Source: https://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/speech/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:31:47+00:00

Document:
Update: "Death row inmate Winfield seeks stay of execution from Missouri Supreme Court," is the AP report, via the Tribune.
John Winfield faces execution June 18 for killing two women in St. Louis County in 1996. In a court filing on Monday, attorneys for Winfield say it is unconstitutional for the state to execute him with "an unregulated compounded drug, from an undisclosed supplier, made of unknown ingredients, and through unknown processes."
"Reporter's notebook: Legal moves before execution scheduled June 18," is by Jeremy Kohler for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Missouri’s streak of six executions in six months ended in May when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the state to hold off on putting Russell Bucklew to death. The rare intervention allowed time for lower courts to consider whether death by injection would be excruciating for Bucklew, who suffers from a rare medical condition.
But the state is planning to go ahead June 18 with a lethal injection for convicted murderer John E. Winfield, 46.
Time posts, "Death Lab: Missouri Eyes Its Own Lethal Injection Pharmacy," by Josh Sanburn.
In a speech to the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis late last month, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster called for a “state-operated, DEA-licensed laboratory to produce the execution chemicals in our state,” and urged the legislature to fund the country’s first pharmacy specifically for carrying out lethal injection.
By manufacturing its own drugs, the state could, in theory, get around several difficulties in administering executions. It wouldn’t have to rely on compounding pharmacies, which are often kept anonymous and are unregulated by the federal government. It would be able to have a consistent and adequate supply of drugs, helping the state avoid changes to its drug protocol and the use of drugs in untested combinations. And most importantly, the state might be able to avoid future lawsuits regarding the origins of lethal injection drugs, which have put a halt to many executions around the country—not to mention troublesome executions like that of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma and Dennis McGuire in Ohio. Meanwhile, the Associated Press, the Guardian and three other news organizations have sued Missouri in an attempt to get the state Department of Corrections to reveal its drug sources. But even considering all that, the cost and sheer logistics of building a pharmacy from the ground up to manufacture a handful of drugs may not be worth it.
Earlier coverage of John Winfield's case begins at the link. You can also jump to news of the Missouri AG's speech.
"Attorney general proposes that Missouri make its own lethal injection chemicals," is by Tony Rizzo of the Kansas City Star.
Missouri’s struggles to obtain drugs to carry out executions have been plagued by controversy and legal challenges.
On Thursday, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster proposed a solution: Missouri should make its own lethal injection chemicals.
“The legislature should appropriate funds to establish a state-operated, DEA-licensed laboratory to produce the execution chemicals in our state,” Koster said in a speech to a bar association group at the Lake of the Ozarks.
Today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports, "Missouri attorney general: State needs its own execution pharmacy," by Jeremy Kohler.
Last week in Tennessee, for example, the governor signed into law a bill that would allow for death by electrocution if drugs for lethal injections were not available.
Koster noted that journalists and condemned inmates have pressed the state for disclosure about how the drugs are made, and who makes them.
Earlier this month, the Post-Dispatch and other news organizations sued the Missouri Department of Corrections to compel it to release information about the drugs the state uses for injection executions.
You can read the Missouri Attorney General's prepared remarks, thanks to the Post-Dispatch.
"Missouri official proposes execution drug lab," is the AP report filed by Jim Salter, via the Springfield News-Leader.
Missouri should establish its own laboratory to produce chemicals for use in executions rather than rely on an "uneasy cooperation" with medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies, the state's attorney general said Thursday.
Attorney General Chris Koster, a Democrat, spoke to the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis during the group's meeting at Lake of the Ozarks.
"For Missouri to maintain lethal injection ... it is my belief the Legislature should remove market-driven participants and pressures from the system and appropriate funds to establish a state-operated, DEA-licensed, laboratory to produce the execution chemicals in our state," said Koster, according to a transcript provided by his office.
A state-operated execution drug lab would be a first, and it isn't clear if it could be implemented through a simple change in Missouri's protocol or if legislative approval would be necessary. Messages seeking comment from officials with the Department of Corrections and the Attorney General's office were not returned.
