Daily Archives: June 1, 2017

David Shapiros smear of Jeff Sessions in a Chicago Tribune op-ed, suggesting that the attorney generalis a racist, is consistent with other failed partisan efforts to distort and delegitimize the former senators record on race and law enforcement. Apparently, Shapiro missed Sessionss confirmation hearing in which the same smears were attempted only to be refuted one by one by witnesses mostly black who actually know the facts and the man.

Shapiro asserts Sessionss directive to staff on criminal sentencing related to drug crimes is the latest in a series of attempts by the Attorney General to tear down protections for people of color. Mr. Shapiro seems to have forgotten that during the height of the crack epidemic ravaging the black community in the 80s, it was Congressman Charlie Rangel and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted for the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA), which established the 100-1 sentencing ratio for crack and powder cocaine. Were Rangel and other members of Congress racist?

Attorney General Sessions wasnt in the Senate at the time the ADAA passed, but he was in the Senate in 2010 and co-sponsored the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the crack-to-powder ratio. If Sessions were a racist why reduce the crack-to-powder ratio, let alone co-sponsor the Fair Sentencing Act?

The rest of Shapiros piece is character assassination of the worst kind. As U.S. attorney for Alabama, Sessions successfully sought the death penalty for Klan members. He defended black voting rights. He hired blacks for prominent positions. As a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Ive known and worked with Jeff Sessions for years and consider him the most principled and decent person in Washington, a man of the highest integrity.

Shapiros complaint seems to be that Attorney General Sessions is actually doing his job enforcing the law as Congress passed it. In contrast, former attorneys general Holder and Lynch, under the veil of prosecutorial discretion, failed to enforce the law. Select immigration and sentencing laws were simply ignored, virtually wholesale. Thats not the role of the attorney general, whether his name is Holder or Sessions. Such a sweeping use of prosecutorial discretion effectively nullifies or rewrites federal law. If drug laws need to be changed, Congress needs to change them. Holders and Lynchs actions were a plain derogation, if not usurpation, of legislative authority. That Attorney General Sessions is being criticized for restoring both the rule of law and the Justice Department to their proper roles is an indication of how debased respect for the rule of law has become.

Shapiro suggests blacks are disproportionately harmed by enforcement of drug-sentencing laws, but its other blacks who are disproportionately harmed by drug crimes. I live in inner-city Cleveland where the possession, sale, and trafficking of drugs arent victimless crimes. Nothing esoteric here. Neighborhoods decay, people sink into addiction, families are ripped apart, children are neglected, turf wars break out, and innocent people are destroyed. Clearly, there are good reasons why our current drug laws should be revised, but it takes a certain...mentality...to assert that those who enforce drug laws as written possess nefarious motives. And with the country in the grip of an opioid crisis that dwarfs the crack epidemic, a crisis that doesnt discriminate on the basis of race, uniform enforcement of the law is anything but racist.

Shapiro admits that there is no hard evidence of Sessionss racism, yet nonetheless accuses him of having a single-minded focus to attack people of color. Somewhere a Red Queen is smiling.

Jeff Sessions prioritizes the rule of law and the well-being of the victims of crime, not the well being of criminals. On the evidence, Jeff Sessions has a single-minded focus to act the way the attorney general of the United States is supposed to act. And Americans regardless of color are better off for that.

Read more:

Jeff Sessions & David Shapiro & the Rule of Law | National Review - National Review

Lou Raguse, KARE 6:34 PM. CDT June 01, 2017

Officer Jeronimo Yanez outside court during a break Tuesday. (Photo: KARE)

ST. PAUL,Minn. - Jury selection passed the halfway point by the time court dismissed Thursday in Ramsey County in the trial of the officer accused of killing PhilandoCastile.

So far 14 jurors have been approved, meaning nine more need to be approved before the pool can be narrowed down to the 12 jurors and three alternates who will decide the Officer Jeronimo Yanez's fate.

One juror approved raised a challenge by the defense, because the man, who is white, said he attended a vigil for Philando Castile in the days following the shooting and cried. The man, a scientist at a local college, admitted he has a bias against Officer Yanez based on what he's heard so far about the case. But he said he could set aside those feelings and make a decision based on the evidence.

Judge William Leary rejected the challenge and allowed the man to pass onto the next round, saying, "The totality of the questioning shows he is suitable to serve. Attending a vigil in and of itself is not a point for disqualification."

