The flurry of legislative activity that led to the General Assembly’s vote this year to repeal the death penalty in Maryland included the most memorable quote of the 2013 session — if only because of the speaker.

For the prior four years, Sen. Robert A. “Bobby” Zirkin was widely regarded as one of the two legislators who saved capital punishment in Maryland. With the Senate poised to vote for abolition in 2009, Zirkin – with Sen. James Brochin – crafted legislation that preserved the death penalty but limited its application only when DNA evidence, a videotaped confession or a videotape of the crime conclusively linked the defendant to the capital murder.

Read the rest of this entry »

Welcome to Monday and a day for fools. Here are some news items to get the first week of the baseball season started.

– A law professor provided perhaps the best explanation of what happened last week at the Supreme Court.

– Should detained immigrants have a right to counsel?

– Colorado prosecutors weigh seeking the death penalty for accused movie-theater murderer.

– Utah opens courtrooms to television and radio coverage.

Welcome to Monday and a week in which we might crown another Baltimore sports champion. Here are some news items to get it all started.

– Retired justice pens book about the Supreme Court.

– Can a condemned killer reject a governor’s reprieve?

– Small-state advantage in U.S. Senate faces legal challenges.

– One lawyer’s “copyright protection” is another’s “fraud on the court.”

Welcome to the final Monday of January. Here are some news items to get your week before the big game started.

– Military lawyer clashes with Obama administration over breadth of war crimes.

– Muslim students file First Amendment appeal in California.

– Wall Street receives advice on dealing with the Justice Department.

– Another “M” state debates the death penalty.

Before the story of Ronald Post veers into “odd news” territory, here are the sobering facts: Post was convicted in 1985 of murdering a hotel desk clerk two years earlier and sentenced to death. He is scheduled to die in January.

But his lawyers have argued that the 6-foot-3-inch, 480-lb. Post should not be executed because he is “morbidly obese.” They argued in a federal court filing late last week that Post’s weight and poor veins “have a substantial likelihood of causing severe complications with attempts at an intravenous execution,” meaning his death could be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Post’s lawyers say their client wants to lose weight and has even been denied gastric bypass surgery by prison officials. Post’s attempts to keep weight off have been thwarted by back and knee problems, the lawyers said, and he had been using an exercise bike “until it broke under his weight.”

I started reading a related story that included some details about failed attempts of inserting IVs into large inmates but I got woozy halfway through.

All of this leads me to one question: If Post’s appeal is denied and his execution goes on as planned, what will he choose for his last meal?

Welcome to the post-Labor Day roundup, in which we celebrate the possibility that the Orioles might be tied for first place at the end of the day.

– Can this lawyer defend the First Amendment in 140 characters or less?

– Thirty days means 30 days.

– Obama v. Romney may be decided in the courts rather than at the polls.

– The U.S. Supreme Court has what some in the capital defense bar call a “death clerk.” (HT: How Appealing)

After four full days of deliberation, the jury in the death penalty case against Lee E. Stephens remains undecided about whether he and another man killed a corrections officer in the former Maryland House of Correction.

Cpl. David McGuinn was stabbed to death while on duty during an ambush style attack from behind as he was taking the final lockup count for the night at 10 p.m. on July 25, 2006. Stephens was charged with first-degree murder in McGuinn’s death.

The case went to the jury last Wednesday. While court was not in session Friday, the jurors in the case have been deliberating since. On Tuesday, jurors again did not deliver a verdict and were sent home about 4 p.m.

The case against Stephens is based on eyewitness testimony from former inmates on the cell block where the attack occurred and DNA testing of blood recovered from Stephens’ personal effects. The jury has the option to find Stephens guilty of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Paul A. Hackner told the jury when they were given the case that the verdict form also included an option to find Stephens guilty of second-degree murder. A first-degree conviction would open the door to further hearings about whether to impose capital punishment.

The jury has had a tough job put in front of them. There are reasonable issues raised on both sides and, with no video footage, a lot of the state’s case came down to a prisoner who said he saw everything through a mirror he held out of his cell door.

Read the rest of this entry »

Happy Columbus Day. If you’re at work, like those of us at The Daily Record, here are some law links to check out. If you’re off today, get out there and enjoy the beautiful weather.

• Is the cost of supplying lawyers to defendants in bail hearings worth it? Page Croyder says it would require lawyers to be available 24-7 and cost taxpayers a boatload.
• Good news in the legal industry: Jobs are on the rise. The national economy may still be in the dumps, but law firms are adding employees.
• The former voice of Dora the Explorer is suing MTV and Viacom for forcing her to sign a contract without allowing a lawyer review it. The girl’s family claims she’s been underpaid by at least $2 million. Vamanos! We have to sue!
• D’oh! EEOC sues employer for disability discrimination based on obesity.
• One South Carolina family law firm says no kvetching — we’ll get to you when we can.
• Attorneys and judges are grappling with juror comments on Facebook. This might be deja vu for readers who followed the Dixon trial.
• Lawyers will fight death penalty with economic argument: It’s just too expensive (HT: How Appealing).

If it’s the first Monday in October, it must be the first day of the Supreme Court term. Check out retired Justice John Paul Stevens’ chat with NPR’s Nina Totenberg on the one vote he regrets. And, without further adieu, on to the law links:

• Are recreational activity torts making a comeback?
• Can a green coating under your tongue prove that you’ve been using marijuana? Jon Katz at the Underdog blog calls it junk science.
• Page Croyder reflects on last month’s Baltimore state’s attorney election.
• The Maryland Law Review wants to let its work evolve through conversation — adding taped interviews with profs and taped discussions between themselves about the articles.
• In Europe, fathers should be entitled to breastfeeding leave too.
• The San Jose Mercury News takes a look at Gloria Allred’s use of the media (ht Legal Ethics Forum).
• This one’s hard to believe.

Gov. O’Malley’s been pretty vocal about his opposition to the death penalty, speaking out about its fundamental wrongness and pushing hard for its abolition. The repeal efforts having failed, Charles Lane of the Washington Post wonders why O’Malley doesn’t just commute the sentences of the five men on Maryland’s death row:

To be sure, clearing Death Row wouldn’t achieve his ultimate goal of abolishing the death penalty. But it would save the lives of five people sentenced under what the Commission on Capital Punishment has told the governor was an irretrievably flawed process — and whose executions, according to O’Malley, would serve no purpose even if that process had been absolutely pristine.

So Lane asked O’Malley about it, and O’Malley was not, in his judgment, able to muster a convincing answer as to why he can’t or won’t commute the sentences. Lane concludes that it’s a political decision:

I suppose O’Malley’s re-election might be so important to the long-run cause of abolishing the death penalty in Maryland that it is worth exposing five actual condemned men to prolonged uncertainty, not to mention the risk of possible execution, in the here and now. But I’d sure like to see someone try to argue that publicly.