St. Louis Public Radio posts, "Expressing Concern Over Execution Secrecy, Koster Calls On State To Make Lethal Injection Drugs," by Chris McDaniel.
"The vast majority of medical professionals refuse to participate in any aspect of the procedure, believing it conflicts with their Hippocratic Oath," Koster said, according to a copy of his speech, which he delivered to a conference of the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis at the Lake of the Ozarks.
To hide the identity of those that are willing, the state made the supplier of its execution drugs a secret last October. An investigation by St. Louis Public Radio revealed that the state’s previous supplier was not licensed to sell in Missouri and had been cited in the past by regulatory agencies.
To keep it a secret, the state was paying this pharmacy a little more than $11,000, all in cash, each execution.
Koster has ardently supported secrecy in the past. But speaking in Lake of the Ozarks, he said the transparency questions should "concern all of us deeply."
“While this creeping secrecy is legal, it may not be prudent, and it merits the attention of state lawmakers,” he said.
"Missouri attorney general wants the state to produce its own lethal injection drugs," is by Mark Berman of the Washington Post.
Missouri has executed four people in 2014, which is as many people as the state executed between 2006 and 2013.
The botched execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma last month drew worldwide attention, reviving a debate over the death penalty and the way it is carried out in the United States. An execution in Texas, set to be the first since the botch in Oklahoma, was halted hours before the injection after a court cited the intellectual disability of inmate Robert James Campbell.
As a result, Missouri’s scheduled execution of Russell Bucklew last week would have been the first in the country since the Oklahoma episode. That execution was halted, reinstated and halted again during a judicial back-and-forth before the Supreme Court ultimately stayed the execution and sent it back to lower courts. Attorneys for Campbell and Bucklew had criticized the secrecy involved in the lethal injection process in both states.
"Attorney General Koster Thinks Missouri Should Make Its Own Execution Drugs," by Lindsay Tolerfor River Front Times.
ABA Journal posts, "AG’s unique solution to dearth of execution drugs: State should manufacture its own supply," by Martha Neil.
"Ex-Gov. Ryan speaks at Chicago Mandela tribute," is the AP report filed by Sophia Tareen, via the San Francisco Chronicle.
In one of his first public appearances since being released from prison this year, former Illinois Gov. George Ryan told attendees at a memorial service Sunday that Nelson Mandela played a role in his 2003 decision to empty death row.
His nearly five-minute speech at the Chicago church where U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush preaches — mostly stories about meeting Mandela in 2000 — was met with hearty applause, particularly as Ryan described commuting the sentences of Illinois' death row inmates. The move, which put Ryan in the national spotlight, eventually led to the state abolishing the death penalty in 2011.
The event, where Mandela's portrait hung above the pulpit, was billed as the "people's tribute" and included speeches by Rush, fellow Chicago Democrat U.S. Rep. Danny Davis, Nation of Islam officials, community leaders and Chicago-based consuls general from several countries.
Ryan, 79, described his first meeting with Mandela in South Africa during a gubernatorial trade mission. The half-hour discussion at Mandela's home was "filled with emotion and inspiration," Ryan said.
Three years later, as Ryan was considering what to do — and before he concluded Illinois' capital punishment law was flawed — he received a call from Mandela. Ryan said Mandela "asked me to do what I did."
"Ryan: Mandela Inspired Death Penalty Moratorium," is a different version of the AP report, via WSIU-FM.
Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan says Nelson Mandela was instrumental in his 2003 decision to empty death row.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports, "Ex-Gov. George Ryan remembers Nelson Mandela at memorial service," by Brian Slodysko.
Eulogizing Mandela, who died earlier this month at 95, Ryan described the life lesson he took away from their 30-minute meeting at Mandela’s home.
But it wasn’t Ryan’s last interaction with the man credited with bringing down Apartheid.
Several years later, after Ryan had imposed a moratorium on the executions in Illinois, Mandela called him while Ryan was contemplating commuting the sentences of inmates on Death Row.
