Indiana's Right-to-Work Law Upheld by 7th Circ.

Courthouse News

Upholding a ban on forced union membership and dues payment by workers who enjoy the fruits of collective bargaining, the 7th Circuit refused to disturb the Indiana Right-to-Work Act.
     Passed in 2012, the Indiana Right-to-Work Act states that no person may be required to become a member of a labor organization, pay union dues or pay to a third party any portion of dues required of union members.
     Members of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO, sued the governor, attorney general and labor commissioner of Indiana, alleging that the act is unconstitutional and is pre-empted by federal law.
     A federal judge ruled against the union, and the 7th Circuit affirmed 2-1 Tuesday.
     "The statutory question posed is whether Indiana's new law is preempted by federal labor law, or threatens the Union's First Amendment rights. The answer is an emphatic no," Judge John Tinder wrote for the majority.
     A law similar to Indiana's Right to Work Act has existed in Iowa for more than 65 years, yet unions continue to thrive in the state, the court said.
     "We are not persuaded by plaintiff-appellants' claims that Indiana's law is somehow an extraordinary measure distinct from the numerous state statutes that have harmoniously existed under the federal labor law framework," Tinder wrote. "Nor are we persuaded by their assertions that Indiana's law represents a mortal threat to the continuing existence of unions as provided under federal law."
     Saying that the law also does not represent an unconstitutional taking on Hoosier unions, the court noted that it merely precludes unions from collecting fees to cover the cost of its services.
     While Indiana has arguably made it more difficult for the union to collect funds, Supreme Court precedent in Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass'n says that that the state is "under no obligation to aid the unions in their political activities," Tinder wrote. "And the state's decision not to do so is not an abridgement of the unions' speech; they are free to engage in such speech as they see fit," he added.
     Federal law prohibits unions from denying their services to nonmembers, so even employees who refuse to join the union or pay dues benefit from the union's collective bargaining agreement.
     The predicament failed to sway the majority. "We believe the union is justly compensated by federal law's grant to the Union the right to bargain exclusively with the employer," Tinder wrote. "The reason the union must represent all employees is that the Union alone gets a seat at the negotiation table."
     Judge Diane Wood dissented from the majority's opinion.
     "How this can be anything but an unconstitutional taking I do not know," she said. "We would be shocked by a rule providing that, as a condition of receiving a business license in a city, a company selling gasoline had to give it away to any customer who did not want to pay."
     The majority's finding that a union is compensated by its seat at the bargaining table particularly exasperated Wood. "This suggestion fundamentally misunderstands how the union obtains its seat at the bargaining table," she wrote. "The union does so if and only if it succeeds in winning a representational election sponsored by the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board]; it does not win that seat either through the grace of the employer or in exchange for some kind of quid pro quo from either the employer or the bargaining-unit employees."
     The majority's opinion also implies that employers receive no benefit from collective bargaining, which is untrue, Wood said.
     "Unless or until that aspect of our labor law is changed by Congress, the only constitutional path is to permit unions to charge fees to nonmembers that cover only the limited, mandatory representational services that the nonmembers receive," Wood said. "The majority has forbidden this, and has thus sanctioned the confiscation of one private party's resources for the benefit of another private party. I cannot sign on to that result."
     The same union is also challenging the Indiana law under the state constitution, and the Indiana Supreme Court will hear oral argument Friday on a lower state court's ruling in the plaintiffs' favor.
     "Now that the federal courts have concluded the statute [that] the people's representatives in the legislature passed does not violate federal law, we will argue that the statute also complies with the Indiana Constitution and ought to be upheld," Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement

Report finds disturbing pattern of illnesses at Southwestern PA prison surrounded by coal ash dump

HRC

Pittsburgh, PA – Abolitionist Law Center and the Human Rights Coalition have released a report entitled, No Escape: Exposure to Toxic Coal Waste at State Correctional Institution Fayette, based on a year-long investigation into the health impacts of exposure to coal waste at the state prison in Fayette County, PA. The report reveals alarming rates of illnesses consistent with exposure to coal ash, a toxic byproduct of burning coal in power plants.

Surrounded by “about 40 million tons of waste, two coal slurry ponds, and millions of cubic yards of coal combustion waste,” SCI Fayette is inescapably situated in the midst of a massive toxic waste dump. The prison was built on part of a Coal Refuse Deposit Area owned by Matt Canestrale Contracting, which currently operates a coal ash dump directly adjacent to the prison. Before Matt Canestrale Contracting took it over, the land was a dumping ground for coal waste from one of the world’s largest coal processing plants.                                           ...read more

The Innocent on Death Row

NYT

The exoneration of two North Carolina men who spent 30 years in prison — one on death row — provides a textbook example of so much that is broken in the American justice system. And it is further evidence (as though more were needed) that the death penalty is irretrievably flawed as well as immoral.

