US mayors warn Trump against repealing immigration policy

[JURIST]

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel [official website] delivered a letter [PDF] to US President-elect Donald Trump Wednesday signed by many US mayors warning of the potential economic losses Trump could cause if he repeals Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) [official website]. DACA allows undocumented young immigrants to remain in the US if they arrived before they turned 16 and are currently working, pursuing higher education or serving in the military. The letter, which was signed by the Mayors of New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco among others, warned [press release] that repealing DACA could result in a loss of $9.9 billion in tax revenue over four years and $433.4 billion in US gross domestic product over 10 years. Emanuel wrote:

Ensuring DREAMers can continue to live and work in their communities without fear of deportation is the foundation of sound, responsible immigration policy. Ending DACA would disrupt the lives of close to one million young people, and it would disrupt the sectors of the American economy, as well as our national security and public safety, to which they contribute. We encourage your Administration to demonstrate your commitment to the American economy and our security by continuing DACA until Congress modernizes our immigration system and provides a more permanent form of relief for these individuals.

Federal judge rejects Trump's request to stop Wisconsin recount

[JURIST]

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a request by supporters of Presiden-elect Donald Trump [official profile] to block Wisconsin's recount. Judge James Patterson ruled [Reuters report] that "the recount is an inherent part of what ensures the integrity of elections." The challenge came from the Great America political action committee [website] and Stop Hillary PAC, both forming a challenge to stop the recount in the state. The state election committee has stated that the recount is around 88 percent complete, and expects the results to be concluded by Monday. Even if the recount is to go through, it was unlikely that recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania would have been able to change the ultimate outcome of the election.

Supreme Court to rule in drug forfeiture case

[JURIST]

The US Supreme Court [official website] on Friday granted certiorari to Honeycutt v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF], a case dealing with collecting forfeitures from drug deals. At issue is whether one co-conspirator in a drug deal is liable for forfeiting all of the reasonably foreseeable proceeds from the deal. Tony and Terry Honeycutt were charged [SCOTUSblog report] with federal drug crimes after selling a chemical that is an ingredient in methamphetamine at their hardware store. Although Terry forfeited $200,000, the government wanted him to forfeit the rest of the proceeds, which Terry argued he never received. 

All but four states allow youth to be charged and tried as adults for drug charges.

Sentencing Project 

Successful campaigns to raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction have rolled back some excesses of the tough on crime era. After the implementation of Louisiana’s SB 324 in 2017 and South Carolina’s SB 916 in 2019, just seven states will routinely charge 17-year old offenders as adults, including the two states that also charge 16-year olds as adults.1) Despite other state laws that differentiate between adults and youth, placing limits on teens’ rights to serve on juries, vote, or marry without parental consent, the criminal justice system in these jurisdictions erases the distinction when they are arrested.

Though the vast majority of arrested juveniles are processed in the juvenile justice system, transfer laws are the side door to adult criminal courts, jails, and prisons. These laws either require juveniles charged with certain offenses to have their cases tried in adult courts or provide discretion to juvenile court judges or even prosecutors to pick and choose those juveniles who will be tried in adult courts.

It is widely understood that serious offenses, such as homicide, often are tried in adult criminal courts. In fact, for as long as there have been juvenile courts, mechanisms have existed to allow the transfer of some youth into the adult system.2) During the early 1990s, under a set of faulty assumptions about a coming generation of “super-predators,” 40 states passed legislation to send even more juveniles into the adult courts for a growing array of offenses and with fewer procedural protections.3) The super-predators, wrote John J. DiIulio in 1995, “will do what comes ‘naturally’: murder, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, and get high.”4)

This tough-on-crime era left in its wake state laws that still permit or even require drug charges to be contested in adult courts. Scant data exist to track its frequency, but fully 46 states and the District of Columbia permit juveniles to be tried as adults on drug charges. Only Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, and New Mexico do not. States have taken steps to close this pathway, including a successful voter initiative in California, Proposition 57. Nationwide, there were approximately 461 judicial waivers (those taking place after a hearing in juvenile court) in 2013 on drug charges. The totals stemming from other categories of transfer are not available.

