Mediaboss Marketing

BOULDER COUNTY, Colo. The man convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for the 2017 shooting deaths of three people at an illegal marijuana grow in Coal Creek Canyon saw his conviction and sentence voided this week and will get a new trial after a judge determined one of the jurors at his trial lied on the jury questionnaire.

Garrett Coughlin, now 27, was convicted of three counts of felony murder and one count of aggravated robbery last June and was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the April 2017 killings of Wallace White, Kelly Sloat-White and Emory Fraker at the home in Coal Creek Canyon in Boulder County.

According to prosecutors, Coughlin killed the three and stole bundles of marijuana before driving to several states and dumping the alleged murder weapon at a cousins home.

He was arrested about a month after the killings occurred.

But after the trial was over, according to an April 14 order from District Court Judge Judith L. LaBuda, Coughlins defense attorneys learned two jurors on the panel that convicted Coughlin had lied on their questionnaire and concealed information about whether they or someone close to them had been charged with a crime.

His attorneys filed a motion for a new trial on June 27 last year and Coughlin appealed his conviction. According to Judge LaBudas order, the two jurors who are not named in the order but identified by their initials both did not answer Question 10 on the questionnaire: Have you, a family member, or close friend, ever been charged with or convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic offense? Who? When? What type of crime?

Both jurors answered no.

The court heard testimony and reviewed evidence on Jan. 30 this year, at which time one of the jurors invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. He would later get immunity from prosecutors and testified at a March 9 hearing.

But the court found that the circumstances of the two jurors was different. The juror who eventually received immunity was found to have lied about three of his children having criminal records, but the court found that it was reasonable that he did not at the time remember two of the childrens charges since they occurred many years ago.

And the court found that since the juror did not feel comfortable giving his answers verbally they were being read to him as he forgot his reading glasses the day the questionnaire was administered and in front of other people that he had a spontaneous, though dishonest, reaction to having to provide the information in an environment that did not provide security.

The court found that no structural error existed in the trial based on his intentional misrepresentations. Thus, as with respect to R.H., the Court finds he was not deprived of a fair and impartial trial.

But Judge LaBuda wrote that was not the case for the other juror, whom she wrote demonstrated a habitual evasion and dishonesty with the facts of her and her familys criminal record.

The woman lied about her and her husbands criminal history, which included child abuse in a state where the family previously lived, on the same question on the questionnaire, the court found.

It defies logic that an individual who was arrested and taken from her home, jailed and boked, along with her husband, would not realize she had been charged with a crime, Judge LaBuda wrote.

She said that the juror was focused only on protecting her and her familys criminal history.

If a juror will go to such lengths to hide their own person legal history, then we cannot rely on that jurors compliance with an oath to seek the truth and decide a case based only on the evidence and the rule of law provided to the jury, the judge wrote.

She found the juror could not render an impartial verdict, and thus, Coughlin had been deprived of his right to an impartial jury and is entitled to a new trial.

But the judge wrote that she did not take her decision lightly.

If a juror is not accountable to hold to their oath and responsibility to engage in the truth-seeking process, then the entire system will crumble, Judge LaBuda wrote.

The costs of these proceedings are vast. The pain and grief to the victims families to go through another trial, after already enduring delays in trial, will be tortuous. The taxpayers have expended immense monetary costs for this trial and the post-trial proceedings that have and will now follow, she added. The attorneys diligently prepared for and presented the case to the Court and will now be tasked with doing so again. But ultimately, we [sic] the protections afforded us under our constitution and our laws must be safeguarded. Those protections cannot be endangered or threatened by the actions of those who would not uphold an oath to do just that.

Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty said his office is exploring all options in response to the courts decision and that he would continue to fight for the victims families.

On April 13, 2017, Wallace White, Kelly Sloat-White, and Emory Fraker were murdered in cold blood at the Whites home in Coal Creek Canyon. The trial jury worked hard to reach the right verdict and held this defendant responsible for ending their lives. My heart goes out to the victims families who, just days after the anniversary of these tragic murders, learned that the trial court was vacating the conviction due to juror misconduct, he said in a statement.

The court decided that the non-disclosures by the juror were intentional and rendered the trial unfair and prejudicial to the defendant. Our office is currently exploring all of our options, Dougherty added The District Attorneys Office will continue to fight for these three victims, their loved ones, and the community all of which were tragically impacted, based on the trial jurys verdict, by the decisions the defendant made in April of 2017.

Court records do not list a next court date for Coughlin. The state Department of Corrections website showed Friday he was still at the Crowley County Correctional Facility.

See original here:
Man convicted of 2017 Coal Creek Canyon triple murder will get new trial due to juror misconduct - The Denver Channel

Get all the latest news on coronavirus and more delivered daily to your inbox.Sign up here.

Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf is expected to veto a bill to reopen many of the state's businesses amid the coronavirus pandemic.

As the administration has stated many times, irresponsibly going against the direction of the secretary of health and reopening businesses too early will only extend the length of the economic hardships created by the pandemic, Wolf spokesperson Lyndsay Kensinger told The Philadelphia Inquirer in an email.

CORONAVIRUS LOCKDOWN PROTESTERS 'GRIDLOCK' MICHIGAN STREETS

The bill passed the state's Senate along party lines on Wednesday, butRepublican state legislators do not have enough votes to override Wolf's veto.

The state has the sixth-highest number of coronavirus cases in the U.S. atmore than 26,000.

Wolf's office did not provide FOX Business with a comment at the time of publication.

The Pennsylvania Medical Society praised Wolf's decision to extend a statewide stay-at-home order earlier this month.

"The Pennsylvania Medical Society (PAMED) strongly supports guidelines that call for increased social distancing and isolation as the only means to effectively mitigate the impact of COVID-19," PAMED President Dr. Lawrence John said in a statement. "Physicians, nurses and health care workers are saving lives by staying at work. We ask you to save lives by staying at home.

Some Pennsylvanians plan to protest on Monday in front of the State Capitol building in Harrisburg against lockdown restrictions being extended beyond May 1.

Others are taking legal action.

"If youre going to have closures like this, the government has to be transparent about the way its doing this," Jonathan Goldstein, chairman of Pennsylvania handbell manufacturer Schulmerich Bells, told FOX Business.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Goldstein is suing Wolf on behalf of the company and workersafter he had to shutter his business and layoff nine people, he said. He argues that the governor cannnot "seize" jobs without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

The government "has to have the authority to manage health crisis," Goldstein said."What thegovernment cant do is expect certain private parties to bear the cost for public benefit."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Related Articles

Read more:
Pennsylvania governor to veto coronavirus bill that would reopen economy - Yahoo Finance

There's no doubt that renters and homeowners alike have been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic and related economic shutdown. The Wall Street Journal reports that nearly one-third of renters were late on their rent this month, while a survey from rental listing website ApartmentList found that a full quarter of households couldn't pay all of their housing costs.

Localities, state governments, and federal agencies have so far responded with suspensions on evictions and foreclosures, and mortgage forbearance. With the end to the current economic shutdowns nowhere in sight, however, politicians and activists are starting to clamor for more radical solutions.

On Tuesday, City Councilman Canek Aguirre of Alexandria, Virginia, introduced a resolution demanding Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, and the area's congressional delegation use all powers at their disposal to cancel rent and mortgage obligations for the duration of the current crisis.

"No resident who has lost income should be required to pay rent during this public health emergency, nor should they accumulate debt for unpaid rent," reads Aguirre's resolution. It's not the first of its kind.

The Seattle City Council voted unanimously at the end of March in favor of a similar nonbinding resolution demanding that Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, and/or President Donald Trump use emergency powers to cancel rent and mortgage payments. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors did the same, although Mayor London Breed returned the resolution unsigned last Friday.

There's active legislation in the New York legislature to waive residential and commercial rents for 90 days, as well as mortgage payments for landlords who lose out on rental income as a result of the legislation.

Even Sen. Rick Scott (RFla.) has proposed a federal postponement of rents for 60 days for those making less than $75,000 a year.

Some renters have started to take things into their own hands too, with media outlets reporting a steady stream of stories about tenants organizing rent strikes.

So far, however, tenants' obligations to pay rent remain intact. Efforts to waive them could run into some serious constitutional problems says Ethan Blevins, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation.

"There's a doctrine of necessity in Fifth Amendment takings cases. The question is, was this necessary to prevent an imminent disaster?" Blevins tells Reason. Closing businesses or commandeering a building to use as a medical facility would fit that bill, he says. Suspending evictions is a more questionable move, while forgiving rent altogether likely crosses a constitutional line.

"Totally suspending rent that never has to be repaid really isn't related to preventing an imminent disaster," says Blevin. "It's not really proportional."

At a minimum, he argues, governments that do suspend rent payments will owe landlords compensation for depriving them of the ability to make any economic return off their property. Not being able to charge rent obviously means property owners won't receive any rental income, while eviction moratoriums mean they can't convert their property to some other economic use either.

Constitutional questions aside, rent forgiveness is hardly ideal policy, says Michael Hendrix, state and local policy director for the Manhattan Institute.

"What we're talking about in terms of government measures to alleviate rent burdens, they exist on a pretty wide spectrum," Hendrix told Reason last month. "Wiping away rent obligations, that exists in a different category than pausing rent payments and pushing them off toward some future point. That's very different from extending some sort of loan or cash to individuals to help them make rent."