Another potential juror raised a challenge from the defense, because the woman didn't understand much about the U.S. Criminal Justice System. Under questioning by attorney Earl Gray, the 18-year-old woman who immigrated from Ethiopia admitted not knowing the meaning of "negligence," "credibility," or even what the U.S. Criminal Justice System is.

Judge Leary again rejected the challenge, stating that not many 18-year-olds would be able to answer those questions.

Jury selection, in effect a process of elimination, begins with questioning of the initial pool of 50 jurors. If a potential juror appears to be too biased, or has extenuating circumstances in their life, the judge dismisses them from the pool. When a total of 23 jurors are approved to move to the next phase of the selection process, the defense will strike (eliminate) five of them, and the prosecution will strike three, leaving the 15 who will hear the case.

Earlier Thursday morning, three additional jurors were approved, bringing the total of those approved to nine. The first was a woman in her 60s who knows little of the case, and what she does know is based on the initial coverage of the shooting of Philando Castile. In a rare moment of levity when asked why she enjoys watching Judge Judy (she confessed to that fact on her questionnaire) the woman responded "I like how she doesn't fool around. She makes a decision and that's it."

The second juror moved to the next round of selection was a 24-year-old Caucasian woman who told attorneys "I honestly don't know anything about the case at all. Questioning for the woman lasted 30 to 40 minutes, significantly shorter than all previous jurors.

Prosecutors and the Yanez defense team also approved a third juror, a white male in his 40s who recently moved to Minnesota from Colorado. He said the first he heard of the shooting of Castile was when the judge spoke of it. The only topic of concern for attorneys was that the man seems to have feelings about the criminal justice system where what he called "victimless crimes" are prosecuted far too often. He also said he believes marijuana should be legalized, a view that could concern the Yanezteam as they plan to make an issue of the fact Castile had allegedly used marijuana before the fatal interaction with the officer.

Two jurors, both who admitted knowing a lot about the case, were excused.

A white woman in her early 20s began crying while she was being questioned by Judge Leary. She said, I've been struggling really hard with the possibility of taking on that role. I don't think I could be an impartial juror."

And a white man in his 50s or 60s said he under normal circumstances he would be able to be an impartial juror, but current family financial issues would cause too much of a distraction during the trial.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 31

Jury questioning is proceeding at a very slow pace in the trial ofJeronimoYanez, the St. Anthony Police officer who fatally shot motoristPhilandoCastile.

After court dismissed Wednesday, 40 of the 50 potential jurors remain to be questioned. Five jurors have been dismissed for various reasons. And five will remain in the final pool from which the jury will be selected.

The first juror to be dismissed was a woman who is a relative ofYanez. She was excused Tuesday. On Wednesday morning a pregnant woman with five children was allowed to go home, and a middle-aged woman who runs her own business and cares for her sick husband was excused as well.

The first juror to be dismissed was a woman who is a relative ofYanez. She was excused Tuesday. On Wednesday morning a pregnant woman with five children was allowed to go home, and a middle-aged woman who runs her own business and cares for her sick husband was excused as well.

RELATED: Yaneztrial: How we got here

Five people have been passed for cause, meaning they still have a chance to make the final jury unless the prosecution or the defense uses a strike to eliminate them later this week.

Perhaps the most surprising development in the jury selection process is how little potential jurors say they know about this high-profile case involving the death of an African American motorist. One potential juror, a black man in his20s, remembered hearing about the shooting when it happened but said he can't recall many details. He incorrectly assumed Diamond Reynolds is a minor.Yanezattorney Tom Kelly extensively questioned the man about his feelings on officer-involved shootings, particularly shootings of unarmed black men.

RELATED:What potential jurors are being asked

"I think, 'How does this happen? He was unarmed,'" the man said about another case he had heard about. "But it's not something you could put against every cop."

The man admitted he sometimes feels people with money or power "get off" by hiring high-priced attorneys but he said he wouldn't hold againstYanezthe fact he's hired three lawyers in this case.

The second juror kept in the pool was a middle-aged white woman who said she hasn't heard a thing about the shooting ofPhilandoCastile. "Not a word," she said. "I don't watch the news." The potential juror did admit she knew of protests that took place on the freeway following the shooting of Castile, but did not know what those protests were for. "There were protesters who walked out onto the freeway and stopped traffic."

During questioning the woman told attorneys she has served on a jury in a previous criminal trial in Ramsey County, and that they found the defendant guilty on one charge and not guilty on four others.