In late September 1983, an 11-year-old girl named Sabrina Buie was found murdered in a soybean field in Robeson County. She had been raped, beaten with sticks and suffocated with her own underwear.

Within days, police got confessions from two local teenagers, Henry Lee McCollum, 19 at the time, and his half brother, Leon Brown, who was 15. Both were convicted and sentenced to death.

The crime was so horrific that it has echoed for decades through North Carolina politics and beyond. In 1994, after Justice Harry Blackmun of the Supreme Court announced that he opposed capital punishment in all circumstances, Justice Antonin Scalia cited the Buie murder as a case where it was clearly warranted. “How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!” he wrote.

On Tuesday, a state judge ordered both men freed after multiple pieces of evidence, some of which had never been turned over to defense lawyers, proved that neither Mr. McCollum nor Mr. Brown was responsible for the crime. DNA taken from a cigarette found at the crime scene matched a different man, Roscoe Artis, who is already serving life in prison for a similar murder committed just weeks after Sabrina Buie’s killing.

Virtually everything about the arrests, confessions, trial and convictions of Mr. McCollum and Mr. Brown was polluted by official error and misconduct.

No physical evidence linked either man to the crime, so their false confessions, given under duress, were the heart of the case the prosecutors mounted against them. Both men’s confessions were handwritten by police after hours of intense questioning without a lawyer or parent present. Neither was recorded, and both men have maintained their innocence ever since.

Equally disturbing, Mr. Artis was a suspect from the start. Three days before the murder trial began, police requested that a fingerprint from the crime scene be tested for a match with Mr. Artis, who had a long history of sexual assaults against women. The test was never done, and prosecutors never revealed the request to the defense.

It was not until 2011 that the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission, an independent state agency that had taken on the men’s case, discovered the old fingerprint request. The commission also found that multiple statements in the two confessions were inconsistent with each other and with the facts of the crime. In July, the commission finally got the full case file and matched the DNA to Mr. Artis.

None of these pieces mattered to the prosecution in 1984. The prosecutor on the case, Joe Freeman Britt, was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the “deadliest prosecutor” for the nearly 50 death sentences he won during his tenure. Almost all have since been overturned.

Mr. McCollum and Mr. Brown, who are now middle-aged, have a hard road ahead. In addition to the difficulties of adapting to life after three decades behind bars, both are intellectually disabled. (Since their conviction, the Supreme Court has banned the death penalty for both juveniles and those with intellectual disabilities.)

Cases of capital prosecutions based on flimsy evidence or marred by prosecutorial misconduct, not to mention racial bias, are distressingly common. Yet, even as death-penalty supporters insist that only guilty people are sent to their death, it is now clear that Justice Scalia was prepared 20 years ago to allow the execution of a man who, it turns out, was innocent.

How many more remain on death row today? Can the American people be assured that none will be killed by the state? For this reason alone, the death penalty must end.

Missouri Swore It Wouldn’t Use A Controversial Execution Drug. It Did.

St. Louis Public Radio

In Ohio, the execution took 26 minutes, as the inmate gasped and snorted. In Oklahoma, it took 43 minutes until a conscious inmate died of what the state said was a heart attack. In Arizona, it took nearly two hours, with the inmate "gulping like a fish on land."

The three worst botched executions this year had at least one thing in common: The states all used a drug called Midazolam to sedate the inmate, with varying levels of success.

Botched executions in other states led to questions in Missouri, a state as secretive as the others. Top Missouri officials were asked about the state's methods. They defended their own protocol each time, pointing out that Missouri doesn’t use the same drugs as those other states.

But an investigation by St. Louis Public Radio shows that wasn't entirely true.

According to documents we obtained, Missouri has used Midazolam in every execution since November of last year. In all nine executions since then, Missouri's execution team has injected the condemned with significant amounts of the sedative.

This is occurring in spite of the fact that Missouri's top corrections officials testified Midazolam would never be used in a Missouri execution.

'We Will Not Use Those Drugs'

"Why will there be no use of [Midazolam] in an execution?" a lawyer asked Missouri's Director of the Department of Corrections, George Lombardi during a deposition in January.

