Sentence.

U.S. Appeals Court

CLEMENCY 

Gilreath v. State Ed. of Pardons and Paroles. 273 F.3d 932 (11th Cir. 2001). A capital murder defendant moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to stay his execution. The district court denied the motion, finding that the clemency proceeding in which the defendant had unsuccessfully sought relief did not result in the violation of his due process rights, even though two members of the clemency board were knowingly under investigation by the state attorney general's office, and one member of the board was absent from the meeting of the hoard at which people spoke on behalf of clemency. (Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole)

U.S. Appeals Court

EX POST FACTO FINES

Myrie v. Commissioner. N.J. Dept. of Corrections, 267 F.3d 251 (3rd Cir. 2001). Prison inmates challenged the application of a New Jersey statute that required them to pay a ten percent surcharge on their purchases from a prison or jail commissary, in order to fund compensation of crime victims, alleging violations of their Double Jeopardy, Ex Post Facto, and Bill of Attainder rights. The district court granted summery judgment for the defendants and the inmates appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the surcharge was not so punitive in purpose or effect that it could be viewed as a "punishment" in violation of the inmates' rights. The court held that the surcharge was not an excessive fine and that it did not offend constitutional due process guarantees. The court noted that purchases outside the prison context would otherwise have been subject to a 6% sales tax. (New Jersey)

U.S. Appeals Court

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Singleton v. Norris 267 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2001). A state prisoner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking a stay of execution of his death sentence. The district court denied the petition and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed, finding that the inmate lacked the understanding necessary to permit the state to execute him, and a permanent stay of execution was warranted. Prison officials had administered psychotropic medication to protect the prisoner from harming himself and others, which periodically rendered the prisoner competent. (Arkansas Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court

PROBATION-CONDITIONS

U.S. v. Replogle, 176 F.Supp.2d 960 (D.Neb. 2001). In a prosecution for drug possession, the defendant moved to suppress evidence found in his house. The district court denied the motion, finding that while the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his house and the search was not voluntary, the warrantless search was valid because it was conducted pursuant to a valid probation order. The court noted that the defendant's probation officer was authorized to conduct warrantless searches and the probation order stated that the probationer "shall consent" to such searches. The probation officer knew that the defendant had violated a condition of his probation and a judge had advised the officer that she could visit the probationer and conduct a search. (U.S. District Court, Nebraska)