After a short break prosecutors asked the judge to dismiss the potential juror from White Bear Lake, saying they found posts on her Facebook page expressing support for law enforcement. Prosecutors did not object to the tone of the posts, but the fact that the woman under oath she had not shared posts of that nature on her social media accounts. "The only thing I share on Facebook is recipes," she was quoted as saying.

When confronted with printouts of the posts the woman said she didn't remember sharing them but agreed that she must have. Still, the judge denied the motion to excuse her for cause, meaning she could still end up on the jury.

The third potential juror to be questioned, an African American woman in her40s, knew a lot more about the Castile shooting than the two people who came before her. "I think the police officer was careless when he opened fire. That wasn't right," she wrote in her juror questionnaire. "The shooting wasn't fair plus there was a a woman and child who could have been injured." Despite her opinions, the woman told Judge William Leary III she believed she could be fair and impartial if seated on the jury.

The fourth juror, a white man in his50s, also said he hadn't heard about theYanezcase until he read a newspaper article about it Tuesday night. The judge earlier on Tuesday had asked jurors to avoid news coverage of the case. The juror had gone through a firearm training course and was enthusiastic about the chance to serve on the jury. The judge allowed him to remain in the pool.

Juror #6 is a white man in his60swho is allowed to remain in the pool. He is a gun owner, has heard very little about the case, and respects law enforcement.

Juror #7 was a white man in his40sor50swho was dismissed after he told the just there is no way he can giveJeronimoYaneza fair trial. "To unload a gun into a car with a child inside, there's just no reason, in my mind," the man said.

Prosecutors and theYanezdefense team will select 12 jurors and 3 alternates to hear the manslaughter case.

Jury selection will resume Thursday at 9 a.m.

2017 KARE-TV

Link:

Yanez Trial: Jury selection 'a numbers game' - KARE

Phillip Smith | May 31, 2017

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley (R) thought he had the perfect case to help burnish his tough-on-pot prosecutorial credentials as he eyes the governorship in the socially conservative state. It didnt work out that way, though.

Eric Hagen, who was set to be sacrificed on the altar of Jackleys ambitions, walked free last week after a jury in Flandreau refused to convict him of a marijuana trafficking conspiracy for his companys efforts to advise the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe on a marijuana cultivation operation and resort.

The tribe last year had announced plans for the operation after tribes across the country received an unsolicited okay from the federal government to pursue marijuana operations and hired Hagens Colorado-based Monarch America to help get the operation up and running. But facing mixed signals including threats of possible raids from federal officials and staunch opposition from state and local officials, the tribe tore up its plants last fall.

State officials got what they wanted, the tribe gave up its plans, Monarch America closed up shop on the reservation, and the matter appeared to be settled. But nine months later, as Jackley geared up for his 2018 gubernatorial run, he brought marijuana trafficking charges against Hagen and Monarch Vice President Jonathan Hunt.

The move came even though state attorneys general cant prosecute non-Indians for crimes on reservations. In a novel move, Jackley argued that his office did have jurisdiction to prosecute victimless crimes committed by non-Indians.

Facing up to ten years in state prison, Hunt copped to one count of conspiracy in August and agreed to testify against his business partner, but Hagen decided to fight and went to trial beginning last Friday. As a witness, Hunt testified that he did not think he was really guilty of crime, but accepted a plea bargain because he didnt want to risk a prison sentence.

At the trial, jurors had to decide whether Hagen possessed or intended to possess marijuana and whether he engaged in a conspiracy. The states case took a blow when Santee Sioux tribal officials, including Chairman Tony Reider, testified that it was the tribes marijuana, not Hagens, and that Hagen and Hunt were merely consultants.

Defense attorney Mike Butler also successfully challenged the conspiracy claim, noting in arguments and questions to witnesses that there was nothing secret about the tribes plans. As Butler noted, the tribe and Monarch America had been very open about their plans and had invited media, lawmakers, and even the FBI to tour the grow operation.

Butler also alluded to the political subtext behind Jackleys prosecution of the consultants. My client and Mr. Hunt are collateral damage, he said.

The jury agreed, finding Hagen not guilty after only two hours of deliberation Wednesday.

Hagen is a free man, but his company must now be rebuilt, and the Sioux Falls native is calling out Jackley for attempting to ride to higher political office on his back.

He tanked our company by spreading lies and rumors, Hagen said. It was 100% politically motivated. This was simply a media ploy for Jackley because hes running for governor in 2018.

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionlicensefromStopTheDrugWar.organd was first published here.

Visit link:

SD Attorney General Foiled in Bid to Prosecute Tribal Marijuana ... - The Daily Chronic