From 1989 to 1992, drug offense cases were more likely to be judicially waived to adult courts than any other offense category.5) Given the recent wave of concern over opiate deaths, it is reasonable to fear a return to this era, even as public opinion now opposes harsh punishments for drug offenses.6)

The ability of states to send teenagers into the adult system on nonviolent offenses, a relic of the war on drugs, threatens the futures of those teenagers who are arrested on drug charges, regardless of whether or not they are convicted (much less incarcerated) on those charges. Transfer laws have been shown to increase recidivism, particularly violent recidivism, among those convicted in adult courts. Research shows waiver laws are disproportionately used on youth of color. Moreover, an adult arrest record can carry collateral consequences that a juvenile record might not. Since very few criminal charges ever enter the trial phase, the mere threat of adult prison time contributes to some teenagers’ guilty pleas. This policy report reviews the methods by which juveniles can be tried as adults for drug offenses and the consequences of the unchecked power of some local prosecutors. [MORE]

Why Hasn’t New York Passed a Law to Record Interrogations? [not enough white defendants]

Innocence Project 

On Thursday, New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer posed the question that many people who care about criminal justice are asking: Why did New York state go yet another year without passing a law requiring the recording of custodial interrogations?

As Dwyer clearly explains, “Recording interrogations is a way to know whether law enforcement—and jurors—can be confident in the confessions that result.”

For almost a decade, the Innocence Project has pushed for legislators to pass a law that would mandate the recording of interrogations across the state for all law enforcement. It’s clear that New York needs one; the problem of false confessions in New York is pervasive.

Related: Brendan Dassey’s Confession Highlights Importance of Recording Interrogations

“In just the last decade, the city and state have paid out tens of millions of dollars to innocent people sent to prison, a startling number of them because of false confessions,” writes Dwyer.

Black Couple Sues Barneys For Racial Discrimination - Fuck Barneys

From [HERE] Barneys New York is the latest retailer hit with allegations of racial discrimination. Yesterday (December 8), an Elizabeth, New Jersey-based couple filed a lawsuit against the luxury department store chain.

New York Daily News reports that Geneva Gordan and Conrad Barton filed the suit with the Brooklyn Supreme Court after an October 4 visit to a Barneys store in New York City resulted in an exchange with a loss prevention worker that Gordon characterized as “disheartening and embarrassing and unnecessary.”

Per the Daily News, the lawsuit alleges that when Barton attempted to return a $1,045 pair of jeans and $321 scarf, accompanied by his receipts and the debit card he used to make the purchases, he was told to wait. Fifteen minutes later, a loss prevention officer masquerading as a manager demanded identification. When Barton made it clear that the store’s return policy did not require ID, the officer confiscated the clothing and his debit card.

After Gordon argued with the officer, an actual manager came over and handled the transaction. When the couple’s attorney contacted the company’s legal rep, they were initially assured that the situation was being investigated, but then communication dropped off, prompting them to sue. The couple is Black.

“Barneys has the temerity to look customers straight in the face and charge $1,200 for so called ‘designer jeans,’ and then look down their noses at the same patrons who then decide to return the item,” their lawyer Peter Gleason told the Daily News. “One would think that Barneys would have instituted change after being fined over $500,000 by the New York State Attorney General for this very type of discriminatory behavior.”

Gleason referenced a suit that was settled in 2014 when the company paid $525,000 for racial profiling. As part of that settlement, the company was supposed to employ consultants to eliminate racial profiling.

Constitutional Lawyer: It's an "Outrage" That Judge Halted Michigan Presidential Election Recount

Democracy Now

On Wednesday, a federal judge ordered Michigan’s Board of Elections to stop the state’s electoral recount. U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith said he would abide by a court ruling that found that former Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein could not seek a recount. Goldsmith concluded, "A recount as an audit of the election has never been endorsed by any court." Stein has pledged to continue to push for a recount. Michigan is one of three battleground states where Stein had demanded a recount. The other two states are Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. President-elect Donald Trump narrowly defeated Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton in all three states. For more, we’re joined by John Bonifaz, attorney and political activist specializing in constitutional law and voting rights. He was one of a group of leading election lawyers and computer scientists calling for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Green Party's Jill Stein on Obstacles to Vote Recount: "This is Not What Democracy Looks Like"

Democracy Now

A Wisconsin judge is set to decide if a recount of the state’s presidential vote can proceed. We speak with Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who has requested recounts in three states where Donald Trump narrowly beat Hillary Clinton: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. But Stein has faced obstacles in all three states. Today’s hearing in Wisconsin comes after two pro-Trump groups, the Great America PAC and the Stop Hillary PAC, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to stop the recount process. Meanwhile, in Michigan, a judge has already halted the recount. Another hearing will be held in Pennsylvania today to decide if a recount there can begin.

