May 9, 2012

Kimble v. Warden, Illinois State Prison

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division

December 15, 1996

This matter comes before the court on an appeal from the denial of respondent’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner, convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to death, claims that he satisfies the narrow “actual innocence” gateway for habeas relief. More specifically, petitioner claims that newly discovered evidence unerringly points the finger of guilt at two other culprits–Dr. Charles Nichols and Frederick Sykes, a “one-armed man.”

For the reasons related below, we grant the writ. We find that Kimble has adduced “new, material, noncumulative” evidence that would “probably change the result on retrial,” People v. Washington, 171 Ill.2d 475, 489 (1996). We reject the prosecution’s arguments that the evidence (1) could and should, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been discovered prior to defendant’s trial; (2) fails to adequately impeach the verdict, insofar as the petitioner’s evidence (according to the prosecution) presents only the possibility of an improbable, self-defeating scheme to release onto the market a new drug that would invariably generate an onslaught of crippling products-liability lawsuits.

In an unpublished order also issued today, we reject respondent’s petition as to his separate, subsequent convictions for escape, theft, auto theft, reckless driving, brandishing a firearm at a federal officer, false personation, and criminal trespass, for which he was sentenced to a total of 10 additional years in custody.

(Source: noncuratlex.com)

April 5, 2012

(via paris2london)

7:09pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZHNyEwJ91w1v
  
Filed under: design learning 
April 5, 2012
"I’ll never be a poet,” said Amory as he finished. “I’m not enough of a sensualist really; there are only a few obvious things that I notice as primarily beautiful: women, spring evenings, music at night, the sea…"

— F. Scott Fitzgerald, Tender is the Night

March 10, 2012
todaysdocument:

Opinion of the Supreme Court in United States v. the Amistad, 3/9/1841
Senior Justice Joseph Story wrote and read the decision of the Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the Africans onboard the Amistad were free individuals. Kidnapped and transported illegally, they had never been slaves. The decision affirmed that “…it was the ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression and to apply force against ruinous injustice.” The Court ordered the immediate release of the Amistad Africans.
via DocsTeach »

todaysdocument:

Opinion of the Supreme Court in United States v. the Amistad, 3/9/1841

Senior Justice Joseph Story wrote and read the decision of the Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the Africans onboard the Amistad were free individuals. Kidnapped and transported illegally, they had never been slaves. The decision affirmed that “…it was the ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression and to apply force against ruinous injustice.” The Court ordered the immediate release of the Amistad Africans.

via DocsTeach »

(Source: research.archives.gov)

March 10, 2012
newyorker:

Lawrence v. Texas: How Laws Against Sodomy Became Unconstitutional

The story told in Lawrence v. Texas was a story of sexual privacy, personal dignity, intimate relationships, and shifting notions of family in America. By the time the tale poured from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s pen, in his decisive majority opinion, it was even about the physical dimension of love: “When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” The opinion used the word “relationship” eleven times.
That is the story that Dale Carpenter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, seeks to untell in his important new book, “Flagrant Conduct” (Norton), a chronicle that peels the Lawrence case back through layers of carefully choreographed litigation and tactical appeals, back to the human protagonists we never really got to know, and back again through centuries of laws criminalizing “unnatural” sexual activity. What if, Carpenter asks, this weren’t a story about love, or even sex? What if, in the end, Lawrence v. Texas was less a whodunnit than a who didn’t? And, if there was no sex, let alone an intimate relationship, in John Lawrence’s apartment that night, how did the case come to be about both?

- In this week’s issue, Dahlia Lithwick on Dale Carpenter’s book about the fascinating story behind the landmark case, Lawrence v. Texas: http://nyr.kr/yshpKX

newyorker:

Lawrence v. Texas: How Laws Against Sodomy Became Unconstitutional

The story told in Lawrence v. Texas was a story of sexual privacy, personal dignity, intimate relationships, and shifting notions of family in America. By the time the tale poured from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s pen, in his decisive majority opinion, it was even about the physical dimension of love: “When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” The opinion used the word “relationship” eleven times.

That is the story that Dale Carpenter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, seeks to untell in his important new book, “Flagrant Conduct” (Norton), a chronicle that peels the Lawrence case back through layers of carefully choreographed litigation and tactical appeals, back to the human protagonists we never really got to know, and back again through centuries of laws criminalizing “unnatural” sexual activity. What if, Carpenter asks, this weren’t a story about love, or even sex? What if, in the end, Lawrence v. Texas was less a whodunnit than a who didn’t? And, if there was no sex, let alone an intimate relationship, in John Lawrence’s apartment that night, how did the case come to be about both?

- In this week’s issue, Dahlia Lithwick on Dale Carpenter’s book about the fascinating story behind the landmark case, Lawrence v. Texas: http://nyr.kr/yshpKX

March 6, 2012
"They’re only people. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong?"

— Juror #8, 12 Angry Men

March 6, 2012

February 27, 2012

February 22, 2012
"Stand up, your father’s passing."

To Kill A Mockingbird

(Source: blawmovies)

February 11, 2012