“I hadn’t decided what my decision was going to be, and Nelson Mandela called me from South Africa and asked me to do what I [eventually] did and it had an impact on my actions,” Ryan said.
Earlier news of former Illninois Governor George Ryan begins at the link.
"Former San Quentin Warden Woodford says death penalty almost dead," is by Paul Liberatore in the Marin Independent Journal.
She pointed out that public opinion has changed drastically since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, when 70 percent of California voters favored it. Since then, it has cost the state $4 billion to administer.
"If 250,001 voters had changed their minds and voted yes, we would have won and no longer have the death penalty in this state," she said, adding, "We did succeed in forever changing the landscape on this issue in this state. With 48 percent of voters supporting repeal, we have shown that the state is now evenly divided on the death penalty. We have fundamentally changed the conversation."
Earlier coverage from California begins with lethal injection developments. You can also jump to Prop. 34 election coverage.
"Ark. AG: Current death penalty system is broken," is by Jeannie Nuss of Associated Press. It's via Arkansas Business; it's also available from the Beaumont Enterprise.
Arkansas' top lawyer said Wednesday that the current death penalty system is broken.
The state hasn't executed an inmate since 2005. Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said he doesn't expect that to change anytime soon as Arkansas grapples with legal challenges and a shortage of drugs used in lethal injections.
McDaniel called for a discussion about the future of the death penalty and mentioned abolishing capital punishment as a possibility, but he stopped short of advocating that.
"Eighteen states have abolished the death penalty," McDaniel said. "The voters of Arkansas can certainly choose that route. The Legislature could choose that route."
So could the courts, he said.
"If the Arkansas Supreme Court decides to abolish the death penalty by declaring it unconstitutional, I would acknowledge that that is an acceptable use of their power," McDaniel said. "But none of those things are happening. ... Rather, we have the current situation, one that I strongly oppose."
"McDaniel says state death penalty procedure broken," is by Stacy Ryburn for the Arkansas News Bureau.
The problem that state lethal injection presents is that there are no viable execution drugs available for the state to purchase, and even if there were, the American Medical Association says it’s unethical for physicians to take part in ending someone’s life, McDaniel said.
Civil litigation in death-penalty cases is also more burdensome than any other type of appeal. The average convicted inmate in the state spends 15 years on death row, McDaniel said.
The system has evolved, as has McDaniel’s view on the punishment, since he took office in 2007, he said.
Earlier coverage of Arkansas lethal injection issues begins at the link.
The Arkansas News Bureau posts, "McDaniel Urges Changes To State’s Death-Penalty System," by Stacy Ryburn.
Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel recommends the state abolish the death penalty or change its method of execution, calling the system “completely broken” Wednesday in Fort Smith.
During the Arkansas Sheriffs’ Association summer convention at the Holiday Inn City Center, McDaniel said he still supports the death penalty as a policy, but called for a serious public discussion regarding its practice in the state.
Arkansas has 38 inmates on death row, including four from western Arkansas.
"Execution system not functional, McDaniel says," is the AP coverage, via NorthWest Arkansas Online.
"I am opposed to the courts and drug manufacturers continuing to neutralize our death penalty through the imposition of practical hurdles that cannot be overcome," he said.
The attorney general says he continues to support the death penalty but said he has no reason to believe that any of the state's condemned prisoners will be executed while he is in office.
McDaniel asked Gov. Mike Beebe this year to schedule executions for seven death row inmates but the governor has indicated he has no immediate plans to do so.
Arkansas last executed a death row inmate in 2005.
Earlier coverage of Arkansas lethal injection issues begins at the link. Earlier this year, Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe said that if repeal legislation reached his desk he would sign it into law.
Is an Innocence Commission in Texas' Future?
The Atlantic posts, "In Texas, From a Chief Justice, Welcome Candor About Unequal Justice," by Andrew Cohen.
