Sep 10, 2021 | Civil Rights, Supreme Court
Obiter dictum is something that is said in passing. It is an observation or opinion of the court but one not necessary to the decision at hand. It is sometimes a persuasive point but not relevant to the issue decided.
Mr. Chief Justice Taney writing for the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford—one of the gravest errors in American legal history–stated: ‘this court has decided against the jurisdiction of the circuit court…and if anything it may say upon that part of the case will be extra-judicial, and mere obiter dicta.” Dred Scott brought a lawsuit for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. He received a verdict in his favor, granting him his freedom, but this decision was deemed obiter dicta because a black person in 1856 was not recognized as a citizen of the United States and consequently was denied the right to bring a lawsuit.
The obiter dictum in Dred Scott became the basis for the XIV Amendment ratified on July 9, 1868. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and any of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person visits in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Obiter dictum is pronounced (ob-i-ter dik-tem)
Sep 10, 2021 | Criminal Defense
In a criminal case, the prosecution will need to prove or disprove a disputed fact. This duty is termed the burden of proof. Generally, the prosecution will be proving that the defendant is guilty so that the jury will order a conviction. For a criminal case, the burden of proof requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that there isn’t any other logical explanation that can come about from the evidence and facts other than that the defendant in question is guilty of the crime. In order to successfully fulfill this burden of proof, the judge must not have doubts as to the guilt, or the doubts that they do have are unreasonable. If this holds true, the defendant will most likely be pronounced guilty. It is important to note that this is the highest standard of proof that has to be met due to the fact that it is a matter of innocent until proven guilty.
There are other standards; however, that are not as high. For example, proof by a preponderance of the evidence that is required in civil litigation requires showing proof through clear and convincing evidence. In cases with this burden of proof, it is only necessary to show that one side has more evidence than the other. This standard is not considered sufficient in criminal cases that involve proving that a defendant is guilty of a crime because that would be depriving the individual of their liberty. If you have questions about the obligation that the prosecution has to link you to the crime in question, contact Davis & Hoss, PC. An experienced criminal defense attorney from our firm can assist you in challenging the proof that the prosecution presents and cast doubt on their evidence and case as a whole.
Sep 8, 2021 | GPS, Supreme Court
An important decision was recently handed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concerning law enforcement’s ability to track suspects through GPS. Previously, appeals courts have allowed this tracking to take place without a warrant, a trend that the majority on the Third Circuit panel put a stop to.
The case, U.S. v. Katzin, involves a series of pharmacy robberies the police suspected of being perpetrated by the Katzin brothers. To help crack the case, police decided to attach a GPS tracking device to the underside of one of the brother’s cars. This proved fruitful and later allowed police to create a map showing that the van visited each pharmacy that had been robbed at the time of each robbery.
At trial, the Katzins filed a motion to suppress the GPS evidence because it had been obtained without a warrant. The government argued that no warrant was needed for the GPS information, something the Third Circuit vehemently disagreed with. The Court said that absent some special circumstances that did not exist in this case, police officers would not be allowed to justify such an invasive GPS search based solely on reasonable suspicion in the future.
The case was seen as an important one not only because of the verdict, but because it was the first appellate court case to be decided since the Supreme Court issued it’s opinion in U.S. v. Jones last year. In that case, the Court found that sticking a GPS tracker to a suspect’s car counts as a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court chose not to go further, instead staying silent with regard to the legality of the search and whether such a search required a warrant.
In several other parts of the country, including the Seventh, Eight and Ninth Circuits, cases have been decided before the U.S. v. Jones decision which said that warrantless GPS tracking was legal. Now that Katzin has been decided in light of the Jones case, many civil rights groups are hopeful that other circuits will decide their GPS tracking cases differently.
The Katzin decision has been heralded by groups like the ACLU and others for finally standing up for the privacy rights of criminal defendants. By requiring officers to first get a warrant based on probable cause, suspects can receive some important protection in the future from illegal and invasive tactics by police officers.
To read the full opinion, click here.
Sep 6, 2021 | Tennessee Supreme Court, TN Supreme Court
Tuesday, December 02, 2014
Larry Sneed, former Red Bank chief of police, represented by Lee Davis and Jonathan Guthrie, won a right to a jury trial today from the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In a case that will cause repercussions in many cases throughout the state, the Tennessee Supreme Court has determined that Tennessee Human Rights Act claims against local governmental entities are not governed by the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”). The court also determined that Rights Act claims filed in chancery court include a statutory right to trial by jury.
The case arose in 2010, after Larry Sneed was fired from his job as chief of police for the City of Red Bank. Mr. Sneed filed suit against the city in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, alleging numerous claims, including a Rights Act claim against the city and a claim under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”).