There are two sides to every transaction, says Hendrix. Alleviating tenants' requirement to pay rent effectively shifts this cost onto landlords, who often have their own costs in the form of loans, utility payments, and property taxes.

Some politicians pair their rent forgiveness measures with proposals to forgive mortgage payments. That might help landlords, but then merely shifts rent burdens onto banks and financial institutions who could then face liquidity problems.

While the government can shift housing costs from renters to less popular groups like landlords or banks, it can't make those costs disappear.

The best solution then is probably to let private parties work all this out among themselves through negotiation, not central planning dictates. The New York Times reported last week that amid of calls for rent forgiveness and eviction moratoriums, some landlords are taking it upon themselves to temporarily reduce rents or are using security deposits to cover tenants' bills.

Not every landlord is going to be able or willing to do that, leaving a lot of tenants in the lurch. To the degree that such a problem might necessitate government intervention, cash assistance is probably a better course of action than deciding who gets to short whom on their contractual obligations.

The more we lean on the government to adopt emergency rent forgiveness measures, the more damage it will likely do to housing markets. As we've seen from past crises, there's always the possibility that emergency measures persist long after a crisis ends.

"[It's] like pulling at the collar of a t-shirt," says Blevins. "It will stay loose. It will be hard to go back to the status quo. Governments will have a precedent to point to."

Originally posted here:
With 30 Percent of Tenants Unable To Pay Their Bills This Month Due to COVID-19, Many Want Rent Canceled - Reason

On Wednesday, April 15, FoxNews host Tucker Carlson gave voice to many Americans' questions when he pressed Democrat New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy to scientifically and constitutionally justify his seemingly arbitrary lockdowns of businesses, police busts of peaceful religious gatherings, and arrests of solitary beachgoers.

Governor Murphys replies were less than substantive. Some might even call them flip and fueled by political conceit.

First, Carlson inquired about the scientific rationales Murphy claims prompted him to determine that liquor stores (which provide a lot of tax cash for the state) were essential, thus allowing gathering within their walls.

Murphy noted that he and his government friends relied on a whole lotta input reasonable input -- from recovery coaches, addiction coaches, and they cautioned us that if we shut those down wed have unintended mental health, uh, consequences to pay

But this prompted Carlson to ask the next logical question, again, on the practical side:

But you have closed church services and synagogue services and arrested people for attempting to attend them. Did anyone say that, maybe, practicing (ones) faith may be important to someones mental health?

Murphys answer was, as lawyers put it, non-responsive. He mentioned talking to faith leaders from those clichs of belief communities and talked about social distancing and face coverings, and then he offered this almost perfectly political nonsense statement:

Theres an enormous amount of faith going on virtually right now, a lot of practicing goin on, and we care deeply about both physical health and mental health.

Obviously, that wasnt quite satisfying to Carlson, so he pressed on what scientific basis the Governor might offer for the distinction between shutting down churches, while leaving booze markets open. The Governor did not provide one.

So Tucker approached the arbitrariness of Murphys diktats along a different factual vector, noting:

A man was arrested for sitting alone on a beach. Tell me why that poses a danger, and, again, on what scientific basis did you make that decision.

Murphy offered no scientific basis. So, again, Carlson had to press him, and in his question, he imparted the image of potentially infected cops breaking the six-foot barrier to arrest a lone person on an empty beach.

Arresting someone for sitting alone on a beach. Tell me how that arrests the spread of the coronavirus, from an epidemiological point of view.

And Murphy had to admit defeat.

Yeah, I wasnt referring to that. I actually dont have the specifics as to why that happened.

Of course, the practical side is always going to be debated as long as the government is involved and as long as people have different takes on the science, the data, and the best way to address risk.

The more fundamental questions remained, and those have to do with essential human rights. Thankfully, Carlson had those ready, asking this most important of American in fact, human questions, specifically pertaining to police in NJ arresting fifteen visitors at a synagogue:

The Bill of Rights, as you well know, protects Americans right enshrines their right to practice their religion as they see fit and to congregate together, to assemble peacefully. By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order?

Murphy admitted what we already knew.

Thats above my pay-grade, Tucker. I wasnt thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.

Heck. Not only is this NOT above Murphys pay grade (salary extracted from taxpayers), it is supposedly what his position is all about. Its the focus of his oath of office to protect and defend the US and NJ constitutions. And if Murphy were considering the Bill of Rights, hed wonder if maybe, just maybe, his edicts contravene the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the same Amendments prohibition of punishment without due process of law,the Sixth Amendmentssupposed assurance of a speedy trial before a jury,the Eighth Amendmentsprohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (with no real criminal activity, any punishment is both unusual and cruel), andthe Fourteenth Amendments reiteration of the standard of due process of law.

And Murphy isnt alone. As I mentioned earlier this week, many governors are engaging in this kind of attack on rights.

