successful charity Livestrong, as well as pick up several international and national titles. In 2011 Armstrong retired from competitive cycling while facing the US federal investigation on doping which would ultimately lead to the 2012 USADA report³. He was ultimately stripped from all titles won after 1998 and subsequently banned from competing in all sports following World Anti-Doping Agency codes. Even more recently, More recently his 2000 Olympic bronze was revoked.

Armstrong has faced doping allegations for most of his athletic career. In 1999 he first tested positive for corticosteroids. These results were later explained with a medical certificate for saddle sores which contained the substance. Reports from Armstrong’s masseuse at the time state that this prescription was pre-dated, and used to cover up Armstrong’s long-term drug use. Similar reports into the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs by Armstrong and the US Postal Team continued into the early 2000s, with an active investigation by the French government into the Team’s use of a product called Actovegin. Though these allegations were dropped, accusations of doping continued as several former US Postal riders stepped forward and admitted to using such drugs. In 2004, the French book L. A. Confidentiel – Les secrets de Lance Armstrong created a stir by publically accusing Armstrong of doping, relying mainly on the allegations from the same masseuse Emma O’Reilley. Controversy was re-ignited when Armstrong came out of retirement in 2008, and came to a head in the 2011 Federal investigation.

Learn more about how doping works.

Courts
On the televised interview, Armstrong admitted to using testosterone and cortisone steroids as well as the blood-booster erythropoetein, or EPO. EPO, one of the three types of “blood doping”, involves the use of techniques and substances to increase one’s red blood cell mass which in turn allows for the body to transport more oxygen to muscles and therefore increase stamina and performance⁴. Because Armstrong has decided not to challenge the USADA allegations he will not face a hearing on the charges, but will face a lifetime of illegibility from all competitive athletics under the USADA’s jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, Armstrong currently faces multiple lawsuits and legal entanglements. The first lawsuit is a federal whistle-blower case, in which Armstrong and the US Postal Service cycling team are accused of defrauding the government by allowing doping on the squad when the team’s contract with the Postal Service clearly stated that any doping would constitute default of their agreement.

The case was filed under “qui tam” provision of the False Claims Act , which allows citizens not affiliated with the government to file actions on behalf of the government in situations where persons or companies may have defrauded government programs (informally called “whistleblowing”)⁵. The U.S. Department of Justice stands to join in on the lawsuit, making the case much more formidable. If the team is found guilty, they may be required to return all the money under the contract with the Postal Service, which amounts to over $30 million⁶.

Armstrong is also engaged in two other civil lawsuits. One involves the Dallas- based insurance company SCA Promotions, which insured bonuses to Armstrong after his Tour de France victories from 2000- 2004. Armstrong sued the company for over $7.5 million in 2004 after the doping allegations listed in “L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong,” which caused the company to withhold payments to Armstrong. In lieu of recent circumstances the company is planning on filing a lawsuit against Armstrong for over $12 million⁷. Armstrong is also being sued by British newspaper The Sunday Times, which he had sued for libel in 2004 after they had published doping accusations from the same “LA Confidential” book.

Recent accounts suggest that Armstrong may be considering a confession under oath, which may reduce his ban from sports to eight or even four years. However, such a confession may cause him to perjure himself, as he had previously swore under oath in 2004 to never have used performance-enhancing drugs. Therefore the Department of Justice would have to give him protection from perjury if he were to confess and testify.

_______________________

¹http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/
²http://www.infoplease.com/spot/lancearmstrongtimeline.html
³http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-armstrong8242012
⁴http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Resources/Q-and-A/Blood-Doping/
⁵http://taf.org/resource/fca/false-claims-act-overview
⁶http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-said-to-weigh-admission-of-doping.html?emc=na&_r=1&
⁷http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/20/lance-armstrong-sca-promotions

On January 18, 1990, DC mayor Marion S. Barry was arrested on narcotics charges. During his third term in office, the FBI and local police caught the former mayor on videotape using crack cocaine. Barry was visiting a former girlfriend, Rasheeda Moore at the Vista International Hotel (now The Westin Washington, D.C. City Center) when he was caught in the act.

Moore had agreed to work with the FBI to set up Barry in exchange for a reduced sentence for another drug conviction. Barry now claims that the FBI had tried to kill him by planting a substance that was not proven to be crack, although emergency services were on the scene during the operation to ensure the mayor’s safety.

Barry had faced allegations of drug use since 1981, but he had vehemently spurned these claims. In this case, the evidence against him was too strong to deny. Barry was convicted for one charge of drug possession and served six months in federal prison, but this scandal surprisingly did not end his political career. After serving his sentence, Barry campaigned for a seat on the Washington City Council using the slogan, “He may not be perfect, but he’s perfect for D.C.” Barry was even elected for a fourth term as mayor in 1994.

In 2004, Barry successfully campaigned to return to the Washington City Council representing Ward 8, and won 95% of the vote. He is currently serving as a council member after being most recently reelected in 2008.

Humans aren’t the only ones who require special investigation when it comes to criminal cases. Yes, bugs you heard it right, bugs are also required for forensic investigations and analysis. Believe it or not they have been used in forensic investigations since the 14th Century but only in the last 30 years the study of insects has become more prevalent in forensic. This is referred to as Forensic Entomology, which is the study of insect and arthropod biology that relate to any criminal matters. These studies include but aren’t limited to homicide cases, the detection of drugs and poisons, the location where an incident occurred and to determine where and when a wound was inflicted.

There are three subdivisions in forensic entomology: urban, stored-product and medico-legal forensic entomology. Urban Forensic Entomology focuses on pest infestations in buildings gardens or agreements between tenants and their service providers. Forensic entomology is used to determine what types of pesticides are required to treat the area and who may be at fault for the infestation. Stored-product forensic entomology is the investigation of commercially distributed foods that are subject to insect infestation or contamination. Lastly, Medico-legal forensic entomology is probably the most relatable to the name. It deals with the evidence associated with insect studies at scenes including murder, suicide, contraband trafficking, rape and physical abuse. At murder scenes the different life stages of flies could help determine when the murder occurred and also where. Entomotoxicology is a new field covered under medico-legal forensic entomology which focuses on using entomological specimens found at crime scenes to test for possible drugs that could’ve been used to kill the victim.