Prior to trial, Red Bank filed a motion to transfer the case from chancery court to circuit court, alleging that the GTLA, which requires claims to be filed in circuit court and tried without a jury, applied. The chancery court ruled that Mr. Sneed’s TPPA claim was governed by the GTLA but that Mr. Sneed’s Rights Act claim was not. This ruling meant that Mr. Sneed’s TPPA claim would be tried in circuit court without a jury but that he was entitled to a jury trial on his Rights Act claim. The city appealed the portion of the trial court’s decision finding that the GTLA did not apply to Mr. Sneed’s Rights Act claim.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that the GTLA is generally applicable to suits against governmental entities, like Mr. Sneed’s, unless the law authorizing the suit provides that the GTLA does not apply or the statute creates a remedy that applies only to governmental entities.
The Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals decision. The Court held that the GTLA does not control Rights Act claims because the Rights Act is an independent and specific statute, which itself removes governmental immunity and authorizes claims against governmental entities. The Court also held that Rights Act claims filed in chancery court against governmental entities include a statutory right to trial by jury.
The Court explained that the Rights Act grants a claimant the right to file a civil action in chancery court and does not exclude from the civil action the statutory right to trial by jury in chancery court. These provisions, the Court explained, clearly express the Legislature’s intent to provide Rights Act claimants a statutory right to trial by jury in chancery court. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the chancery court for further proceedings.”
Read the unanimous opinion in Larry Sneed v. City of Red Bank, Tennessee, authored by Justice Cornelia A. Clark.
Sep 4, 2021 | Civil Rights, Murder, Supreme Court, Tennessee Supreme Court, TN Supreme Court
Twanna Blair, right, talks to her attorney, Lee Davis, in this photo from her 2009 trial in Bradley County.
Photo by Angela Lewis Foster /Chattanooga Times Free Press.
The three victims were bound and shot, execution-style, the day after Twanna and O.J., who were cousins, had a fight with Michael “Money” Younger and Maurice Johnson at a Sweetwater party.
Twanna Blair was bound and shot too, but survived, freed her bound hands and called 911.
Blair first was considered a victim, then a suspect in a case where one suspect was convicted, one is seeking a new trial and one was found innocent, all on the same evidence.
Blair and the other original suspect, Younger, have already been tried once.
Blair’s first trial in 2010 ended with a hung jury and Younger’s, in the same year, in a mistrial. Later that year, District Attorney Steve Bebb dismissed charges against Younger “without prejudice,” meaning they could be reinstated in the future.
Only co-defendant Johnson was convicted. He is nearly five years into a life sentence for three counts of first-degree murder. But he is seeking a new trial, claiming his attorneys did a poor job defending him, and has won the right to new attorneys and a new judge.
The new, 12-count indictment against Blair and Younger was handed up in March.
Younger was arraigned April 7 on three counts each of conspiracy and first-degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery.
Younger’s appointed attorney, Susan Shipley, said Thursday she has just begun looking into her client’s case.
“I’m new to the case, but there are a number of very complicated issues we’re going to be getting to work on very soon,” said Shipley, whose practice is in Knoxville.
The charges against Blair include three counts each of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and facilitation of first-degree murder, and one count of facilitating aggravated robbery.
She was scheduled for arraignment April 25 but the hearing was canceled and has not been rescheduled, court officials said.
This is actually her fourth indictment in the killings.
Blair was indicted three times on different theories of the case before she finally went to trial in October 2009.
Criminal Court Judge Amy Reedy, saying the prosecution had not proved Blair was in any way involved in the crimes, granted acquittal on a charge of especially aggravated robbery and three counts each of first-degree murder and the lesser included offense of second-degree murder. She declared a mistrial on three counts of facilitation to commit murder during the course of aggravated robbery.
Davis said the DA’s office agreed to dismiss a remaining perjury count in return for Blair dropping any appeal. One other count of attempted aggravated robbery was dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired.
Having been found innocent, she can’t be retried, he said.
He said the new case is rife with complicated issues, including a question about who can actually represent the state in this case.
Bebb recused himself in a motion filed Tuesday, claiming conflicts with Reedy, with Brumley and within the 10th Judicial District DA’s office.
He asked the judge to name Fisher, who handled the first round of trials, as a special prosecutor for the case. He said Fisher had resigned his position as part-time assistant DA so he would not have a conflict like the rest of the office does.
Davis called Bebb’s motion “ludicrous.”
“If Bebb has a conflict, he never should have filed the illegal indictment,” Davis said. “It’s disingenuous at best and it’ll be the basis of an ethics complaint.”
Since Fisher has resigned, “he can’t represent the state on the illegal indictment unless he’s appointed by the judge,” Davis said.
And besides, the DA has no authority to name a pro tem prosecutor, he said — that power belongs to the judge.
“There’s multiple levels of ethical problems in one document,” he added.
Special Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood, who took over the case after Reedy recused herself, will now have to untangle the conflicts.
Davis said a hearing date will be set soon on the various motions.
Last month, Blair pleaded guilty to unrelated federal drug charges and agreed to serve 10 years in federal prison.
Contact staff writer Judy Walton at jwalton@timesfreepress.com or 423-757-6416.