"Because we have no intention to do that. We have Pentobarbital that we use," Lombardi responded.

"Well, I -- the subsection B says that if the Department Director -- which is you, correct?"

"Right."

"Determines that a sufficient quantity of Pentobarbital is not available, then Hydromorphone or Midazolam will be used. Are you saying that --"

"And I'm testifying right now to tell you that will not be the case. We will not use those drugs," Lombardi said.

He was under oath. [MORE] 

White Universities pave the way for drone testing

USA Today

Dalai Lama Can't Get a Visa to Meet Other Nobel Peace Prize Winners in South Africa

Atlantic Wire

The Dalai Lama's planned visit to South Africa has been canceled, the country's foreign ministry said Thursday, after he failed to obtain a visa. The Tibetan spiritual leader had planned to attend the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates (he won the prize in 1989) in mid-October in Cape Town. According to The Wall Street Journal, he had submitted an application to South Africa's embassy in New Dehli, but apparently received no answer. 

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation later released a statement saying "His Holiness has canceled his planned visit," adding that the case is "closed."

The difficulty over the visa may be a result of the close ties between South Africa and China, as the latter is the largest trading member for the country. South African foreign ministry spokespeople, however, say that political relations do not affect visa decisions.

Either way, the denial and subsequent cancellation could lead to other Nobel Laureates protesting or abandoning the event. The Dalai Lama's friend and fellow Nobel Laureate, retired archbishop Desmond Tutu, had previously said he would attend, but Cape Town mayor Patricia de Lille said in a statement earlier Thursday "the Nobel Laureates would protest the Dalai Lama's exclusion in the event that he is refused entry into South Africa." If other honorees boycott the summit, it could be a major embarrassment for the government.

This is just the latest in a string of visa troubles the Dalai Lama has faced over the years, and supporters have regularly pressured South African President Jacob Zuma's government to make a decision over the visa application. In 2011, the Dalai Lama tried to attend the 80th birthday celebration of Tutu, but never received a response and ended up withdrawing his visa request. Another visit, in 2009, was also prevented, even though the Dalai Lama had previously visited the country three times under Presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki.

There is an 18 percent chance that a case of the Ebola virus will reach the United States by the end of September

Atlantic Wire

There is an 18 percent chance that a case of the Ebola virus will reach the United States by the end of September, according to a study published on Tuesday in PLOS Currents: Outbreaks. 

Despite restrictions reducing travel in and out of the infected countries by 80 percent, the study, which analyzes global flight patterns, suggests that a case of Ebola in the U.S. is becoming increasingly harder to avoid. It also lists the chance of the virus reaching the United Kingdom between 25 and 28 percent. 

The analysis also warns that if the current West African outbreak is not contained the likelihood of the virus reaching Europe and the U.S. will "increase consistently." 

The study lists just a five percent chance of Ebola occurring in the U.S. today, suggesting that the disease is far from contained to countries in West Africa. According to numbers obtained by the World Health Organization, there have been an estimated 3,685 cases and 1,841 deaths from the virus since the outbreak began. 

Although two Americans — Dr. Kent Brantley and Nancy Writebol — have been treated for Ebola in the U.S., both of them contracted the disease while working in Liberia. Doctors suggested that better medical care contributed to their eventual recovery.

A third infected American working in Liberia,  Dr. Richard A. Sacra, is on his way to the U.S. for treatment.

White Congressman Introduces Bill To Authorize Military Force Virtually Everywhere

Think Progress

There are few things in the world more problematic than a worried politician in an election year. The rise of militants around the world has got politicians in Congress nervous and looking for a solution, with one House member proposing the U.S. declare war on all of them, infinitely, and with no limitations.

After the 9/11 attacks nearly 13 years ago, Congress rushed to provide a response. The result: the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), designed to target and punish the perpetrators. In writing the AUMF, however, the lawmakers left substantial wiggle-room for first the Bush administration, then the Obama White House, to interpret it as they saw fit to conduct a wider “war on terror.” The 2001 AUMF has been the legal justification for not just the American-led war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but also drone strikes in Pakistan against Al Qaeda, missile launches in Yemen, and this weekend’s attack in Somalia targeting the leader of terrorist group al-Shabaab.

But Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) has a plan to take on even the groups that fall outside of the AUMF’s wide scope. Wolf on Wednesday told The Hill that when Congress returns from its vacation, he would introduce legislation that would override the 2001 AUMF and give the Obama administration all the justification it needs to carry out strikes against ISIS’ bases in Syria. Titled the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force against International Terrorism Act’,” Wolf’s bill would greatly expand the already overly broad mandate given under the 2001 AUMF:

The President is authorized, with the close consultation, coordination, and cooperation with NATO and regional allies, to use all necessary and appropriate force against those countries, organizations, or persons associated with or supporting terrorist groups, including al Qaeda and its regional affiliates, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, al Shabaab, Boko Haram, and any other emerging regional terrorist groups that share a common violent extremist ideology with such terrorist groups, regional affiliates, or emerging terrorist groups, in order to eliminate all such terrorist groups and prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States or its allies by such terrorist groups, countries, organizations, or persons.

There is also no expiration date attached to the bill, leaving it open-ended and in effect for basically forever. “This resolution would provide clear authority for the president and our military, working with coalition partners, to go after these terrorists, whether in Syria, Iraq or elsewhere,” Wolf told The Hill. “We cannot continue operating on outdated authorities passed 13 years ago; it is time for this Congress to vote.”

Obama last year pledged to finally sunset the 2001 AUMF during a major speech last year, in which he said he would work with Congress to “refine, and ultimately repeal” the law. The rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is providing a new headache, however, one that the AUMF doesn’t cover. While broad, the law allows the President to go after “those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Due to a split between ISIS and Al Qaeda, there’s no reading of the AUMF that grants legal justification for the White House to target the group outside of Iraq, where the government has given the U.S. permission to act.

Wolf’s bill isn’t the only proposal currently circulating through the halls of Congress. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) on Tuesday also said that he would be introducing a bill allowing the White House to legally take action against ISIS in Syria. “We must go after ISIS right away because the U.S. is the only one that can put together a coalition that can stop this group that’s intent on barbaric cruelty,” said Nelson, who represents the home state of journalist Stephen Sotloff — who ISIS recently beheaded — and his family.

Based on how the 2001 AUMF has been abused, the introduction of an even broader authorization is giving security experts pause. “Congress must authorize military action against ISIS,” CAP senior fellow Ken Gude said in an email to ThinkProgress, but Wolf’s approach would be an “absolute disaster” for the U.S. “It would commit the U.S. to an unwinnable war against virtually every terrorist group in the world at a cost in blood and treasure that would guarantee our decline,” Gude concluded.

Mieke Eoyang, the national security director at Third Way, agreed, saying that Wolf’s bill is “insanely broad.” Eoyang noted that the language in the bill was framed as “including” certain groups, but not limiting the number of targets that could be put into the cross-hairs. It would also allow attacks on any coutnry on the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list, including Cuba, Iran and Syria, she added, but noted that the bill doesn’t stand much of a chance politically. “President Obama has repeatedly made clear that he would veto any bill that expands the 2001 AUMF,” Eoyang said. “I don’t even think Wolf could get it out of his caucus.”

For weeks, it looked as though Congress would be more than willing to punt on voting on military action against ISIS, given the looming elections. Instead, the legislators seemed content to let President Obama continue to launch airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq — more than 100 since early August — and build up support for a coalition to take any further action against the group. Following Sotloff’s murder, however, there appears to be a new surge of support for some form of official record of approval for further airstrikes.

“We are scheduling a hearing upon our return and requesting the secretary of state to present a plan, a strategy focused on rolling back ISIS, defeating ISIS through the use of airstrikes and the support of those with common interests,” Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Tuesday.

Rastafarian High School Student Sent Home From School For Ten Days For Having Dreadlocks

ThinkProgress

Legal experts are coming to the defense of a Rastafari high schooler in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, who was kicked out of class for having dreadlocks, arguing that school officials violated his right to religious freedom.

According to a letter published last week by the Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a student — identified only as “John Doe” — was sent home from the first day of school at South Plaquemines High School on August 8th because his dreadlocks were too long. The student reportedly tried to return to school at least twice, but was repeatedly dismissed — even after he pinned up his dreadlocks to meet length requirements.

“Although the school has not given John Doe written notice of his suspension, the actions of the school and Superintendent Rousselle are the equivalent of an unlimited suspension,” the letter read.

School dress codes have a tendency to spark controversy, but the incident in Louisiana is complicated by the fact that the student, who ultimately missed ten days of school because of the dispute, claims to be a follower of the Rastafari tradition, a monotheistic religion that draws upon Judaism and Christianity and is popular in Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean. Not all Rastafari communities conscript believers to sport dreadlocks, but many Rasta males — including late musician and Rastafari Bob Marley — believe that growing long, locked hair is required by Leviticus 21:5, which reads, “They shall not make bald spots upon their heads, or shave off the edges of their beards, or make any gashes in their flesh.” As such, the ACLU’s letter argues that sending the student home violates his First and Fourteenth amendment rights — especially his freedom of religion.

