6th Circuit: Michigan's Sex Offender Registration Act violates Ex Post Facto clause

Yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that retroactive application of Michigan's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) violates the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws. In doing so, it offered a scathing assessment of such laws that suggests they make little sense even when they're constitutional.

Article here. (via reason.com 's Hit and Run blog)

 Responding to a challenge brought by five men and one woman who committed sex offenses before Michigan's legislature expanded SORA's requirements, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit concludes that the added provisions, although framed as civil regulations, are mainly punitive in their effects.

Defendant gets new trial at Federal appeals level after judge told him to "shut up."

A federal judge who criticized a defense lawyer’s questioning as “flimflam” and told him to shut up created the appearance of bias during a jury trial, a federal appeals court has ruled.


U.S. District Judge John O’Meara, criticized a defense lawyer’s questioning as “flimflam” and told him to shut up created the appearance of bias during a jury trial, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a new trial to the defendant, saying the trial judge “belittled” the defense lawyer, the National Law Journal (sub. req.) reports. The judge also erred when he answered a juror’s question about reasonable doubt with an improvised instruction, the court said.

The story identifies the judge as U.S. District Judge John O’Meara of Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The judge made several “sua sponte” statements in front of jurors criticizing lawyer Marvin Barnett, who was defending Reginald Daniels on gun crimes charges, the appeals court said in the June 8 unpublished opinion (PDF). The appeals court cited several instances:

• During closing arguments, O’Meara ordered Barnett to “shut up.” O’Meara also criticized the defense theory that police have reason to lie as “over the top … mendacity.” ( . . . )

Article here (via aba journal).

Judge rules against Michigan retailer over critical online review

Mr. and Mrs. Palmer posted an online review at RipoffReport . com when the product Mr. Palmer ordered for his wife never arrived. But then they were threatened by the Michigan manufacturer.

 From the Article:

Michigan-based KlearGear.com told the Palmers in 2012 that they had 72 hours to remove the negative review or pay $3,500 because they violated a “non-disparagement clause” in its terms of use with customers, the lawsuit said.

The couple refused, saying the clause was not in effect when the items were purchased and the terms violated the First Amendment. They also note RipoffReport.com has a policy of not removing posted reviews.

 The retailer then reported the Palmers to a credit reporting agency for their "failure to pay" which resulted in credit difficulties for the couple.

Judge Benson, in his order, said the retailer is liable to the Palmers for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Some marriages happened over the weekend, but are they legit?

So, a federal district court ruled on Friday that the Michigan (voter-supported) law banning same gender unions was unconstitutional. And that county clerks must issue licenses. But by this morning, 6th Circuit says "not so fast." In the meantime, hundreds of same gender couples got hitched. Are they legit?

That’s the predicament roughly 100 couples are in following an order late Saturday from the U.S. Sixth Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary stay of a lower court ruling that declared Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. The order didn’t come down until late in the day — well after roughly 300 same-sex marriage licenses had been handed out across Michigan.

Article here. 

A juror says "no way" to child pornography case.

What happens when a juror in a criminal case with horrific facts says he can't handle the evidence? A recent child pornography case out of Ohio addressed the issue. After being impanelled but before any evidence was presented a juror sent a message to the court's deputy asking to be released.

I'm a juror that was in the courtroom today for Judge Dowd's case. And I just left there and I don't know how I'm going to be able to do this tomorrow. I'll be honest with you. I'm, like, half sick. I guess they're showing pictures or a video tomorrow.

Article here. 

The US Supreme Court doesn't necessarily care if your lawyer is unethical

A case from Michigan about what effective representation of counsel means was heard at the US Supreme Court. It turns out, if your lawyer does unethical things doesn't mean they were ineffective as your legal representative.

Article here. (State Bar of Michigan blog)

and here.(from the Atlantic)

.... from the Atlantic article :

"This is what the right to counsel has come to in America. Your lawyer may have violated ethical rules; he may have failed to timely consult with other attorneys; he may have not adequately investigated your case; he may have given you bad advice that leads you to withdraw a guilty plea. And yet the legal standards imposed by the Supreme Court declare that you still aren't entitled to any meaningful relief by the courts. In law school, they call this "a right without a remedy." In real life, it's called injustice."