Salinas v. Texas, No. 12-246
United States Supreme Court |
Salinas v. Texas: U. S. Supreme Court case
involving the admissibility of evidence in a double murder. Genovevo Salinas was
suspected in the shotgun murder of brothers Juan and Hector Garza in Houston, Texas.
His father gave the police his shotgun to examine. Salinas voluntarily went to the
police station, not under arrest. He voluntarily answered the officer's questions
except when he was asked if the shotgun would match the shells found at the crime
scene. The trial court found that his silence and nervous demeanor were admissible,
and he was convicted. He challenges this ruling under the Fifth Amendment. CJLF's
brief argues that the constitutional right not to "be compelled . . . to be a
witness" was not violated. By voluntarily speaking with the police, Salinas chose
to be a witness. He was not compelled. The entire interview, including his
nonanswer to one question, is admissible.
|
Connecticut v. Santiago, No. S.C. 17413
Connecticut Supreme Court |
Connecticut v. Santiago: Connecticut Supreme Court
case in which a murderer seeks to overturn the legislature's decision to leave the
death penalty in place for prior murders, while repealing it for future murders.
Eduardo Santiago was a hired killer who shot Joseph Niwinski in the back of head
while he was asleep. His price for this "job" was a broken snowmobile and payment
of his credit card debts. CJLF argues that the legislature reached a legitimate
compromise in deciding to reduce the maximum penalty for future crimes only.
|
Trevino v. Thaler, No. 11-10189
United States Supreme Court |
Trevino v. Thaler: U.S. Supreme Court case
considering the limits on the number of times a convicted murderer can reopen his case.
Trevino and other members of his gang abducted, raped, sodomized, and murdered
Linda Sanchez, who was only 15 years old. Trevino's identity as a major participant
in this atrocity was confirmed by a DNA test matching him to a blood stain on Linda's
underwear. He was convicted and sentenced to death. Texas provided counsel to enable
him to challenge his trial in two separate reviews of the case, including challenges
to the effectiveness of his trial attorney. In federal court, Trevino wanted to make
yet more claims against the effectiveness of his trial attorney, and he claimed the
supposed ineffectiveness of his attorneys in the later review procedures as cause for
not raising these claims earlier. The Federal District Court found that this basis
for raising new claims this late in the process was contrary to a 1991 U.S. Supreme
Court precedent, Coleman v. Thompson, won by CJLF. In addition, Trevino's belated
mitigating evidence was so weak in comparison to the horrific crime and his utter
lack of remorse that it would have made no difference. Trevino now asks the U.S.
Supreme Court
to carve a large loophole in the Coleman rule, which would allow murderers to make
belated claims in this situation, even if the claims have nothing to do with guilt
of the crime. CJLF argues that the Coleman precedent is correct and should be
maintained intact.
|
Cook v. FDA, No. 12-5176
District of Columbia |
Cook v. Food and Drug Administration:
U.S. Court of Appeals case in D.C. involving the importation of drugs needed for
lethal injection. A group of murderers from three states sued the FDA, claiming
that it had violated the law by allowing states to import sodium thiopental,
which at the time was one of the primary drugs used throughout the country for
lethal injection and still is used in many states. The judge not only ordered
the FDA not to allow any more importations, but he also ordered them to "notify"
states that their continued possession and use of previously imported thiopental
was illegal. The court gave no legal authority for this conclusion, and the
states whose interest was affected had not been made parties to the action.
CJLF joined the case to argue that the judge's order regarding existing stocks
is illegal. Federal rules require that a person or entity adversely affected
by a case be joined as a party. Further, nothing in the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act makes continued noncommercial possession and use illegal.
|
|
