4R
University Daily Kansan / Wednesday, January 15, 1992
SUPREME COURT
Court lets rulings on illegal evidence stand
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld rulings that allow evidence illegally seized by police to be used to increase a convicted criminal's prison sentence.
The court rejected arguments that such evidence, which must be excluded when determining a verdict, should be barred from sentencing proceedings as well.
Two federal appeals courts, in cases from Tampa, Fla., and the District of Columbia, have the so-called exclusionary rule not apply to their filings were left undisturbed, without comment.
In other matters, the justices:
Rejected an extraordinary request by Washington state officials, refusing to order a federal appeals court to speed up review of a death row inmate's case.
In an unsigned opinion, however, the justices
said they would subject any further delay to a most rigorous scrutiny if state officials again complain about the pace of review in the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court o Appeals;
Refused to allow the criminal prosecution of a Christian Science couple whose young boy died after they prayed for his healing rather than seek medical help;
Left intact sanctions of more than $1 million against a non-profit law firm and two journalists who sued for injuries suffered when a bomb exploded in a news conference in Nicaragua. Lower courts said the lawsuit was pursued in bad faith;
Refused to revive a $7.8 million judgment a computer software company, INSLAW, won against the federal government over what a bankruptcy judge said was governmental fraud.
Refused to reinstate a California man's murder conviction, thrown out by a federal appeals court that said his Miranda rights had been violated.
■ reheard arguments in a New Jersey case that poses a nigh-stakes question on whether cigarette makers can be sued for allegedly misrepresenting the dangers of smoking.
The Florida and District of Columbia cases focused on the exclusionary rule, first fashioned by the high court 77 years ago. Aimed at deterring violations of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable police conduct, the rule generally bars illegally seized evidence from criminal trials.
In the Florida case, Earl Lynch was convicted of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it.
Lynch was arrested in 1869 in an undercover investigation conducted by Tampa police and
the FBI. He was arrested after police, without first getting a court warrant, searched his home and found guns and drugs.
At Lynch's federal trial, evidence discovered as the result of a separate, court-approved search was used. But the guns and drugs seized in the warrantless search were excluded as evidence.
After he was convicted, a judge took Lynch's possession of the illegally seized evidence into consideration when sentencing him to seven years and three months in prison. If that possession had not been taken into consideration, the most prison time Lynch could have received under federal sentencing guidelines was six years and six months.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Lynch's sentence despite his contention that the illegally seized evidence should not have been a factor.
In the District of Columbia case, Keith McCory was convicted of distributing crack cocaine and was sentenced to 20 years and one month in prison.
He sold $50 worth of the drug to two undercover police officers in February 1989. After leaving his apartment to field test what they had bought, the officers returned without a court warrant and arrested him.
While there, the officers seized several guns and more drugs. That evidence was excluded from McCrory's trial but was considered when he was sentenced.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the sentence, saying the rule did not apply to sentencing.
Bush administration lawyers urged the justices to reject the separate appeals filed by Lynch and McCrystal.
Justin Knupp/KANSAN
Take one
As solicitors pass out coupon books and pamphlets, James Craig, facilities operations employee, picks up the unwanted material thrown on the ground by student recipients. Solicitors lined Jayhawk Boulevard on Monday and yesterday,
Couple won't be prosecuted for son's death
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Courthas refused to allow the criminal prosecution of a Minnesota couple whose boy died after they prayed for his healing rather than seek medical help.
The justices, without comment, let stand rulings that shielded William and Kathleen McKown, both Christian Scientists, from facing manslaughter charges for the death of 11-year-old Ian Lundman.
Jan, Kathleen McKown's son and
Mckown's stepson, died at the family's home in Independence, Minn., on May 19, 1989. The boy had suffered from diabetes and became seriously ill two or three days before he died.
The McKowns treated Ian's illness with Christian Science spiritual healing.
They later were indicted for second-degree manslaughter. Grand jurors heard testimony that Ian's diabetes was treatable through conventional medicine and that his condition probably could have been stabilized as late as two hours before his death.
A state judge threw out the indictment, ruling that prosecuting the McKowns would violate their due-process rights.