As much as we hate flies they are one of the most depended upon insects when it comes to death investigations. They are the first insects on the scene of a murder and are attracted to a fresh moist body for their larvae to feed on. The different life stages of flies located at a crime scene could help detectives determine the post mortem interval. The next insects to show up are beetles that feed on a more decomposed body when it begins to dry out and can be replaced by moth flies. They are followed by mites and moths who are key factors in the last stages of total decomposition of a corpse.

From the stage of insect development to the type of insect present there are different factors that determine these things. Bugs aren’t the hardest to accommodate but they are picky when it comes to inhabiting bodies. Factors such as moisture levels, sun exposure, air exposure, bodies of water, geography and weather all determine the different insects present at death scenes and the stages of development. If the body is humid and low in moisture maggot levels will increase rapidly.

Whether we like it or not we all depend on each other one way or another. Investigators depend on insects to determine factors that are impossible to find out unless you were actually present and humans provide these pests with a means of survival. New techniques are being developed and advanced everyday thanks to new discoveries.

Many of the forensic accomplishments that are seen on TV are just not possible with current technology, but could be sometime in the future. For example, we currently do not have the technology to definitively match an unknown fingerprint or bullet casing to one that is in a computer database of known criminals or crimes. The database will give us some possible matches but it is not able to actually find an undisputed match. A trained examiner is responsible for ultimately making the identification from the possible matches the database has produced. If a computer could actually get to that standard of analysis it could save the examiners a great deal of time. Of course legally an examiner would most likely still have to verify the computer’s work.

In the future there may also be new techniques and methods for dusting for and lifting fingerprints, such as what is being accomplished with gel lifters. The gel lifters have recently been introduced to forensics in the United States and are able to lift prints from surfaces that have historically been impossible to lift prints from. There may also be new chemicals or methods to detect if there is blood or even DNA at a crime scene. These possible advancements all depend on the research of scientists working today.

There are more and more people going to school to pursue a career in forensics. They range from the crime scene investigator to the forensic accountant. If you are interested in forensics but not all of the science that often accompanies it, try to see if there is a way to relate your particular area of study to crime solving. Forensic science is really any discipline that you can relate to the law, so even though being an accountant is not really a “science” it is part of forensics because it can be used to solve a case.

Freed from Italian prison for now a little over a year, Amanda Knox is currently living in Seattle, lying low in a “seedy” part of town, and working on her memoir. She is dating a former boyfriend, James Terrano, a classical guitarist, and spends most of her time alone.

Amanda Knox and former-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito are both releasing books this year based on their nightmarish experience.

In September, her previous boyfriend and supposed-accomplice, Raffaele Sollecito, just completed his memoir, Honor Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox. While Knox still hasn’t given her first formal interview, considered “one of the most coveted ‘gets’ being fought over by the American networks,” Sollecito has commented on his experience extensively, even admitting to being jealous of the attention that she got. Sollecito and Knox recently met up at Knox’s grandmother’s birthday party, which helped him come to terms with the girl he once dated. Says Sollecito, he realized almost immediately after seeing her after their release that she was not the she-devil that the media played her out to be, but instead “the Amanda that [he] loved for one week.”

Knox’s book is expected to come out in spring of 2013 and will supposedly net $4 million, most of which will go towards Knox’s staggering legal fees. Until then, Knox seems content to pass unnoticed through the ethnic neighborhood of Seattle in which she lives. Not surprising, considering her nightmarish four years spent in an Italian prison. As Sollecito explained, after getting out of prison, “everything was new…[it makes you] feel like a kid inside, just discovering.”

For more on the Amanda Knox story, visit her page under In the News!

A young Rayful Edmond, draped in expensive jewelry

Called the John Gotti of Washington, D.C., notorious gangster Rayful Edmond terrorized and awed the Washington metropolitan area in the mid to late 1980’s with his tight control of the crack cocaine trade and accompanying lavish spending sprees. Known for dropping several thousand dollars a night at clubs, Edmond supposedly spent over $400,000 at a single store in the Georgetown neighborhood, whose owner was, coincidentally, convicted of money laundering soon after. Partially thanks to Edmond’s reign as drug lord, Washington, D.C. became known as the “murder capitol” during this period, as civilians grew too afraid to move about the city.

An entrepreneurial prodigy, Edmond controlled most of the drug trade within the city by his early twenties, importing millions of dollars in Columbian cocaine every week. His arrest at the age of 24 in 1989 and his subsequent trial created a media circus to rival Casey Anthony’s. Jurors were kept anonymous before, during, and after the trial, and the jury box was kept behind bulletproof glass. Edmond was transported to the court everyday from the Quantico maximum-security facility (also the location of the FBI Training Academy) via helicopter. Although these measures may seem extreme, authorities fears were far from unfound.

Edmond’s gang was notoriously violent. In one year, Edmond’s “employees” committed 30 murders. Overall, the gang is believed to have committed over 400 murders over the course of their run, not including the attempted murder of a local pastor during an anti-drug march.

Edmond was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Several members of his family also received sentences, including his mother, several of his sisters, and some of his cousins. Being incarcerated did not stop Edmond at first, however, and, along with his new contacts in prison, Edmond conducted his drug business via phone privileges. He received another 30 years sentence after his misconduct was found out. Since his second conviction, Edmond has become a government informant, and is now a part of the Federal Witness Protection Program. His current location is confidential.

Want to learn more about crime and punishment in our nation’s capitol? Visit our D.C. Cases page!

