June 22, 2006
WORKIN' FOR THE CLAMPDOWN:
Top Court Sides With Gov't in Duress Case (AP, June 22, 2006)
The Supreme Court clamped down Thursday on defendants who claim they were coerced into breaking the law.Those defendants, not prosecutors, have the burden of proving in trials that they committed crimes only under duress. [...]
The court's liberals were split in the 7-2 ruling against a Texas woman who claimed her abusive boyfriend forced her to illegally buy him guns while his accomplices held her children hostage. [...]
"The issue is a close one," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a dissent with Justice David H. Souter. "Where a defendant acts under duress, she lacks any semblance of a meaningful choice. In that sense her choice is not free."
Justice John Paul Stevens, considered the court's most liberal member, wrote the opinion, and was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former women's rights lawyer — a lineup that surprised some.
Again we see the genius of the Chief: if you can get Stevens vote you let him write. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 22, 2006 4:27 PM
The opinion, which may be easily found by following the link provided in the article, is most accessible to any person of reasonable intelligence.
It contains a nice look at how courts are supposed to reason, as the Court traces the distinction between elements of offenses, which must be proven by the prosecution, and affirmative defenses, which ordinarily are to be proven by the party asserting them.
Posted by: Lou Gots at June 22, 2006 5:13 PMAn application of the "Anything is possible if you don't care who gets the credit/blame" only this time it's being used by the Chief Justice instead of the President.
Posted by: Jay at June 23, 2006 11:21 AM