The state's child-neglect law at that time said parents could not be found liable if they, in good faith, relied upon "spiritual means or prayer" for treating a child's health problems.
The Minnesota Supreme Court, over two dissenting votes, upheld the indictment's dismissal in September.
"The spiritual treatment and prayer exception to the child neglect statute expressly provided (the McKowns)
the right to depend upon Christian Science healing methods so long as they did so in good faith," the state court said.
In the appeal acted on Monday, state prosecutors argued that shielding the McKowns from prosecution "has the practical effect of allowing parents' practice of religion to supersede a child's right to life."
Minnesota's child-neglect law since has been changed to require parents administering spiritual healing to an ill child to report that fact to state authorities.
Thomas may be deciding factor in cigarette law
Case concerns whether firms can be sued for misleading ads
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Justice Clarence Thomas, a cigar smoker, appears to hold the decisive vote as the Supreme Court tries again to decide whether cigarette manufacturers may be sued over allegations that they misrepresent the dangers smokers face.
The justices were deadlocked 4 after hearing case arguments October 8, before Thomas took his seat. Unable to answer, the court ordered a new round of arguments.
Barring a change in a colleague's position, Thomas could cast the tie-breaking vote. The court is expected to announce a decision by July.
Thomas is one of three smokers on the court. Chief Justice William Rehnquist smokes cigarettes; Justice Sonia Sealia smokes cigarettes and a pipe.
The issue in the case is whether federally required warnings on cigarette packs shield manufacturers from lawsuits saying their advertising conceals the hazards of smoking. The warnings are authorized by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965.
The family of Rose Cipollone of Little Ferry, N.J., appealed to the Supreme Court. She died of lung cancer at age 58 in 1984 after 42 years of smoking.
Anti-smoking activists say the stakes may be unusually high because
a ruling against the industry could force a big price increase to finance billions of dollars in damages that would be expected from more lawsuits.
The tobacco industry said a victory for it would immunize cigarette makers from big-money damages and create a large disincentive to sue.
A federal jury in 1988 ordered Liggett Group Inc. to pay Mrs. Cipollone's husband, Antonio, $400,000, the nation's first monetary award against the industry. But it absolved Philip Morris Inc. and Lorillard Inc., which made other brands of cigarettes smoked by Mrs. Cipollone.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the award and ordered a new trial. It ruled that the 1965 labeling law shields the industry from claims concerning the adequacy of health warnings.
Antonio Cipollone died in 1990. The nine-yearcourt battle has been carried on by the councle's son, Thomas.
Anti-smoking activists say that even though the cigarette makers comply with the federal advertising law, they fail to adequately warn people of the dangers of smoking. They say the industry undermines the federally mandated warning with misleading advertising by showing healthy, attractive smokers.
The American Cancer Society estimates that 190,000 Americans die each year from smoking-related diseases, including 143,000 from lung cancer.
Rose Cipollone, who started smoking at age 16, maintained she was influenced greatly over the years by cigarette advertising and industry health claims.
"I was sure that if there was anything that dangerous, that the tobacco people would not allow it and the government would not let them sell cigarettes," she said.
Daily Kansan Classified Ads Get Results!
BRIDGESTONE
The full line of Bridgestone road and mountain bikes are in stock now. We stock over 700 bikes in all price ranges, for all types of riding. Check us out!
RICK'S BIKE SHOP
916 Mass., Lawrence, KS (913)841-6642
Layaway now for Spring . . .
Best sports 1-2 punch in Lawrence!
BEST athletic shoe selection in Lawrence! Nike, Reebok, K-Swiss. Hytec,etc.
★BEST selection of hats anywhere!
over 700 styles to choose from including over 150 fitted styles.
Original K. U, designs that nobody else has!! ★Workout apparel from Nike, Russell, Champion, Umbro, Hind, Reebok, and more. ★Officially licensed teamwear from Starter The Game, Apex one, Nu-Era, Salem Screen, Russell, and more.
*Racquets, gloves, bags,
socks, K.U. gift items, posters
Pro team gift items, posters!
®★★ WEVEGOTIT!! ★★
842-2442
840 Mass.
842-2992 837 Mass.