There are 29 bones (hyoid included) in the human skull, and for many years anthropologists have been using markers from this area of the body to determine sex, age, race, and to make personal identifications. However, forensic anthropology is a science that is greatly affected by changes and new developments in social morays and folkways. Simply put, what was once socially unacceptable often becomes acceptable, and even encouraged, with time. This fact is abundantly clear when one thinks about the checkered history of the United States. While being a nation of freedom and equality, our history is colored with racism and intolerance as well. Allow your mind to travel back to the 1960s and 1970s, and think about how the idea of intermarriage and interracial relationships was taboo. Nowadays, however, these things are commonplace.

Now pseudo-science, phrenology was the science of determining an individual’s personality by studying their skull. There were 27 defined areas on the skull, including one that supposedly represented the likelihood of said individual committing murder. While phrenology is no longer a valid branch of science, it paved the way for the work that forensic scientists are doing today.

An ever-changing and in flux society makes the work of a forensic anthropologist difficult. As a result of social changes, there have been subtle and gradual changes to our skeletal make-ups. Those once clearly defined markers on the skull (as well as the rest of the body) are becoming a little less definitive. It is the responsibility of scientists to grow with the times and expand their arsenal of examination in light of these events.

For many years, it has been posited that the frontal sinus pattern in the human skull is unique to an individual, similar to the idea that fingerprints and DNA are unique. In 2008, a study was published in the Journal of Forensic Science by Roberto Cameriere and colleagues, that sought to test the accuracy of this position. As an added wrinkle, they sought to measure the rate of false positives between persons that were closely related (kin) to better understand the strengths of using sinus patterns to truly identify human remains.

Cameriere x-rayed skulls of 99 individuals from 20 families between the ages of 15 and 74 (from Northern Ireland). These specimens comprised the test group. The control group was comprised of 98 Caucasian individuals, aged between 17 and 98 years. This enabled the scientists to test the effect of closely related persons for false positives. After all the skulls were radiographed and digitally imaged with both anterior (front) and posterior (back) views, they were then statistically analyzed. They used functions and probability to measure the rates of false-positives within their sample.

The results showed that even when examining individuals from the same family group the probability of falsely identifying is very small. As well, based on their results, they posited that the rate for a false positive did not change significantly when family relation was a factor. This research and its results can be helpful when trying to solve cases (especially with closely related kin) where other heavily relied upon identifying methods (DNA fingerprints, etc.) are inconclusive. These results can provide a level of comfort to the scientist(s) attempting to make identification and serve to improve accuracy in
tough cases.

For more information on identifying individuals through fingerprinting, DNA, and forensic anthropology, visit our Forensic Science section!

These cases may not be Marbury v. Madison or Brown v. Board of Education, but they are still landmarks in the legal system. Here’s a list of the top ten Supreme Court Cases from the last five years.

1. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)—In what is casually known as the “Obamacare” decision, the Supreme Court limited the federal regulation of commerce, claiming that under the Commerce Clause the federal government doesn’t have the power to force states to expand their Medicaid programs under threat of stopping payments. Under the Taxing and Spending Clause, however, the federal government may levy taxes on individuals who choose not to make purchases. Lead by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court upheld the “individual mandate” within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.” Aside from securing Obama’s place within history and giving his re-election campaign a large boon, the ruling has strongly limited federal spending and its coercion of states.

2. United States v. Antoine Jones (2012)—When the local police suspected a D.C. nightclub owner, Antoine Jones, of narcotics possession, they secretly placed a global positioning system device on his car. After being convicted on the strength of that evidence, Jones appealed the use of it, claiming that the device constituted an unwarranted search. The Supreme Court agreed, and ruled that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to monitor the vehicle’s movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. This ruling is just the beginning of the legal navigations that will follow as tracking and search technology advances.

3. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012)—The Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bars the government from interfering in ministerial appointments for religious organizations, including hearing wrongful employment termination suits. Public opinion was divided on the ruling, with conservatives lauding the opinion and liberals asserting that religious organizations should abide by the same rules as other non-profits.

4. Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Graham v. Florida (2010)—In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that a sentence of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, may not be imposed on juvenile non-homicide offenders. In 2012, they expanded the decision to rule as cruel and unusual punishment mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders (including murder charges).

5. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)—In 2005, California passed a law criminalizing selling violent video games to minors. The Supreme Court struck the law down as unconstitutional, claiming that video games are protected forms of media speech, and states may not ban the sale of them to minors. The ruling sparked a large public controversy, with conservatives decrying the ruling as “disappointing,” and liberals invoking the threat to the First Amendment that the law had posed.

6. Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2010)—In the middle of a frenzied immigration reform controversy, the Supreme Court ruled that defense attorneys must inform clients of deportation and other “collateral consequences,” or civil punishments that accompany criminal charges, under three circumstances.

   1. Where the law is clear, attorneys must advise their criminal clients that deportation “will” result from a conviction.
   2. Where the immigration consequences of a conviction are unclear, attorneys must advise that deportation “may” result.
   3. When the immigration is ever in question, attorneys must inform their client; they cannot remain silent on the subject.

7. Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)—In the investigation of fatal shooting in 2000, a suspect, after being read his Miranda rights, stayed silent for three hours. At the end of three hours of fruitless interrogation, the police switched to a religious tack, asking the suspect if he prayed for forgiveness for the murders. When he answered yes, the police used the admission as incriminating evidence. The suspect appealed his conviction on the premise that by refusing to talk for three hours, he had invoked his right to remain silent and that the police had violated his Fifth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court disagreed 5-4, claiming that the right to remain silent does not exist unless the suspect invokes it. The decision was highly controversial, and critics decried the erosion of Miranda rights and coercive power the ruling gives the police.

8. Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)—The New Haven fire department administered a promotional exam to 118 firefighters. The test produced racially skewed results, where all top scorers were white with the exception of two Hispanics. Not wishing to violate Title VII, the city threw out the test results and promoted no one. The twenty candidates who received the highest scores protested, eventually bringing their case in front of the Supreme Court, who ruled that municipalities may not decline to certify the results of an otherwise fair exam merely because it would have made disproportionately more white applicants eligible for promotion.

9. Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)—In a particularly brutual rape case, a man raped his eight-year-old step-daughter, causing serious internal damage, and the judge sentenced him to death. The man appealed the sentencing, claiming that capital punishment for a rape charge constituted cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Eight Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld his claim 5-4, decreeing that a death sentence may not be imposed for the crime of rape, when the victim did not die and death was not intended. The decision received criticism of both the heinous nature of the crime and the restriction of states’ rights from both presidential candidates at the time.

10. Boumediene v. Bush (2008)—In another lawsuit concerning the U.S. War on Terror and Guantanamo Bay, a prisoner challenged the United States’ right to detain him at Guantanamo Bay without a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court found that fundamental rights of the Constitution apply to the Guantanamo detainees as well, including habeas corpus.

For more on the Supreme Court, read about their recent decision on the Confrontation Clause.

Ohio inmate Ronald Post, who is appealing his death sentence on the premise that his weight would make it cruel and unusual punishment.

Ronald Post, an Ohio inmate sentenced to the death penalty, claims that he is “too obese” to be executed. Post shot and killed a hotel clerk, Helen Vantz, in Ohio almost thirty years ago, and is scheduled to be executed on January 16, 2013. The condemned inmate argues that his weight, vein access, and other medical problems would give executioners problems during the procedure. Post, weighing 480 pounds, argues that his history of difficulty losing weight would put him through a “torturous and lingering death”; his lawyers claim additionally that his current physical and medical conditions would put him at immense risk for serious physical and psychological pain.

Ronald Post’s case is similar to several other death penalty issues regarding the weight of condemned inmates. In 2008, a convicted double murderer, Richard Cooey, was sentenced to the death penalty, but his lawyers argued that he was too obese to be executed by lethal injection. They claimed that due to Cooey’s previously limited access to food and limited opportunities to exercise, it would be difficult for executioners to find a vein for lethal injection. Despite his lawyers’ objections, the 5′ 7″ and 267 lbs Cooey was put to death on October 14, 2008. In a 1994 case from Washington, Mitchell Rupe, previously sentenced to death by hanging, appealed his sentence, arguing that his weight would put him at risk for decapitation, which would constitute as cruel and unusual punishment. Rupe was ultimately sentenced to life in prison, where he died in 2006.

American obesity numbers have skyrocketed over the past three decades, threatening to pose even more problems like these in the future.

Helen Vantz was working in the motel Ronald Post was robbing and was killed after he shot her in the back of the head twice. Vantz’s son, still seeking justice for his mother’s murder 30 years later said in response to Post’s request: “I don’t care if they have to wheel him in on a tractor-trailer; 30 years is too long…This is just an excuse to get out of the execution.”

According the Post’s lawyers, medical personnel at Ohio State University had difficulty inserting IVs into Post’s arms, needing three attempts to correctly place the IV. Post has struggled with his weight for years, but knee and back problems make it difficult for him to exercise in prison.

Post’s unusual case raises questions about the circumstances under which the death penalty should or should not be used. Currently, the death penalty is in use in 37 states, while the 13 states and jurisdictions without it claim the death penalty violates their state constitutions, or is just too costly. This particular case shows the number of ethical problems that capital punishment has encountered for years, like who should be put to death, what circumstances would allow a person to not be put on death row, and what are the costs and time it takes for an inmate to be executed?

In one month it will be the ten year anniversary of the D.C. Sniper shootings.

John Allen Muhammad, the primary organizer behind the Beltway sniper attack

For three weeks in October, 2002, John Allen Muhammad and his teenage accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, terrorized the Washington Metropolitan community. The pair used a Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle to take shots through the trunk of their car, which had a small hole drilled in it. Altogether, the pair killed eleven people and wounded six in both the D.C. area spree and their previous shooting spree in Louisiana and Alabama.

The Washington Area shootings started on October 2, 2002, when the snipers fired a shot into a Michaels Craft store in Aspen Hill, Maryland. Thankfully no one was hit, but only an hour later the snipers struck again, shooting and killing 55-year-old James Martin outside of a grocery store in Wheaton, MD. The reign of terror had begun. Five more people of varying ages were shot and killed the following day. Over the next two weeks, four more people were shot and killed, and several more were wounded.The Washington Metropolitan area was in a state of terror, as people were afraid to fill up their cars and pick their children up from school. Several districts canceled school altogether.

A drawing made by Muhammad while in jail

On October 24, police found Muhammad and Malvo sleeping in their car and arrested them on federal weapons charges. They were later able to link the gun to eleven of the fourteen shootings. The consequent trial attempted to understand the motive of the random shootings. Before the trial, the prosecutors had theorized that Muhammad’s intended target was in fact his ex-wife Mildred, who had estranged him from his children. They believed that he had tried to use the other shootings to cover up her intended murder, making it look like the work of a serial killer instead and throwing the blame from him. During the course of the trial, testimony from Muhammad about Jihad suggested terrorist leanings, but his nonsensical rants proved any terrorist connections to be immaterial. When he took the stand against Muhammad, Malvo confessed that their plan had been to extort money from the government and “set up a camp to train children how to terrorize cities” and “shut things down” all across America. As an act of terror against the state, Muhammad’s actions merited the death penalty, and he was executed by lethal injection in 2009. Malvo is currently serving out six life-sentences without the possibility of parole.

For more on Washington Area crimes, visit our D.C. Cases page!

As often happens in the aftermath of a national shooting tragedy, we, as a nation, are finding ourselves re-evaluating our gun control laws. Or at least re-evaluating whether we need to re-evaluate them.

Over at the Washington Post, Ezra Klein has assembled several graphs on the topic, showing that gun violence is decreasing and that states with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun related violence.