“One of the tenets of the Rastafarian religion is that men should grow their hair long in dreadlocks,” the letter read. “John Doe will be able to prove that his dreadlocks and hair length are a sincerely held religious belief of his Rastafari religion. It is also a method of self-expression, because it communicates to others an important fact about John Doe: that he is a Rastafari for whom traditional religious practices are important to him and his family. By refusing to allow him to attend school, the Board is violating John Doe’s statutory and constitutional rights.”

The school’s principal, John Barthelemy, told ThinkProgress that the student behavioral code had previously only addressed “distracting” hair styles. But the school board updated their rules this summer, adding a prohibition against long hair. The high school, he said, was obligated to enforce the rules, and sent the student home.

“You cannot wear your hear below your eyes. You cannot wear your hair below your collar,” Barthelemy said in an interview.

However, Barthelemy disputes the ACLU’s claim that the student was suspended, and said the school board is currently attempting to accommodate his concerns. He explained that lawyers were meeting to “assess” the student’s religious claim and that school officials have permitted him to make up work he missed while away from school. He also noted that the student has been allowed to return to school, following a new agreement between the superintendent and the boy’s religious leader that he can attend classes as long as his hair is pinned up.

“We’re not going to deny anyone their freedoms,” Barthelemy said. “He’s in school receiving his education just like everyone else.”

The quick change of heart by local officials could be the result of pending legal action, as disputes involving students, religion, and hair length have come before courts before — with judges usually siding with students. As the ACLU letter points out, Louisiana has fielded similar cases in the past, one of which, Helaire, et al. v. Lafayette Parish, reportedly involved eight Rastafari children who were prohibited by a school board from wearing head coverings over their hair. The case ended in a settlement, with the school board waiving the dress code hair rules for the children. Additionally, there is strong Supreme Court precedent suggesting that the school’s policy violates the Constitution’s free speech protections. In the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court ruled that school boards generally may only regulate a student’s expression when it “materially and substantially disrupt[s] the work and discipline of the school.” It’s unlikely that dreadlocks below the collar would qualify.

Nevertheless, the issue of the right of public school students to grow their hair as they choose is rapidly becoming a hot topic during this back-to-school season; just last week, a Native American boy in Texas was sent home from kindergarten for sporting a long ponytail.

NYPD probed for 2nd restraint-related death

USA Today

The New York Police Department said Friday it's under investigation for a second restraint-related death, this one involving a drugged, emotionally disturbed man four days before a fatal videotaped chokehold that fueled community outcry and led the department to overhaul its use-of-force training.

The medical examiner's office cited "physical restrain by police" as a factor in the July 13 death of Ronald Singleton, who went into cardiac arrest in an ambulance and died on the way to a hospital. It ruled his death a homicide.

The police department is cooperating with the Manhattan district attorney's office, which is leading the investigation into Singleton's death, a police spokesman said. The district attorney's office did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Police said Singleton became irate and combative while riding in a taxi cab around midnight and fought with an officer on foot patrol after exiting near St. Patrick's Cathedral.

Emergency services officers, called in by the patrolling officer, restrained Singleton and placed him in a protective body wrap, police said.

The medical examiner's office said the 45-year-old Singleton was in a state of excited delirium related to severe intoxication from the hallucinogenic drug called PCP or angel dust. It cited heart disease exacerbated by high blood pressure and thickened arteries, as well as obesity, as contributing factors in his death.

Court: Texas cops can access cell-phone location data without a warrant

Grits for Breakfast

Texas' Fourth Court of Appeals in San San Antonio recently ruled that police are not required to obtain a warrant to acquire cell-site location data from a service provider because of the Third Party doctrine.

As the prosecutors' association's weekly case summary put it, the question in Ford v. State was "Did the State violate the Fourth Amendment by acquiring from the phone company, without a warrant, the defendant’s cell phone records that revealed information (tower-pings, outgoing and incoming communication, etc.) connecting him to a murder?"

The court's holding, again from TDCAA: "No. Fourth Amendment protections are surrendered when a person exposes activities to a third party. That exposure makes the records merely business records of the phone company and not protected communications." See pp. 16-28 of the opinion for the court's reading of current Texas law on cell-phone location data.