Last Wednesday, in Austin, Texas, a remarkable thing happened. In a state where the promise of equal justice under law often is a farce, where poor people and people of color far too often are subject to unfair treatment by prosecutors, police, judges, jailors and jurors, the Chief Justice of the state supreme court spoke out at length with great clarity and candor about the desperate legal conditions of his fellow Texans and the immediate need to secure for them all the right to "liberty and justice." (Note good update below).
Wallace B. Jefferson, the first black justice on the state's supreme court, the first black chief justice of the state's supreme court, the man appointed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry to replace Alberto Gonzales, offered his remarks in his annual "State of the Judiciary" address and his timing could hardly be better. Next week, America marks the 50th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, which was designed to secure the right to counsel for people too poor to afford their own attorney.
Jefferson's speech is yet another detailed reminder of how far we've come from the premise and the promise of Gideon. (Last week, on this topic, I wrote here about the Alabama case of Christopher Lee Price, a death row inmate whose constitutional right to counsel has been consistently denied by the courts. Next week, in advance of the March 18th anniversary of the decision, we'll be posting here at The Atlantic a special piece on the legacy of Gideon).
"Chief Justice Pushes for 'Innocence Commission'," is Maurice Chammah's coverage for the Texas Tribune.
At his biennial speech in front of the Legislature, Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson reiterated his calls for more funding for civil legal aid, indigent defense and juvenile justice reform, and pushed for the establishment of an "innocence commission" to investigate wrongful convictions.
Presenting his State of the Judiciary speech to Texas lawmakers, Jefferson said that "wrongful convictions leave our citizens vulnerable, as actual perpetrators remain free" and recommended the Legislature create a commission "to investigate each instance of exoneration, to assess the likelihood of wrongful convictions in future cases, and to establish statewide reforms." He cited the recent exoneration of Michael Morton, who spent nearly 25 years in prison for murder.
The creation of such a commission nearly passed in 2011, but failed at the last minute. Part of the opposition has come from Jeff Blackburn, chief legal counsel of the Innocence Project of Texas, a nonprofit organization that attempts to overturn wrongful convictions and investigate why they happen in the first place. He said recently that such a commission would have to be “extremely well-funded,” and would more likely become “a paper commission that would give a lot of people an excuse to turn away from a lot of the real issues we face in the criminal justice system."
Related posts are in the innocence commission and Texas Legislature indexes.
In the extensive coverage of the Connecticut debate on capital punishment, the Hartford Courant has made special mention of the remarks of Sen. Gayle Slossberg's statement. Susan Campbell of the Courant posts, "Read Sen. Gayle Slossberg’s moving speech about Connecticut’s death penalty."
Debate on the bill to repeal Connecticut’s death penalty stretched into today’s wee hours, and there was some incredible language through the afternoon, evening, and morning — heartfelt, moving, and real from elected representatives who’d spent time on this emotional and tough topic.
But one speech — from Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford — resonated particularly.
And how do you know, in this age of insta-news, when something strikes a chord? People starting emailing one another — and commenting on Facebook — asking for a copy. Several of us were reporting portions of the speech on Twitter, and we were all choosing different portions — in 140-character bites. You need to witness the whole thing.
Coverage of the Connecticut Senate vote to repeal the state's death penalty begins at the link.
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruling in Dimas-Martinez v. Arkansas is available in Adobe .pdf format.
The state Supreme Court overturned a death-row inmate’s murder conviction today because of jurors who tweeted and slept during his trial.
The high court also said that because of changing technology, it is time to consider whether jurors should continue to be allowed access to mobile phones during trials.
The Supreme Court ordered a new trial in Benton County Circuit Court for Erickson Dimas-Martinez in the Dec. 30, 2006, shooting death of 17-year-old Derrick Jefferson in Springdale. Dimas-Martinez had been sentenced to death for capital murder and life in prison for aggravated robbery.
An attorney for Dimas-Martinez, now 26, said last month in oral arguments before the Supreme Court that the trial judge should have dismissed a juror who sent messages via Twitter from the jury box and the deliberation room during the trial.
