The US Supreme Court has had a busy day so far. Decisions were announced in two cases and the court agreed to hear another death penalty case.
In the fall term the court will hear arguments in a Kansas case to determine whether to reinstate a death penalty law that requires juries to sentence a defendant to death when the evidence for and against imposing death are equal.
The 1994 law says if the evidence for and against imposing a sentence of death is roughly equal, Kansas juries must choose death instead of life in prison.
The Supreme Court will consider how juries weigh evidence for an against death, as well as some technical issues, including whether it is proper for the Supreme Court to intervene.
Supreme Court to Take Up Death Penalty Law - Yahoo! News
--
The Supreme Court today overturned the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm.
Anderson was convicted of obstruction of justice for destroying documents wanted by the federal government in the Enron scandal.
In a unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court rules the jury instructions at trial were too vague and broad for jurors to determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice.
The ruling is a setback for the Bush Justice Department which made prosecution of white-collar crime a high priority following the accounting scandals at several corporations.
The conviction of Andersen caused the company to surrender its accounting license and discontinue performing public audits. The Chicago-based form eventually reduced its workforce by 28,000.
Court Overturns Arthur Andersen Conviction - Yahoo! News
--
The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law which requires prisons to accommodate inmate religions.
The justices sided with Ohio inmates who claimed they were denied access to religious literature., ceremonial items, and time for worship.
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the intent of the law was to protect the religious rights of prisoners and is not an unconstitutional government promotion of religion.
"It confers no privileged status on any particular religious sect, and singles out no bona fide faith for disadvantageous treatment," Ginsburg wrote.
The law requires prisons who accept federal funds to accommodate prisoners' religious beliefs unless a warden can show that the accommodation would be disruptive.
Opponents of the law say the accommodates including special meals, special haircuts, and religious symbols could make prisons harder to manage.
"We do not read (the law) to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution's need to maintain order and safety," wrote Ginsburg. "We have no cause to believe that (the law) would not be applied in an appropriately balanced way, without sensitivity to security concerns."
Justice did leave the door open for later challenges, on the grounds that the law as applied overburdens prisons.
High Court Sides With Inmates on Religion - Yahoo! News
--
More later.
No comments:
Post a Comment