This is important because law enforcement interests have been telling legislative staff at the state capitol that last year's changes in Texas law to Art. 18.21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding cloud-based email and other content already require Texas cops to get warrants for location data. My response has been 1) it's not true, for reasons evident in the Ford opinion, and 2) if it is true, there's no harm in updating CCP 18.21 to get rid of the outdated language and make the warrant requirement explicit.

ISIL completely fabricated enemy by US: Former CIA contractor

CLG

Former CIA contractor Steven Kelley says that the ISIL terrorist group is a completely fabricated enemy created and funded by the United States. "This is a completely fabricated enemy," he said in a phone interview with Press TV from Anaheim, California on Thursday. "The funding is completely from the United States and its allies and for people to think that this enemy is something that needs to be attacked in Syria or Iraq is a farce because obviously this is something that we create it, we control and only now it has become inconvenient for us to attack this group as a legitimate enemy," Kelley added.

A Latino defendant convicted of murder who is poor is more likely to be sentenced to death by white jurors, a new study shows

Phys.org

A Latino defendant convicted of murder who is poor is more likely to be sentenced to death by white jurors, a new study shows.

The study was conducted by UNL psychology and ethnic studies professor Cynthia Willis-Esqueda and her colleague, Russ K.E. Espinoza of California State University, Fullerton, who earned his doctorate at UNL.

More than 500 white and Latino people called for jury duty in a southern California courthouse participated in the research, and they were asked how they would decide a hypothetical murder case.

Based on an actual incident in which a man was sentenced to life in prison for killing his wife and her friend, the circumstances of the case were altered by researchers to create eight different scenarios depending upon whether the defendant was white or Latino; whether he was rich or poor; and whether mitigation evidence was strong or weak. Each mock juror reviewed one hypothetical situation.

Published online this week in the journal Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, the study found that white jurors were more likely to impose the death penalty in cases where the defendant was Latino and poor. They were most likely to impose it if a Latino defendant of low socio-economic status had few mitigating circumstances.

"If the defendant was of low socio-economic status and Mexican-American, he received the death penalty more often, compared to other conditions," Willis-Esqueda said. "We were really saddened by that. They could have chosen an alternative sentence, such as life in prison without possibility of parole."

Latino mock jurors did not show the same strong correlation between ethnicity and socio-economic status when they imposed the death penalty.

The researchers described their findings as a form of "aversive racism." That is an indirect form of bias in which people realize it's offensive to judge someone by their skin color and use other reasons to reach a biased decision.

The researchers said the study has important implications for the criminal justice system. It makes it even more important for defense attorneys to submit mitigating evidence on behalf of Latino defendants. It also raises questions whether potential jurors should be educated about ethnic biases in decision-making.

"Perhaps the introduction of the history of bias toward Latinos in the legal system is warranted," they wrote.

The study participants, who were interviewed after they had been dismissed from an actual jury pool, were given mock court documents describing the crime, including a small mug shot of either a white or Latino defendant. The photos were pre-screened to ensure they did not differ significantly in terms of attractiveness, aggressiveness or apparent income status. The case included overwhelming evidence of the mock defendant's guilt. In half the cases, the defendant was described as high socioeconomic status—a college graduate and business owner who lives in four-bedroom home in the suburbs and who drives a Mercedes. In the other half, the defendant was described as an unemployed high school drop-out who is behind on his rent at his boarding house.

Half the hypothetical cases included strong evidence of mitigating circumstances that might lessen the defendant's culpability for the crime—he was a victim of child abuse, had been in and out of group homes as a child, and had suffered from various mental problems. In the other half, the defendant had weak mitigating evidence—he was said only to have suffered a bout of depression at the time of the crime.

All of the mock jurors were "death-qualified," meaning they had to be willing to impose a death sentence before they could participate in the study.

NY Cops Make Racist Comments About West Indian Day Parade - “animal day parade”

Newsweek

In a thread excerpting a newspaper article about the parade, a poster who goes by the name “OldSchoolCop” wrote, “The savages have won. Protect yourselves, your families, other LE and their families. And when the liberal democrats start demanding that you ‘save’ them from their own misguided, defeatist social experiments...laugh in their face and tell them the same thing they told us after 9/11. ‘No free lunch.’”

In a thread titled “are you kidding me,” a user named “tell it how it is” refers to the parade as “animal day parade.”