A graph showing America’s heightened violence in comparison to other countries, as well as America’s decreasing violence over the past fifty years.

A graph depicting the negative correlation between stricter gun laws and firearms deaths.

Although there have been many cries not to “politicize” the massacre, political candidates (especially in an election year) cannot help but take some sort of (hesitant) stance. Obama and Romney have offered up some tentative viewpoints in a pseudo, media-driven debate.
Romney, in an interview with NBC:

Well, this person shouldn’t have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices, and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won’t. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what’s essential, to improve the lots of the American people.

Obama, speaking to the National Urban League in New Orleans:

I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation — that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense.

Despite their good intentions, both of these statements are factually inaccurate. Romney implies that the Aurora shooter, Holmes, acquired his weapons illegally, which doesn’t seem to be the case. Obama implies that a firmer background check on criminal and mental health history check would have prevented Holmes from purchasing the guns, but Holmes had neither history.
What do you think?

To read our coverage of the Aurora massacre, click here.

Worried that antisocial kid in school might grow up to be a cold-blooded murderer? Here’s a handy guide for recognizing the most common serial killer traits. Remember, however, these signs are just a guideline. Think twice before crying “serial killer” on your weird neighbor.

1. Ed Gein circa 1957

   Antisocial Behavior
   Psychopaths have a strong tendency towards antisocial behavior, so watch for extremely antisocial children. That being said, some children develop more slowly, and this is not a definitive sign. Pay attention if a child regresses from being extremely social to extremely anti-social.
   Ed Gein, the inspiration for Psycho’s Norman Bates and Silence of the Lamb’s Buffalo Bill, had no social connections besides his extremely religious and abusive mother, who punished him whenever he tried to make friends. After she died in 1945, Gein began to murder and dig up graves, collecting body parts of women who looked like his mother and trying to make a “woman suit.”

2. Arson
   Many serial killers start as arsonists. Arson is psychologically attractive because it involves manipulating power and control, something that serial killing also offers.
   David Berkowitz, the “Son of Sam” killer, was infatuated with pyromania as a child, to the point that other children called him “Pyro.” After being arrested, he took responsibility for dozens of New York arsons. Some sources indicate that he might have been responsible for up to 1,400 fires.

Jeffrey Dahmer’s mugshot from 1982

3. Torturing Small Animals
   This is one of the strongest warning signs. Children who torture or kill small animals like squirrels, birds, cats, and dogs without showing remorse are highly likely to be sociopaths. Many serial killers kill to control others’ lives, and as children, small animals are the only lives they have the power to control.
   Cannibalistic serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer would bike around the woods as a child, collecting dead animals to dissect. Dahmer even killed and dismembered his own puppy, mounting its head on a stake when he was done.

4. Poor Family Life
   Many serial killers come from unstable families with criminal, psychiatric, or alcoholic histories. These killers often have terrible relationships with their families, and often use them as their first victims.
   When he was only fifteen, Ed Kemper, “the Co-ed Killer,” killed his grandparents. After being released at age twenty-one, Kemper killed six female college students. The police finally caught him when Kemper killed his violent, alcoholic mother. He treated his mother’s corpse particularly brutally, decapitating her, using her head as a dart board, and throwing her vocal cords down the garbage disposal.

Highway prostitute Aileen Wuornos would pick up men, shoot them, and rob them.

5. Childhood Abuse
   Many serial killers are abused – physically, psychologically, sexually – as children by a close family member. This behavior instills in the child feelings of humiliation and helpless, feelings which they will later seek to instill in their victims.
   Aileen Wuornos, the prostitute serial killer portrayed by Charlize Theron in Monster, was abandoned by her mother when she was four and never met her father, who was serving time in prison for raping a seven-year-old girl when Aileen was born. Aileen’s grandfather, who took over care of Aileen when her mother left, physically and sexually abused her until she ran away at age fifteen.

6. Substance abuse
   Many serial killers struggle with drug and alcohol abuse.
   Jeffrey Dahmer began drinking in his teens and was an alcoholic by his high school graduation. His alcoholism resulted in both his expulsion from college and his discharge from the military.

Ted Bundy was notoriously charismatic, which helped him disarm his female victims’ suspicions.

7. Voyeurism
   From a young age, many serial killers are interested in voyeurism, sado-masochistic pornography, and fetishism.
   Ted Bundy claimed that, as an adolescent, he would get drunk and stalk around his community at night, looking for undressing women or other titillating sights.

8. Intelligence
   Many serial killers have IQs in the “bright normal” range. Organized serial killers who kill methodically, like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy, have an average I.Q. of 113, while disorganized serial killers have an average I.Q. of 93.
   Ed Kemper had an I.Q. of 136 (140 is often used as the genius mark in I.Q. tests). He used his intelligence to convince psychiatrists to release him after serving only five years for his grandparents’ murders, claiming to have reformed. He hadn’t, and he killed eight more women before being caught again.

9. Shiftlessness
   Despite higher than normal intelligence, many serial killers have trouble keeping jobs or work in unskilled labor.
   After leaving the military, David Berkowitz, who reportedly was of “above-average intelligence,” held several blue-collar jobs before he was captured, including his last one as a postman.

For more information on serial killers, check out our page on John Wayne Gacy, the “Killer-Clown,” as well as our new exhibit on him at the museum!

What price would you pay for cyber security?

The London Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) is putting up $750 million in technology to protect the games from hacking attempts, but will it be enough?

The first electronic attacks on the Olympics can be traced back to 1980, but as years have passed and the internet has grown more and more complex, so have the attacks. In 2008 Beijing received nearly 12 million cyber attack attempts every day.