Dimas-Martinez’s trial lawyer told the judge about the tweet, and the judge questioned the juror. The juror explained that he was preparing himself to make a decision about the death penalty and was making a reference to the album “Define the Great Line” by the band Underoath.
The juror said he had not revealed any particulars of the case. Over the defense attorney’s objection, the judge did not strike the juror.
The juror continued to send tweets after being questioned by the judge. Among them was the tweet “It is over,” sent nearly an hour before the jury announced it had reached a verdict.
In its unanimous opinion reversing the conviction, the Supreme Court said the tweets were a public discussion of the case, in violation of the judge’s instructions.
"Death row inmate gets new trial because of tweet," by Jeannie Nuss for the AP, via Business Week.
Erickson Dimas-Martinez's attorneys had appealed his 2010 murder conviction because a juror sent the tweets despite the judge's instruction not to post on the Internet or communicate with anyone about the case. The lawyers also complained that another juror slept.
The court said Franco, known as Juror 2 in court documents, violated general instructions to not discuss the case. Before opening arguments, the judge said: "Just remember, never discuss this case over your cell phone. .... and don't Twitter anybody about this case."
The justices also used the case to point out that a wide array of juror misconduct can come into play when jurors have unrestricted access to their cell phones during a trial.
"Most mobile phones now allow instant access to a myriad of information. Not only can jurors access Facebook, Twitter, or other social media sites, but they can also access news sites that might have information about a case," Corbin wrote.
"Arkansas death row inmate gets new trial because of tweets," by Suzi Parker for Reuters.
A lower court denied Dimas-Martinez' motion for a new trial, stating he "suffered no prejudice."
In an earlier case before the state Supreme court, the state argued that the juror's tweets were about his feelings and not the case.
In Thursday's courts opinion, Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote that "prejudice results from the fact that the juror admitted to the misconduct, which proves that he failed to follow the court's instructions, and it is the failure to follow the law that prejudiced Appellant."
The Arkansas Supreme Court has a provision in place that states that "electronic devices shall not be used in the courtroom to broadcast, record, photograph, e-mail, blog, tweet, text, post, or transmit by any other means except as may be allowed by the court."
As a result, Corbin wrote that the risk of prejudice is "simply too high' to allow jurors to post any information or "musings" online.
Corbin wrote that the court now wants its committees on criminal practice and civil practice to consider whether jurors' access to mobile phones should be limited during a trial.
The Arkansas case is the latest of a number across the country dealing with use of social networking by jurors during trials.
Tony Mauro posts"Stevens Criticizes Ruling on Prosecutorial Immunity," at Legal Times/Law.com.
In a speech last night, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens made clear his displeasure with the Court's recent decision in Connick v. Thompson and urged congressional action to hold prosecutors clearly liable for the civil rights violations of their underlings.
It is rare but not unheard of for retired justices to comment critically about the Court's work, especially about a specific recent decision. But it seems in keeping with how the 91-year-old Stevens plans to spend his retirement, speaking out on issues of the day and, as he recently revealed, writing a book.
Stevens spoke at a New York dinner in his honor sponsored by the Equal Justice Initiative, the Alabama-based organization that supports indigent defendants and prisoners.
By a 5-4 vote, the Court in Connick overturned a $14 million judgment awarded to a man who spent 14 years on death row in Lousiana before his convictions were overturned.
Stevens highlighted what he said were the "shocking facts" of the case, which pointed to prosecutorial misconduct well beyond a single act — including concealment of blood evidence and of conflicting police reports. Stevens indicated he agreed with dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the jury was correct in finding deliberate indifference on the part of the prosecutor.
Justice Antonin Scalia came in for criticism from Stevens. Stevens quoted from Scalia's statement in a concurrence that "there was probably no Brady violation at all" in the case, except by one deputy sheriff which, Scalia said, was "a bad-faith knowing violation" that was not the result of lack of training. Stevens said Scalia had "either overlooked or chosen to ignore the fact that bad faith, knowing violations may be caused by improper supervision."