In a thread titled “I feel bad for all the MOS out in that jungle” (MOS stands for “members of service), “MY TWO SENSE” commented, “The mere interaction with those people involved and the complete lack of respect for each other made me realize how much of a sheet culture the West Indies really are. These people could give a fck less about each other...they assault, rape, pillage, you name it, and they have no problem dumping bags of garbage on their own front lawns. Thank God I never have to work that crap detail ever again.”

“Da job sucks,” who posted the thread “Yearly Savage Day parade poll,” kicked off a discussion by asking forum members to wager how many violent crimes would take place, writing: “Ok let’s have an organized poll this year. Winner get a famous no-prize Homicides-6 Shootings-10 Stabbings-9 First Homicide of weekend confines of 67 [precinct].” The aforementioned “OldSchoolCop” posted: Homicides: 2 Shootings: 7 Edged Weapon: 8 First Homicide of weekend: confines of 77. And here’s what WON’T happen: Riots relating to niggles killing other niggles.”

After making a guess, “ZuluSurvivor” said, “I cant wait for the blood bath.” A user named “Rebel” wrote about Mayor Bill de Blasio, his wife, Chirlane (who is African-American), and their two children’s participation, saying, “Deblowzio family just finished thier watermelon and banana breakfast. They are getting ready to put on their butterfly custumes to fly down the parkway. The head Deblowzio goes as a spear chucker.”

“Rebel” later commented: “Ooga! Booga! Ooga! Booga! Where’s the spears? Did WIGLO (West Indian Gay and Lesbian Organization) march too?”

At press time, the NYPD had not responded to Newsweek’s requests for comment on these posts.

Philadelphia police stealing thousands of homes through asset forfeiture

Walmart Video Shows John Crawford Was Shot on Sight By Cops With No Warning, Family Attorneys Say

Police Accountability Group 

John Crawford was the unfortunate black man holding a BB gun in the toy section of a Walmart Store in Beavercreek, OH, when police, in response to several 911 calls, shot and killed him on August 5, 2014.  Police have maintained that Crawford was waving the BB gun around in a threatening manner when they arrived and refused their commands to drop the "weapon" (even though Ohio is an "open carry" state), thus requiring his execution style death by cop.

However, Ohio Attorney General Mike Dewine, who assigned the case investigating the police homicide of Mr. Crawford to a special prosecutor, recently allowed family members and their attorneys to view the surveillance tape from the store that shows the moments up to and including John Crawford's shooting death by police.  After viewing that tape, the family's attorneys and Crawford's father dispute the police account of this incident in no uncertain terms:

Attorney Michael Wright said: "We need Mike DeWine to refer this case to the Department of Justice. Not to a special prosecutor."

Wright said Crawford did nothing wrong in Walmart. "Nothing more, nothing less than shopping."

Wright, who has seen store surveillance video of the shooting incident, said Crawford was shot while talking on the phone, holding the butt of the gun with the barrel pointed at the floor.

He said Crawford was "shot on sight" in a "militaristic" response.

This is extremely troubling news.  Much like the case of Michael Brown, the family has been complaining that leaks about the investigation have benefited the police shooters and denigrated John Crawford's character.

“Everything released is one-sided.  There is nothing favorable to John Crawford.  You can’t show different pieces, show it all, don’t trickle pieces to gain favor of the public, “said Michael Wright, Crawford family attorney.  Wright wants to see the release of events in chronological order.

Wright says the video shows Crawford standing in the direction of some shelves.  He say Crawford was talking on his cell phone and probably did not see or hear the police officer sent to the store to investigate.  He said in one frame you see Crawford on the phone, the next you see him on the floor.

Crawford’s father questions the timing of the state’s investigation.

“My main concern is the delay.  What’s taking so long?  I understand it’s a process, but frankly, I see stall tactics,” said John Crawford II [the decedent's father].

According to the family and its lawyers, the video supports their claim that John Crawford was on his cell phone talking to his girlfriend and doing nothing else when the police entered the store and shot him down for the crime of being Black and holding a toy gun in a Walmart.

Crawford was speaking by cell phone to his girlfriend, who was with his parents, when he was shot.

“He said he was at the video games playing videos, and he went over there by the toy section where the toy guns were,” said LeeCee Johnson, the mother of his two children. “The next thing I know, he said, ‘It’s not real,’ and the police start shooting, and they said ‘Get on the ground,’ but he was already on the ground because they had shot him.”

Johnson put the phone on speaker mode, and she and Crawford’s parents heard him die.

“I could hear him just crying and screaming,” Johnson said. “I feel like they shot him down like he was not even human.”