Since 2002, the Olympic Games have used the Paris-based company Atos as their lead-technology company, who predict up to 14 million possible attacks every day during the London Olympics. Executive Vice President of Atos Patrick Adiba cautions that, although their security is very high, “it can never be 100 percent.” That doesn’t mean they’re aren’t prepared, though. Atos has spent nearly 200,000 hours of testing, even inviting so-called “ethical hackers” to test out their system. Still, because of the ever-changing nature of the internet, security systems that worked eighteen months ago may now be obsolete, forcing technology security companies to constantly be on the cutting edge.

Wireless Worries

If potential hackers succeed, London and its visitors could be vulnerable to serious financial troubles. As the first “cashless” Olympics, the London Olympics have partnered with Visa to expand the use of credit in the complex by creating a phone that can pay for small purchases wirelessly. Visa also has a monopoly on all credit and cash-dispensing machines near the park. Should a hacker gain access to the Visa network, they have the potential to cost the Games millions of dollars in revenue.

Usain Bolt, celebrating winning the men’s 100m dash in 2008, a prime target for hacktivists

Another security worry is the presence of “hacktivists,” hackers who infiltrate high-profile companies to spread a political or social message. While security experts do not expect state-based hacking, citing other nations’ fears of being blackballed from future Olympics, experts do expect independent hacking groups like Lulzsec and Anonymous to attempt to hack the games. The worldwide reach of the Olympics is enticing for groups that want an immediate and far-reaching platform for their messages. Potential targets include results screens for high-profile events, like the men’s 100 m dash.

5 Ways to Avoid Being Scammed

Not all cybercriminals think big. Protect yourself from cybercrime in the next few weeks by following these five simple rules.

1. Only use official websites to watch the Games.
   Unauthorized websites may use Olympic coverage to scam people and download malware. Although unprotected PCs are more at risk, Macs aren’t entirely safe either.
2. Think twice when buying or “winning” tickets.
   This late in the game, most Olympic tickets are sold. If the offer sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Don’t give out personal information to ticket lotteries, they’re probably scams. If you’re still looking for tickets, the Olympics Committee has provided potential visitors with a handy guide to legitimate Olympics websites.
3. Use official apps.
   NBC and BBC have provided official apps with which to watch the Games on smartphones and tablets. Unauthorized apps may download harmful viruses on your devices.
4. Be skeptical of your texts.
   Scammers may send out text message with links that infect your mobile device. Think carefully before you click on any links, and distrust unknown phone numbers.
5. Beware of anti-social media
   Don’t click on links that you don’t trust, even if they are posted by your friends. Also, be especially skeptical of disguised links that are tweeted, and of fake Olympics twitter accounts.

For more information on cybercrime, check out our post on the Wikileaks scandal.

James Holmes, the primary suspect in the Colorado theater shootings

Sitting in a darkened movie theater, waiting for the start of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises, many people’s minds will undoubtedly drift to the Aurora, Colorado massacre. Thirty minutes into the darkly violent film, the shooting may press even more heavily upon their consciousness. Nolan’s final installment in his Batman re-boot is a taut action thriller, perhaps even darker than the first two films. The main villain of the film, a mask-wearing, psychopathic revolutionary named Bane, uses martial arts, guns, and explosives to terrorize the citizens of Gotham City, breaking Batman’s back and nearly breaking his spirit in the process. Although James Holmes, the primary suspect in the shooting, dyed his hair orange and compared himself to “the Joker,” the villain of the previous film, it’s hard not to think of his actions whenever Bane or one of his minions opens fire in a crowd or kills senselessly. Whatever identity it takes, evil remains the same.

At the start of The Dark Knight Rises, Gotham is in “peacetime.” Organized criminals great and small have been put away in the bleak Arkham prison, thanks to Batman and the ethically-dubious Harvey Dent Act. Bruce Wayne is in reluctant retirement. Commissioner Gordon is on the verge of stepping down. The police department has gotten lax and self-congratulatory. A storm is brewing, however, in the form of the rumored mercenary, Bane.

Similarly in the real world, the U.S. is in “peacetime,” and has been for a very long time. It’s been almost one hundred and fifty years since we had a war on U.S. soil, seventy since we were in a war that dramatically altered life for the average American, and forty years since the last military draft. Aside from a few national tragedies, America is in a comfortable position as a strong, peaceful, and dominant world power.Tragedies like the one in Colorado, however, shake up this peacetime, leaving us, as a nation, fragile and frightened of the Banes and Jokers in our own midst. At moments like these, one of our best options is to follow the people of Gotham City and turn to Batman.

In response to the Colorado shootings, Christopher Nolan said, “I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theater is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me.” For Nolan, and for many Americans, the theater is a transformative place of escapism, where people can go to experience the strange for a few hours before returning to their daily lives. It is joyful, even when the films are not, which is often the case with Nolan.

Perhaps the most important part of Nolan’s message in both his press release and The Dark Knight Rises is the “hope” of movie theaters. Early lessons in the film seem to teach the debilitating deception of hope. Selina Kyle desperately hopes for the “impossible” clean slate. Pennyworth hopes for a peaceful end to “Batman.” Bane puts Wayne in a prison whose most sadistic feature is the skylight at the top—a constant reminder of the “impossible” escape option. Wayne escapes the prison, however, gives Kyle the so-called “clean slate,” and meets Pennyworth abroad, not as the dark brooding Batman, but as a joyful Bruce Wayne.

It’s difficult to find hope in peacetime complacency. Hope is a response to darkness, like Bane’s ticking time bomb or Holmes’ theater massacre. It is faith in the near-impossible, in a superhero without guns or powers or in a nation without terror. Holmes’ actions may have destroyed the innocence of the theater, but they have not destroyed its hope. For every person who finds an outlet for their anger in the Batman villains’ senseless killing, many, many more draw hope and inspiration from Batman’s triumphs.

The Colorado shooting has been called senseless many times over, and in the respect that a dozen innocent civilians have been slaughtered, that term is appropriate. How we, as a nation, can begin to make sense of such violence, however, is by looking past the violence of the film to its message of hope and change. As with Batman, every dark night must end.