That point led to Stevens' broader assertion that reform is needed to apply respondeat superior principles to prosecutors in the same way they apply to private employers. In other words, he concluded, district attorneys need to be held liable for wrongdoing by employees. Stevens noted that prosecutors' immunity from that liability is a "judge-made rule" stemming from dicta in the 1978 decision Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services. That rule was a mistake, Stevens said, especially given that political pressure gives prosecutors little incentive to train their underlings on Brady. Stevens said the problem could be fixed — as with other statutory interpretations by the Court — by an act of Congress, amending the civil rights protection known as Section 1983.
"Stevens Urges Congress to Crack Down on Prosecutorial Misconduct," is the title of Jess Bravin's post at the WSJ Law blog.
In a speech Monday night to the Equal Justice Initiative, which advocates for indigent defendants, Justice Stevens criticized the court’s March decision overturning a jury’s $14 million award to an innocent man who spent 14 years on death row after prosecutors concealed evidence that could have cleared him.
The case of Connick v. Thompson saw the court split 5-4 along its conservative-liberal divide. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas rejected the freed man’s theory that the New Orleans district attorney’s office was negligent for failing to train its staff to comply with longstanding precedents requiring prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to defendants.
Because district attorneys often run on tough-on-crime platforms, the pressures to ensure convictions far outweigh the rewards for respecting rights of the accused, Stevens said.
That could be fixed, he said, by making district attorneys liable when their subordinates commit outrageous violations of constitutional rights. Private-sector employees already are liable for their employees’ misconduct, under a legal doctrine called respondeat superior.
Justice Stevens' speech is available in Adobe .pdf format. Thanks to Elizabeth Zitrin for pointing me to the speech.
More on Connick v. Thompson, prosecutorial misconduct, and the plight of John Thompson at the links.
That was the title of the Nobel Laureate's speech at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, last night.
The Day reports, "For Elie Wiesel, death penalty is not the answer." It's written by Karen Florin.
Dr. William Petit did not attend Elie Wiesel's lecture on capital punishment at Wesleyan University Tuesday, but for a few minutes the Nazi death camp survivor spoke as if the man who lost his wife and daughters in the Cheshire home invasion was his only audience.
"Your wound is open," Wiesel said. "It will remain. You are mourning, and how can I not feel the pain of your mourning? But death is not the answer."
The 82-year-old Nobel Peace laureate, author and human rights activist said that if the death penalty could bring back the victims, maybe he would change his stance. He did allow that murderers should be punished more harshly than other prisoners.
"They should get hard labor," he said.
"Death is not the answer" became the refrain for Wiesel as he wondered aloud what could be done to help survivors of violent crimes "so that families will not feel cheated by the law."
The Romanian native spoke with authority, having lost both parents and a sister in the Nazi death camps. He escaped Buchenwald in April 1945 when it was liberated by soldiers from the U.S. Army's Sixth Armored Division.
"I know," he said. "I know the pain of those who survive. Believe me, I know."
Wiesel spoke in the university's Memorial Chapel, which was packed with about 400 students, professors and invited guests. In simple, lyrical language that carried the lilt of his Eastern European beginnings, he defended his anti-death position using stories from the past.
In the Biblical story of Cain and Abel, the two sons of Adam, Cain is said to have asked God, after he had killed his brother and God wondered about Abel's whereabouts, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
"I think it wanted to teach us that whoever kills, kills his brother," Wiesel said.
"Elie Wiesel speaks about death penalty at Wesleyan," is the title of Julie Anne Rancourt's report in today's Middletown Press.
Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel delivered a lecture on the use of capital punishment in an ethical society to students, faculty, alumni and the public Tuesday evening at Wesleyan University.
The program, which was initially going to focus solely on building an ethical society, was altered to include Wiesel’s first ever detailed address of the use of the death penalty in this country.
It is in part because of those experiences as a youth during the war that Wiesel does not believe that society should act as the angel of death. He believes in harsher punishment, such as hard labor for prisoners, but “we should not be the servants of death”.
