Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (13510)	5/11/2001 7:53:04 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Court Rules Fetus a 'Person' washingtonpost.com By James Jefferson Associated Press Writer Friday, May 11, 2001; 6:31 a.m. EDT LITTLE ROCK –– The state Supreme Court ruled that a fetus is a person in a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by a man whose wife and unborn child died during birth procedures. In reversing a lower court on Thursday, the Supreme Court cited a 1999 law that changed the state's criminal code to include a living fetus of 12 weeks gestation in the definition of a person. The case stemmed from the Dec. 13, 1995, death of Evangeline Aka and her unborn son about 30 hours after she was admitted to the hospital so labor could be induced. Aka's husband, Philip, claimed the defendants were medically negligent in unnecessarily inducing his wife's labor, failing to discontinue the procedure, failing to perform a caesarean section, failing to resuscitate his wife or the unborn baby and failing to obtain informed consent. "Given this amended definition of 'person,' the Legislature plainly affords protection to unborn viable fetuses," Chief Justice W.H. "Dub" Arnold wrote for the court. A circuit judge ruled in early 1999 against Aka's claims, citing a Supreme Court ruling that a fetus was not a person in wrongful-death actions. Later that year, the Legislature approved a law specifying that an unborn fetus could be considered a person for some purposes in criminal law. "The relevance of the Legislature's response, by statutorily defining person in the criminal context to include a fetus, cannot be understated," Arnold wrote. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Robert L. Brown said he agreed with the lower court ruling that viable fetuses are not considered persons for purposes of wrongful-death cases. "The majority's reasoning is inconsistent and extremely hard to justify," Brown said. "A decision of this magnitude requires clarity and direction, and not a patchwork quilt woven from disparate statutes, constitutional provisions and Supreme Court decisions." Brown said he believed the public policy shift didn't occur until this year, with the passage of another law specifically amending the wrongful-death statute to include a viable fetus in the definition of a person. The act was approved April 4 and won't go into effect until Aug. 14. ––– On the Net: Arkansas Supreme Court: courts.state.ar.us Link found at Message 15787437

To: TimF who wrote (13510)	5/11/2001 8:22:35 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Tuesday May 8 7:42 PM ET Court Rules on Jury Nullification By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Judges can remove jurors who refuse to apply the law, the California Supreme Court declared Monday in its first-ever ruling on ``jury nullification.'' The seven-member high court unanimously backed a Santa Clara County judge who dismissed a juror who did not believe statutory rape was a crime. An alternate juror stepped in, leading to a conviction and six-year prison term for Arasheik Williams, who was charged with having sex with a 15-year-old girl and other crimes. ``Jury nullification is contrary to our ideal of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law,'' Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote. The decision came as little surprise to legal scholars and attorneys. Deputy Attorney General Karl S. Mayer said the high court simply ruled that jurors must uphold the oath that they took before being empaneled. ``This case obligates them to follow their oath, which is to follow the law,'' Mayer said. Juries have been known to acquit defendants based on their belief that the offenses charged should not be crimes. The practice of jury nullification dates to at least colonial times, when publisher John Peter Zenger was acquitted of seditious libel against the colonies' British rulers. Today, California juries acquit some marijuana offenders who claim the drug eases pain and suffering from cancer. In other cases, juries set free repeat offenders facing life sentences for minor offenses under California's three-strikes law. Generally, judges are powerless to alter verdicts that are favorable to defendants when juror misconduct occurs without their knowledge. The jury nullification case that was decided Monday tested for the first time what to do when a California judge learns during deliberations that a juror is not upholding the law. Under California's 1998 ``snitch'' rule, judges routinely order jurors to inform the court if a juror is not applying the law during deliberations. That is what happened in the case decided Monday. In a separate ruling testing how far jurors can go, the high court said Monday that jurors who refuse to deliberate, but have not stated they object to the law, cannot be removed.