|
Home
|
|
Federal Court Rules Against Net Neutrality |
|
AP: A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission and could even hamper the government's plans to expand broadband access in the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp, the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "net neutraility" obligations on broadband providers. Supporters of network neutrality, including the FCC chairman, have argued that the policy is necessary to prevent broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain Web sites and online services, such as Internet phone programs or software that runs in a Web browser. Advocates contend there is precedent: Nondiscrimination rules have traditionally applied to so-called ''common carrier'' networks that serve the public, from roads and highways to electrical grids and telephone lines.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Immigration Consequences and the Sixth Amendment |
By B John Burns
March 31, 2010
I have not yet read today’s opinion in Padilla v. Kentucky, but the holding was that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to advise a criminal defendant of the immigration consequences of a federal conviction. Justice Stevens wrote in Padilla that "as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part -- indeed, sometimes the most important part -- of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes."
The advice does not have to be tremendously specific, Justice Stevens explains. It is enough that the client be advised that a conviction will have immigration consequences. If specific consequences are predictable, however, particular advice must be given.
Padilla applies to cases in federal court, but I see no reason why its Sixth Amendment principles shouldn’t carry over to state court as well. Sara Silva, with the Federal Defender’s Sentencing Resource Counsel (who flagged this decision for us today), suggests that all of us comb through our past cases to see if we have clients who may be eligible for postconviction relief based upon Padilla. Justice Stevens’ discussion of the serious nature of deportation as a consequence of conviction may be useful in framing arguments above and beyond the issue of post-plea advice. Ms. Silva suggests that, in federal court, Padilla may be used to support a shorter prison sentence for defendants who are facing the additional penalty of deportation.
And now for something even more important – the 2010 edition of 4A Iowa Practice: Criminal Procedure arrived at my house last night, just in time for Easter. I’m going on vacation next week. I never tell my wife where she’s going, but it will suffice to say that we can buy a hell of a lot of margaritas with the money you’ve spent on this book. Thank you for your support. |
|
|
The Honorable Dick Schlegel |
|
By B John Burns
March 4, 2010
I saw in this morning’s Des Moines Register that retired Iowa Court of Appeals Judge Dick Schlegel passed away on Monday at the age of 87. That’s a name I hadn’t thought about for awhile.
And that’s not right, because Judge Schlegel is someone who deserves to be remembered.
I can’t remember if, back in the days I practiced in front of Judge Schlegel, I was aware that he had been a fighter pilot in Europe during the Second World War. But that’s the place to start. Every day, in the Register obits, you’ll see the names of one or two or three members of that diminishing fraternity of superheroes who left their homes as children in the early- to mid-40s and, literally, saved the World. And when the War was over, they came home, raised families and thrived in their careers.
That was Judge Schlegel.
Judge Schlegel had a variety of careers in the years that followed. He kept flying. Judge Schlegel was famous for flying himself to court hearings, earning the label (according to the Register) of “The Flying Judge.” He sat on the Ottumwa School Board, the Indian Hills Community College Board of Directors and, for 13 years, on the Board of Directors of the Iowa Association of School Boards (he was president in the mid-60s). |
|
Read more...
|
|
By B John Burns
March 2, 2010
I don’t know if everybody looks at it this way, but in every office I’ve worked in we consider keeping a jury out for more than two hours to be a “moral victory.” The Mason City defender’s office kept the Becker jury out for 25, so someone was listening. Where I work now, we’re not permitted to speak to jurors after a trial is concluded. But I’m sure the stories about the Becker deliberations will start flowing out by the end of the week.
All of us who do this for a living understand why you don’t incarcerate someone who can’t discern the difference between right and wrong, or the nature and consequences of his or her acts. But we’re also tapped into the general wisdom that it’s a rare day we’ll find twelve of our client’s peers who share that understanding. But the Mason City Office took a shot and, like I say, someone apparently was listening. So good for them.
The Mason City defender made us all look good.
|
|
|
By B John Burns
February 26, 2010
Ruthann Veal is not home free yet, despite what you may hear on the local news today or read in the papers. But her victory today in the Supreme Court is a very useful one, nevertheless.
Ruthann was convicted in 1995 of a murder she committed when she was 14 years old, and sentenced to life imprisonment. After the United States Supreme Court held in 2005 in Roper v. Simmons that capital punishment for individuals who commit their offenses before 18 violates the Eight Amendment, Ms. Veal filed a postconviction relief petition, alleging that the same principles should apply to a life sentence.
At every level, her petition was dismissed as untimely under the one-year limitation of Iowa Code § 822.3. Represented by Phil Mears of Iowa City and attorneys of the Equal Justice Initiative of Montgomery, Alabama, Ms. Veal argued that the limitation should not apply, as she was basing her claim for relief on a recent change in the law.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Appel took the argument one step further. A sentence that violates the Eighth Amendment is an illegal sentence, that can be corrected at any time. Iowa R. Crim.P 2.24(5)(a). The question is whether the rule of criminal procedure trumps the civil limitation imposed in Chapter 822.
Justice Appel found that it does. That’s the holding of the Veal v. Iowa. Nice work, Phil. *** Bryan A. Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative spoke at the Public Defender's Conference in Iowa City in 2006 |
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 11 - 15 of 131 |
|
|
Poems From Guantanamo
Published by the University of Iowa Press
|