Earlier in the day, while addressing the media, Wiesel spoke about the Cheshire home invasion case and ongoing trial.
Recalling that his passion for his studies after surviving the war saved his sanity, Wiesel said that education is the key to building a moral society, and got a chuckle out of the audience which included Wesleyan President Michael Roth and his family when he said that teachers salaries should be raised to show our respect for them and their work.
“Remember what you’ve learned here, and remember that the answer is always in your hands,” Wiesel told the students.
Thanks to Ron Tabak for distributing. I'm hoping that Elie Wiesel's entire remarks will be posted on his web site.
Justice David H. Souter left the Supreme Court nearly a year ago without really saying goodbye. There were no pre-retirement interviews of the sort that Justice John Paul Stevens gave to several journalists this spring. There were no farewell press conferences like those that several justices who retired during the 1980’s and 1990’s were willing to endure for the sake of placing their own codas on their Supreme Court careers.
And since Justice Souter has decided to keep his papers closed to the public for 50 years, few people in a position actually to remember his Supreme Court tenure (1990-2009) will be able to explore the archive and learn what conclusions this most private of public figures drew from his part in two decades of profound debate about the role of the court and the meaning of the Constitution.
But for those who care about the Supreme Court, Justice Souter served up some rich fare: his own vision of the craft of constitutional interpretation and a defense of the need for judges to go beyond the plain text — what he called the “fair-reading model” — and make choices among the competing values embedded in the Constitution. Doing this was neither judicial activism nor “making up the law,” he said; rather, it was the unavoidable “stuff of judging,” and to suppose otherwise was to “egregiously” miss the point of what constitutional law is about.
The full text of Justice Souter's address, as delivered, is here.; more online posts from Greenhouse, here.
The transcript of Holder's prepared speech is here.
"Holder: Jail is not only crime solution," is the Chicago Tribune report written by Kristen Schorsch.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, addressing the American Bar Association on Monday, called for getting not only tough but also "smart" on crime, saying that jail is not the entire answer when it comes to law enforcement.
Noting that one of every 100 adults across the country is behind bars -- "the highest incarceration rate in the world" -- Holder said that putting people in prison costs too much economically and socially in a nation where car dealerships are closing, teachers are getting laid off and after-school programs are being cut.
"But in almost all cases, spending on prisons continues to rise," Holder said during a roughly 20-minute speech at the association's annual meeting in Chicago. "This is unsustainable economically."
Holder called for new strategies and tools to fight crime, such as studying what happens to inmates once they leave prison and developing programs based more on their failure or success.
Holder also wants to identify and tailor programs for children who are most at risk for committing crimes later in life. Also on the table, Holder said, are addressing a lack of resources for public defenders -- a line that drew applause from the assembled lawyers -- and reviewing federal sentencing and corrections policy.
The ABA Journal has posted, "AG Holder Calls for Getting ‘Smart on Crime’," written by Edward A. Adams.
“We must be tough on crime, but we must also commit ourselves to being smart on crime,” he said.
Since 2003, spending on incarceration has continued to grow, while crime rates have stopped declining, he said. Now, one of every 100 adult Americans is incarcerated— the highest incarceration rate in the world, he said.
As evidence of how DOJ will implement a data-driven approach, he noted that federal prisoners who go through a drug treatment program are 16 percent less likely to be arrested and returned to prison. Those who work in prison industries are 24 percent less likely to commit a crime again. Those who go through prison education programs are 16 percent less likely to be arrested again, he said.
Most crimes are committed by people who have already committed crime, he noted. More than 65 percent of former state prisoners and 40 percent of former federal prisoners are rearrested within three years of their release, he said.
“Even a modest reduction in recidivism would prevent thousands of crimes,” Holder said.
"Holder draws applause calling for indigent defense, DNA testing," is at the National Law Journal's coverage of the ABA Annual Meeting.
An earlier speech by Holder is noted in this post.
An earlier speech by Holder is noted here.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.