For info on the relationship between animal abuse and mass shootings, click here.

Eugène Vidocq, the father of modern criminology and the inspiration for the Vidocq Society

Sherlock Holmes may claim to be the world’s first “consulting detective,” but he’s not the only one any longer. Enter the Vidocq Society.

Born in France in 1775, Eugène Vidocq, noted criminal-turned-detective, fell in and out of trouble (and prison) from the age of thirteen until thirty-four, when he offered up his services as an informant to the French police. After a couple years working undercover, Vidocq created France’s first undercover detective bureau, the Sûreté Nationale, the inspiration for both Scotland Yard and the F.B.I. Vidocq himself inspired several characters in works by Victor Hugo, Honoré de Balzac, and Edgar Allen Poe.

The founders: William Fleisher, Richard Walter, and Frank Bender

Named in honor of Vidocq, the Society, based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, consists of retired and current members of forensic and law enforcement professions. The founding members include former FBI and U.S. Customs Special Agent William Fleisher, pseudo-psychic forensic sculptor Frank Bender, and forensic psychologist and profiler Richard Walter. The three friends wanted to create a place where “like-minded persons, in and out of forensics, could gather to discuss and debate crimes and mysteries.” Since their first meeting in 1990, the organization has mushroomed into one hundred and fifty members, and found its final resting place in the Union League of Philadelphia, a Victorian brownstone built in the mid-1800s.

The Union League of Philadelphia, the current home of the Vidocq Society

A society of distinguished criminologists, the Vidocq Society offers its detective services free of charge, and even pays for the travel expenses of those who come to plead their case in Philadelphia. There are qualifications, though. The Vidocq Society will only consider unsolved murder cases more than two years old (and therefore a “cold case”) with non-criminal victims presented to them by the appropriate law enforcement agency. If a case is selected, the appropriate official will travel to Philadelphia to present their case at one of the Society’s monthly lunches. If one or more of the members are interested in the case, they can form a subcommittee for further investigation.

The Vidocq Society has an excellent track record when it comes to the cases it takes on–as one local police chief they helped enthused, “When you bring all this expertise together…it’s one stop shopping.” They’ve helped solve several high-profile cold cases, including that of the infamous John List. The religious List methodically murdered his mother, wife, daughter, and two sons in 1971 in New Jersey, explaining in a note that he was sending them to heaven, and disappeared without a trace. Eighteen years later, in 1989, Bender and Walter aided America’s Most Wanted in capturing List. Walter created a profile for him, claiming he would be remarried, wearing a suit, involved with the Lutheran Church, and within 300 miles of the crime scene. Using this information, Bender sculpted an “aged” bust of List. Police caught and arrested List almost immediately.

ABC’s 20/20 profiles the Vidocq Society’s investigation of Leah Freeman’s murder.

Recently, the society helped the miniscule town of Coquille, Oregon solve the decade-old murder of fifteen year old Leah Freeman. In 2010, Walter helped Coquille Police Chief Mark Dannels discover more evidence in the murder case, and Leah’s then-boyfriend, Nick McGuffin, was arrested for murder.

The Vidocq Society has been covered comprehensively in crime journalist Michael Capuzzo’s book, The Murder Room. Interspersing their most famous cases with in-depth character studies of the three enigmatic founders, Capuzzo brings the society to light almost as well as the Vidocq Society brings criminals to justice. Read an excerpt here.

Caylee Anthony, the deceased two-year old
and inspiration for
‘Caylee’s Law’

Joining the ranks of AMBER Alert and Code Adam is another missing child system inspired by an infamous case: ‘Caylee’s Law’. Caylee Anthony, the deceased two-year-old whose trial captured the nation’s attention in 2011, inspired the law after her young mother, Casey Anthony, failed to report Caylee as missing for over a month. Although the jury acquitted Casey Anthony on charges of first-degree murder, aggravated child-abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child, they declared her guilty on four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. Judge Belvin Perry sentenced her to one year and $1000 for each false information count to be served consecutively. Incorporating her time already served and credit for good behavior, Anthony was released from prison on July 17th, 2011, just a couple days after sentencing. America was outraged.

In response, Michelle Crowder of Oklahoma proposed ‘Caylee’s Law’ on Change.org, a petition-hosting website, suggesting increasing the penalty to a fourth-degree felony for failing to report a missing child within twenty-four hours of their disappearance or one hour of their death. The petition quickly went viral and garnered over 1,300,000 signatures, pressuring lawmakers across the country to design such a law.

Edward Mehnert covers his mouth with duct tape as he protests the verdict against Casey Anthony during her sentencing. Anthony’s trial provoked such a media circus that Time magazine called it the “social media trial of the century.” (AP Photos/Alan Diaz)

The backlash to the proposed law was almost as strong. Critics cited ineffective previous laws inspired by dead children and cautioned against making lasting legislature out of anger and fresh wounds. A Huffington Post article criticized the impracticality of the one hour and twenty four hour cut-offs, demonstrating the difficulty of determining time of death so precisely and offering complicating hypothetical situations. What happens if your child is at a sleepover and doesn’t call home? Under this law, would you have to call your child at summer camp every day? What happens if your infant dies in his or her sleep? You might discover the death several hours later. Do we really want to punish a grieving parent in that situation with a felony? Although common sense should guide judicial rulings in these situations, there are many current examples of gross and insensible violations of justice.

Critics also fear that the law will make cautious parents falsely report absent children as missing, clogging up the police department’s missing persons cases. The excess of false cases would obscure the real missing children cases and prevent them from being investigated in those first few crucial hours. Critics claim that the law will be unenforceable and ineffective in its goal of protecting children, merely entrapping innocent parents.

