Smith v. Spisak (January 12, 2010)
State court’s upholding of jury instructions and forms that made
clear that for jury to recommend a death sentence, jury had to
unanimously find each of the aggravating factors outweighed
any mitigating circumstances--but did not say the jury had to
determine the existence of each individual mitigating factor
unanimously--was not contrary to and was not an
unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
Defense counsel’s allegedly deficient closing argument was not
prejudicial to defendant where government had presented
extensive and graphic evidence of multiple murders, defendant’
s boastful and unrepentant confessions, and his threats to
commit further violent acts; defense counsel referred to the
mitigating evidence and appealed to the jurors’ sense of
humanity; defense experts’ detailed testimony regarding
defendant’s mental illness was fresh in the jurors’ minds; and
defendant did not describe any other mitigating factors counsel
could have mentioned.
Legal News:  United States Supreme Court
Death Penalty
Marriage
Hollingsworth v. Perry (January 13, 2010)
District court’s amendment of its local rules to allow
broadcasting of Proposition 8 trial likely did not comply with
federal law, and defendants demonstrated that irreparable
period spanning five business days was not appropriate notice
and an opportunity for comment. Ninth Circuit Judicial Council’s
pilot program did not require any "immediate" revision in local
rules, and desire to allow case to be broadcast pursuant to that
pilot program did not qualify as an immediate need that justified
dispensing with the notice and comment procedures required
by federal law.
Speech
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (January 21,
2010)
Question of whether 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441b--which prohibits
corporations and unions from using their general treasury
funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an
"electioneering communication"--applied to advertisements for
corporation’s documentary critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton
could not be resolved on narrower grounds than whether Sec.
441b was facially valid. Holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber
of Commerce that political speech may be banned based on
the speaker’s corporate identity was erroneous and thus
provides no basis for allowing government to limit corporate
independent expenditures in Sec. 441b. Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements were valid
as applied to advertisements and to documentary.
Second Amendment