Interesting factoid on public lands

The county of San Bernardino is suing the federal government to control a road from Barstow to the San Bernardino mountains. See the PE's report here.

Expulsion of girls for homosexual conduct at Cal Lutheran High School

The PE reports that the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in Cal Lutheran's favor regarding its expulsion of two students for homosexual conduct. The students now intend on appealing to the California Supreme Court. The court apparently relied upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in 1998 involving the Boy Scouts. In that case, the court found the right of free association allowed the scouts to prohibit gay men from being troop leaders. The girls argue that the school is not a social club like the scouts and were more like a business. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or sexual preference. Interestingly, the California Supreme Court will be bound by the US Supreme Courts' position on the right of free association which was based on the US constitution and to which the high school has rights. Thus, if the California Supreme Court wishes to overturn the court of appeal it would have to distinguish the current case from the boy scout case. If it did so, the high school could then appeal to the US Supreme Court stating that the California Supreme Court improperly distinguished the case.

Double jeopardy for Anthony Martinez' killer?

The PE reports here that Judge David B. Downing ruled Anthony Martinez' killer "can be tried in California for the 1997 murder of a Beaumont boy, even though the case was used in a federal trial in Idaho." Seems a no brainer. The United States and California are two separate sovereign entities each allowed to bring criminal actions against the same person.

Jury duty vs. work

Probably the most frequently asked question of me by lay folks is how do I get out of jury duty. During my brief stints with jury duty myself, I've seen what works and what doesn't. Apparently Juror no. 10 in a death penalty case didn't do his homework and is now involved in a six week death penalty case. The PE reports here on the issues. The problem is that he's very much needed at work and his boss was bugging him to get out of it. The employee tattled on the boss and the judge ordered the boss to appear. Apparently, the company's financial future is on the line on a certain project and jurur no. 10 is necessary to get the project done. The judge was having none of it and ordered the boss to stop contacting the employee.

Lost in the article is what's going to happen to the company if the project goes south? Why do the shareholders of the company have to suffer because of a six week death penalty case and the loss of a key employee? What if the company gets sued for breach of contract on the project because of delay? (Happens all the time) What if the company goes bankrupt because it didn't complete the project timely? There's certainly an argument that juror no. 10 should never have been empaneled. What if juror no. 10 didn't tell the attorneys and the judge that he was needed so badly? Shouldn't the company be able to fire him?

These are all tough questions. But Judge Cahraman said it best:

Judge Tom Cahraman, presiding judge of the Riverside County courts, said jury duty can prove inconvenient for both employers and employees, but "it is one of the prices we pay for freedom," Cahraman said.