California Owes Reparations To Victims Of Forced Race & Intellectual-Based Sterilization, Study Finds

Breaking News for Black America

Historians want to mobilize reparation efforts for California sterilization victims who suffered under a government-mandated program in the early 1900s.

A new American Journal of Public Health report titled, “California’s Sterilization Survivors: An Estimate and Call for Redress,” examines the scope of the state’s sterilization recommendations.

Sterilization was an option spurred by eugenics––a controversial practice aimed at controlling the genetic population by encouraging reproduction among those with traits deemed “desirable.” Back in the day, eugenics leaders advocated for population control solely based on intellectual acumen and race.

Alexandra Minna Stern, a University of Michigan professor who led the study’s research efforts, began searching for answers after uncovering more than 20,000 sterilization recommendations in a Sacramento government office, dating back to 1919 through 1952.

One of the most startling letters of recommendation was written for a 7-year-old, according to the study. Stern and her fellow researchers found that out of the 20,000 victims, including men, women and children, an estimated 830 could still be alive, with the average age being 88, the report says.

NYPD Assault, Racially Profile Retired Black Corrections Officer

Breaking News for Black America

Retired Nassau County, New York corrections officer Ronald Lanier broke down sobbing at a press conference when he recalled the physical and emotional assault by two White police officers who racially profiled him, CBS News New York reports.

Lanier said the Garden City police officers tackled him on Nov. 30 in a supermarket. He identified himself to them as a former law enforcement officer, but they laughed and proceed to rough him up.

“I’ve never been cursed, physically abused, beaten and treated like a slave as I was two days ago,” said Lanier, who ended up hospitalized for his injuries.

“For somebody to grab me by the neck in the supermarket, and I’m telling you, ‘I’m one of you,’ and you disrespect it — it was like you’re just another Black dude,” he added.

The police department declined to identify the officers involved in the incident. A spokesperson told CBS that the cops were searching for a Black shoplifting suspect who fled into the supermarket.

“That doesn’t give you the right to go into a store and grab the first Black person you see and throw them to the ground,” Lanier’s his attorney, Fred Brewington, told 1010 WINS, according to CBS.

The officers released Lanier after he sat in their patrol car for 20 minutes.

“The sergeant, without any apology or any other way of making it clear that they were acknowledging the mistake that they had made, just said cut him loose,” the attorney stated.

Brewington plans to file a civil rights lawsuit, and wants the officers to lose their badges and weapons.

Atlanta police sergeant indicted for Breaking Black Man's Leg in Wrongful Shoplifting Arrest @ Walmart

From [HERE] A federal grand jury Wednesday indicted an Atlanta police sergeant for violating the rights of a man by using excessive force while on a detail at a Wal-Mart in Atlanta.

The U.S. Department of Justice, in a news release, announced the indictment against Trevor King, 48, of Rex, Georgia.

According to the indictment, King was working off duty as a security guard at the store on Oct. 13, 2014, when he stopped a customer from leaving because he wrongfully believed the customer had shoplifted.

Authorities said King allegedly grabbed the customer's shirt and began striking the man with an expandable baton multiple times, ultimately breaking the man's leg.

The police department, in a statement, said King has been on administrative leave with pay since authorities learned of the incident.

"The Atlanta Police Department takes this type of allegation against one of its own very seriously. Now that the indictment has been announced, Sgt. King will appear before the chief who will make a determination regarding his continued status with the department," the statement said.

It was unknown if King is represented by an attorney.

Touting Public Service, Congressman Fattah Seeks Lighter Sentence

Legal Intelligencer

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard On Dakota Access Pipeline

Tulsi Gabbard born April 12, 1981 is an American politician and member of the Democratic Party who has been the United States Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district since 2013. She was also a vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee until February 28, 2016, when she resigned in order to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress, and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.