The Grand Jury is set to begin hearing evidence regarding the Crawford shooting presented by the special prosecutor on September 22, 2014, assuming no further delays.  Meanwhile, one of the police officers who shot Crawford is already back on the job, while the other one remains on administrative leave with pay.

It should be remembered that Mr. Crawford was not the only victim of this "incident." Another shopper, 37 year old Angela Williams "collapsed and died as she scrambled to get away after police fired at Crawford."  All because of the claims made by 911 callers such as this one:

In one of those calls, which was released by police, a Wal-Mart shopper told emergency dispatchers that it looked like the man — later identified as Crawford — was trying to load the rifle and that he had pointed it at two children, WHIO reported.

The 911 caller’s wife said that Crawford was on the phone and that he was messing with the gun. She said that after police ordered Crawford to put down the unidentified weapon, “I heard two shots after I saw him turn. He still had the weapon in his hand.”

Considering the content of the video, and the fact that Crawford was a father of two children with his girlfriend (with the couple expecting a third child), I find that story a little hard to swallow.  Sounds like panic by white shoppers and an unwarranted response by the police who shot a harmless man while he was talking on his phone. All because he was a scary black man.  But what do I know.

Feds to investigate Ferguson, Mo., police

USA Today

The U.S. Justice Department notified Ferguson, Mo., police officials Wednesday that the federal government would launch a broad investigation into the policing practices of the city, a person briefed on the matter said.

The probe goes beyond a previously announced investigation into the shooting of an unarmed teenager by a Ferguson police officer last month that sparked weeks of unrest in the St. Louis suburb.

Justice officials were expected to formally announce their intentions as soon as Thursday, said the person who was not authorized to comment publicly.

The inquiry, to be conducted by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, will examine years of data to determine whether the department engaged in a so-called pattern and practice of discriminatory policing and the use of excessive force, the source said.

Brown, who was unarmed, was shot at least six times on the afternoon of Aug. 9, and his death touched off two weeks of clashes between police and demonstrators in the small city near St. Louis. The majority of residents of Ferguson are black, and the city's police department is overwhelmingly white.

The launch of the wider Justice inquiry was largely expected following Attorney General Eric Holder's visit to the city last month, when he met with community leaders and was briefed on the separate federal inquiry into the shooting of Brown, an African American, by white officer Darren Wilson.

A St. Louis County grand jury also is reviewing the fatal shooting in which Brown was struck six times in a disputed encounter with Wilson.

The Justice Department has moved aggressively against local police departments in recent years.

Less than a month before the Ferguson shooting, the Civil Rights Division issued a blistering assessment of the Albuquerque Police Department, whose officers used deadly force more than 20 times since 2009.

"We concluded that a majority of these shootings were unconstitutional,'' federal authorities said in a April report.

Missouri governor lifts state of emergency in Ferguson

WashPost

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon announced Wednesday that he was lifting the state of emergency he had declared last month amid chaos on the streets of Ferguson.

Nixon had first declared a state of emergency on Aug. 16, signing an executive order and implementing a curfew between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. The curfew, which he had said was needed to restore peace, was in place for two nights, as Nixon lifted it once he announced that he was calling in the Missouri National Guard.

On Wednesday, Nixon (D) announced that the state of emergency was being lifted because people are “getting back to their normal routines” in Ferguson.

Images of Darren Wilson Surface Online

ThinkProgress

“This is my dog and F--- you, You F---ing N-----,”: Two White Men Attack Black Man Walking his Dog in Crown Heights

From [HERE] and [HERE] Two white men were charged with attacking a 56-year-old black man in Crown Heights over the weekend, in an apparent hate crime. Samuel Brendler and Ahrone Koskase were arrested Saturday for assaulting the victim at Montgomery Street and Albany Avenue around 6:40 p.m. the same day.

Two white men were charged with a hate crime after they attacked and hurled racial slurs at a 56-year-old black auxiliary police officer in Brooklyn, authorities said.

The two first threw trash cans at Hyppolite, striking him in the shoulder, police said. They then punched him, knocking him to the ground as they tried to take his dog, according to police and the criminal complaint.

“This is my dog and F--- you, You F---ing N-----,” one of the men yelled at Hyppolite, according to the criminal complaint.

Hyppolite suffered bruises and cuts to his knees and elbows but refused medical attention at the scene, police said.

The two men were charged with assault and menacing as a hate crime and were both held on $5,000 bail after they were arraigned in Brooklyn criminal court on Sunday, police said.