Despite these criticisms, several states have moved ahead with legislation. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie passed a ‘Caylee’s Law’ in January, 2012, making the failure to report a missing child age thirteen or younger after twenty-four hours a fourth-degree felony, punishable by up to eighteen months in prison and fines up to $10,000. Governor Rick Scott of Florida signed House Bill 37 into law in April, another variant of ‘Caylee’s Law.’ This law heightened to felony status the act of misleading a law enforcement official in a missing child case. Louisiana’s version of ‘Caylee’s Law’, House Bill 600, passed in early June, and declares that failure to report a missing child is punishable with up to 50 years in prison and $50,000. Overall, thirty-two states filed some form of legislature in the past year to criminalize the failure to report a missing child.

What do you think?

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion in the Supreme Court evaluation of “Obamacare”

Is not having insurance a crime?

Thursday, June 28th, the Supreme Court officially upheld the Obama administration’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The act, which narrowly passed both the Senate and the House of Representatives along party lines in 2009 and 2010 respectively, enraged many people, causing many states, independent organizations, and individuals to challenge its constitutionality. The Supreme Court heard the case’s oral arguments in late March and finally came to a decision on Thursday. Obamacare was upheld.

What does this mean for the average person? The PPACA has many elements, including extended healthcare for individuals near poverty levels, protection for those with previous medical conditions, and increased taxes on high-income taxpayers. The most controversial aspect, however, has been the “individual mandate.”

The “individual mandate” is the PPACA provision that requires all individuals to be covered by some form of health insurance. Effective by January 1, 2014, individuals who choose not to buy health insurance will be fined an annual penalty of $95, or 1% of their income, whichever is higher. In 2016, that fine will rise to $695, or 2.5%. For families, the fine limit rises to $2,085.

Who will be affected by the penalties of the individual mandate? The Congressional Budget Office predicts that those who opt to remain uninsured will most likely be younger, single citizens. Of these younger citizens, those aged 19-25 will now be able to stay on their parents’ insurance plan, thanks to Obamacare, further decreasing the number of uninsured.

Outcry against this provision resulted in several cases brought against the PPACA, the summation of which the Supreme Court heard last March. In a somewhat backhanded decision, the usually conservative Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority:

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax…Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

The four liberal justices on the court joined Roberts in his decision, including Kagan, Sotomayor, Bader Ginsburg, and Breyer. Although the decision helps the liberal Democrats and Obama’s re-election campaign, many legal experts have called the decision conservative, citing its employment of judicial restraint. Had Roberts sided with the rest of the conservatives, the decision would have been close to a legislative act, something that Roberts, a proponent of judicial restraint, has sworn not to do.

What’s your opinion?

Sandy Williams, the defendant in a 2000 sexual assault case and the plaintiff in
Williams v. Illinois
No. 10-8505

On Monday, June 18th, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 that lab technicians do not need to appear for cross-examination, as long as their reports are “out-of-court statements.” This decision stems from sexual assault case in Chicago, now known as Williams v. Illinois No. 10-8505. In 2000, an unidentified man abducted a young woman, forcing her into his car, raping her, and robbing her. The woman then went to a nearby hospital, where doctors performed a rape kit on her, taking vaginal swabs. They sent the swabs to Cellmark Diagnostic Laboratories in Germantown, Maryland. The DNA results matched Sandy Williams, whose DNA sample came from an unrelated arrest. The forensic analyst who took the DNA sample from Williams testified at the trial on her methods and procedures. The prosecutors did not enter the Cellmark DNA report as evidence, and, as a result, no one from the lab testified in the trial. Instead, Sandra Lambatos, the state analyst who conducted the computer search, testified that the two DNA samples matched. In this case, the DNA expert’s testimony was evidence, not Cellmark’s DNA report.

Detail of a lab table in the Orchid Cellmark Laboratory,
the forensic laboratory involved in the case

This ruling engages with the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, which guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The current legal interpretation traces back to the 2004 case Crawford v. Washington, where the Supreme Court ruled that defendants have the right to confront witnesses if the evidence provided is testimonial hearsay, not just if it has an indicia or sign of reliability. Williams v. Illinois casts several previous Supreme Court Confrontation Clause rulings into doubt, including Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in 2007, which ruled the defendant has the right to cross-examine any analyst who prepares any DNA, blood, ballistic or other laboratory reports introduced at a trial. Later, in the 2011 Bullcoming v. New Mexico, Donald Bullcoming appealed his DUI charges, citing a Confrontation Clause violation because his attorneys were unable to cross-examine the exact analyst who performed the blood alcohol level test. The Supreme Court sided with Bullcoming and ruled that the defendant must be able to interrogate the exact lab technician who performed the test, not a colleague or supervisor familiar with the test. In the light of Williams v. Illinois, these rulings, previously clear, seem hazy.

The Williams v. Illinois ruling could have far-reaching consequences for prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, and crime labs nationwide, and many prosecutors and state lawyers consider it a victory. If the Supreme Court had ruled that all analysts and technicians could be called upon to testify, trials would have become even more costly for the government. Testifying would also pull technicians away from crime labs, which could slow down the already backlogged labs, further postponing trials. At the very least, Williams v. Illinois is a ruling of legal efficiency.

Elena Kagen, lead dissenting Supreme Court justice on Williams v. Illinois No. 10-8505

But is legal efficiency what should matter? Four justices on the Court said no. Dissenters on the Supreme Court included Justices Elena Kagan, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan explained in her dissent: “Before today’s decision, a prosecutor wishing to admit the results of forensic testing had to produce the technician responsible for the analysis. But that clear rule is clear no longer.” Kagan cited a previous case, The People of the State of California v. John Ivan Kocak, where a Cellmark technician, after being cross-examined, admitted to mislabeling samples which wrongly implicated a defendant. With Williams v. Illinois as precedent, in future cases that mistake might not come to light. Kagan also asserted that the splintered majority decision is barely a decision at all, and has “left significant confusion” over whether lab technicians can be called in to testify. With such confusion, can Williams v. Illinois really be called a decision at all?