Dummy Trump’s Looming Mass Criminalization

The Nation

William Diaz-Castro is about to become one of the  “criminal illegal immigrants” whom Donald Trump campaigned against for 17 months—and whom, as president-elect, he now plans to deport immediately.

“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records—gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of these people, probably
2 million, it could be even 3 million—we are getting them out of our country,” Trump said in an interview on 60 Minutes four days after his victory. “Or,” he added, “we are going to incarcerate.”

This statement had the appearance of softening his earlier position; at times during the campaign, Trump threatened to deport every one of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in the United States. But the impact on families and communities of immediately removing even 3 million people would be cataclysmic. That’s equal to the population of the state of Mississippi, and more people than Barack Obama removed during his entire presidency.

The people Trump says he will target—those “bringing drugs,” “bringing crime,” who are “rapists,” as he put it in the speech that launched his campaign—sound terribly scary. The idea that there are millions of them is quickly seeping into our political discourse as though it were fact. In reality, any effort to deport 3 million “criminal” immigrants will first require branding law-abiding people as
criminals—a process that’s been unfolding across presidential administrations stretching back to Bill Clinton’s, but that Trump plans to escalate massively.

This is how it happened for Diaz-Castro: On March 22, the soft-spoken 30-year-old construction worker and his partner, Linda Guzman, 29, who works the day shift at a laundromat, were awakened by the sound of urgent knocking on the door of their two-bedroom apartment in New Orleans. Their 3-year-old son, Willie, was asleep in a bed beside them; a friend was spending the night in the second bedroom. Before Diaz-Castro could get out of bed and dress, his friend opened the door and found five armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in black jackets. Documents say they were conducting a “knock and talk,” the name ICE gives to its home-based roundups. The friend let the agents in without asking if they had a warrant (they did not).

The officers began to question Diaz-Castro in the living room. He says they insisted on scanning his fingerprints. The scan didn’t turn up any criminal warrants, but it did turn up two past deportations. ICE took
Diaz-Castro into custody and sent him to an immigration detention center in central Louisiana run by the private prison firm GEO Group. The facility is one of many that ICE uses to house people whose immigration cases are being adjudicated in the civil immigration system—the main way undocumented immigrants have historically been processed. The penalty in a civil proceeding would be deportation, like Diaz-Castro had faced before. [MORE]

The Problem With Jailhouse Snitches

Houston Press

Houston defense attorney Randy Schaffer says the only solid evidence Harris County prosecutors had against his client in his 2002 capital murder trial was that he admitted to being present when his drug dealer was killed.

But then a jailhouse witness named Karl Jones took the stand, and he told the jury that, yes, actually, David Holford had confessed to committing the murder while they were sitting in the privacy of a holdover cell. Holford was convicted.

Jailhouse snitches are always a red flag to Schaffer, who says that in his 40-plus years of experience he has never once encountered jailhouse witness testimony used ethically in a capital case. There’s a certain irony about these jailhouse snitches: They are the most inherently unreliable witnesses, yet they are often testifying in the most high-stakes trials. Their testimony is generally only necessary when most other evidence against defendants is weak — yet those are also the cases in which a wrongful conviction is most likely.

And so when Schaffer encounters them in a capital case like Holford’s, he digs. To start, Schaffer found Jones had only agreed to testify against Holford if prosecutors could offer him something in return. In this case, prosecutors told him they could write a nice letter to the parole board if he cooperated — the hallmark of a jailhouse informant case, Schaffer says.

Next, Schaffer was able to dig up the prosecutors’ written summary of their first conversation with Jones — and it turns out Jones had told them a different story than the one he told in court. Schaffer says he originally told prosecutors Holford confessed while they were linked on a chain of prisoners, chaperoned by deputies as they walked through the underground tunnel leading from the courthouse to the jail. Schaffer now alleges that prosecutors coached Jones into changing his story so it would be more believable to a jury, then buried any documentation of the first conversation and kept it from Holford’s defense counsel. When Schaffer asked for the recording of the initial conversation with Jones, Schaffer said he was told the recording didn’t exist because Jones wouldn’t let prosecutors record it. “Since when is the DA's office allowing a prison inmate to tell them what to do?” he said. [MORE]