Our Rights, Our Future

Transgender Immigrants Are More Likely To Be Detained And Harmed

Transgender immigrants face significant biases that raise the chance of deportation and detention. The Sylvia Rivera Law Project put together an excellent chart explaining just a few of the barriers transgender immigrants must surmount, including fewer paths to legal immigration and greater risk for unwarranted encounters with the police. Inside, see how our nation's immigration policies fail to treat all immigrants equally with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Supreme Court to Set the Standard for Post-Conviction DNA Access

The irony existing in many state statutes regarding access to post-conviction DNA testing is that they require the petitioner to prove their innocence in order to gain access to the DNA evidence needed to prove their innocence. This leads to the logical next question – if the petitioner needs access to the DNA evidence to prove their innocence, how can they prove it prior to gaining this access?

 

Six states are currently without statutes that allow post-conviction access to DNA evidence. Of the forty-four states that do have statutes, these statutes often create barriers to access. For example, some statutes require the petitioner to present additional evidence of their innocence while other statutes bar access to those who originally plead guilty or create procedures that drag the hearing process out for years.

 

The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to weigh in on post-conviction DNA testing and to set a standard for states to follow. On November 3^rd the Supreme Court granted certiorari to District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne. The state of Alaska is appealing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision granting petitioner William Osborne the right to post-conviction DNA testing.

Drug Failures Especially Hurt Women

Some of the most dangerous FDA approved drugs still on the market are specifically targeted towards women, according to a report from the Center for Justice & Democracy.

Lack of Trial Experience on Supreme Court May Have Consequences

Judges consider a variety of factors when determining whether to admit evidence during the sentencing phase of a trial. Is the evidence probative in value? What does the evidence tell the jury about the circumstances of the crime? Is the evidence unfairly prejudicial to the defendant? Are there due process implications? Answering these questions can be exceptionally complicated when the evidence is some form of a “victim impact” statement. The court must balance the need to inform the jury the extent of the harm caused by the crime against the likelihood the impact will be purely emotional and prejudicial to the defendant.

On November 11^th, 2008, the Supreme Court decided not to accept for review Kelly v. California and Zamudio v. California by denying both cases certiorari. In doing so, the Court denied itself the opportunity to provide lower courts with guidance as to what types of “victim impact” evidence may be put before jurors during the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial. The thirty-seven states, and the federal government, which allow the imposition of the death penalty all currently allow the prosecution to present victim impact evidence in the sentencing phase of death penalty trials.

In Payne v. Tennessee (decided in 1991), the Supreme Court upheld the admission of “victim impact” evidence, but did not provided the lower courts with any standard for determining what constitutes “victim impact” evidence. Justices Breyer, Souter and Stevens saw in these two recent cases, Kelly and Zamudio, an opportunity for the Court to finally clarify the decision in Payne. They strongly objected to the majority’s decision to deny certiorari. The Court now leaves open the door for lower courts to allow evidence that may prevent a fair and impartial jury ruling.