To put it simply for all of them

If politicians can tell us that the potential of spreading a harmful pathogen gives them the power to stop us from gathering in public places, that they can shut down the private establishments where we work and shop, that they can stop gatherings at private homes -- where's the cut-off? The practical side of that question tells us that since, at any given time -- even times of simple flu -- the government doesn't know who is infected, meaning they must assume we are ALL potential carriers, does that mean they can shut down all of the public (tax supported) places any time, all the time?

And since, in 1946, the Supreme Court erroneously said that private property is actually public, no different in their eyes than land on which all taxpayers money is showered, does the same go for businesses and homes?

What if ONE person might die by being bumped into on a sidewalk, or in a park? Will the government permanently close those, or mandate "social distancing" and fine people for walking "too close"?

This series of thoughts and questions requires us to see the distinction between private property and public property and recognize the "elephant" that's been "in the room" since government in the US began running roads, parks, certain buildings, and "open spaces" and then it began encroaching on private businesses.

The Bill of Rights was written to stop that kind of arbitrary government attack on liberty, both on real public property, and in private homes, businesses, and religious houses.

Its a shame Governor Murphy and many others arent familiar with the document.

Read the original post:
NJ Gov Murphy's Lockdown: 'I Wasn't Thinking Of The Bill of Rights' - MRCTV

The United States Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a Puerto Rican resident can keep $28,000 in disability benefits, rebuffing the United States governments attempt to recoup the amount in a victory hailed as a win for persons with disabilities living in territories like the Virgin Islands.

While we respect the legislatures authority to make even unwise decisions to purportedly protect the fiscal integrity of SSI and the federal government itself, the Fifth Amendment does not permit the arbitrary treatment of individuals who would otherwise qualify for SSI but for their residency in Puerto Rico, wrote appellate Judge Juan Torruella, who wrote the opinion for the First Circuit.

The case revolves around Jose Luis Vaello Madero, a U.S. citizen who moved to Puerto Rico in 2013 to care for family after living in New York for 28 years. While a New York resident, Madero received Supplemental Security Income, a federal benefit for blind, elderly or disabled persons earning less than $750 per month. Three years after moving to Puerto Rico, Madero received word from the Social Security Administration that he was no longer eligible for SSI, and in 2017, Social Security filed a civil suit against Madero to recover more than $28,000 in SSI benefits.

Both Madero and the U.S. government filed for summary judgment in District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. When Madero won, the government appealed in the First Circuit which issued the key ruling on Friday.

Maderos plight is familiar to Virgin Islands residents who, by living in the territory, forgo privileges and benefits otherwise available to residents of the 50 states, including the ability to vote in the presidential elections and having a congressional representative who can vote beyond a House committee.

The SSI benefits, in particular, are available to U.S. citizens living in the states, defined by the Social Security Act as the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Northern Mariana Islands received SSI coverage in 1976 as part of its covenant to enter the United States. Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam are excluded, while American Samoa is not eligible.

The U.S. government premised the lawsuit against Madero in part on the islands unique tax status, that residents of Puerto Rico do not, as a general matter, pay federal income taxes. Madero responded that Puerto Ricos tax status has nothing to do with the exclusion of Puerto Ricans from SSI benefits, adding that eligibility under the program does not consider an individuals tax payment history and individuals earning income low enough to qualify for SSI will not be paying federal income tax regardless of where they reside. Siding with Madero, the First Circuit noted that the SSI program is disbursed without regard to an individuals historical residence and funded by appropriations that are not earmarked by state or territory.

The court also noted that not only did Puerto Rican residents make substantial contributions to the federal treasury, it made consistently higher payments than taxpayers in at least six states, as well as the Northern Marianas. Before the 2006 recession, Puerto Rico contributed more than $4 billion annually in federal taxes and impositions, the court noted.

The U.S. government also pointed to the costs of extending the SSI program to Puerto Rican residents. Invoking the Territorial Clause in Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the government claimed that precedent allowed the differential treatment of Puerto Ricans, an argument that convinced neither the Court of Appeals nor the court below. According to the First Circuit, while the court can defer to the governments fiscal decisions that improve the protection afforded to the entire benefitted class, excluding an entire segment of the would-be-benefitted class is a different story.

Of note to the Virgin Islands is the comparison drawn between the Northern Marianas, a territory covered by SSI, and Puerto Rico, which is not. Aside from where they live, residents of Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas have common legally relevant characteristics: both groups are low-income and low-resourced, elderly, disabled or blind, and are generally exempted from paying federal income tax. These shared traits, which undermined the governments arguments in the eyes of the First Circuit, easily apply to otherwise eligible low-income Virgin Islanders who are blind, elderly or living with a disability.

The fact that Congress extended SSI benefits to Northern Mariana residents also suggest that the Legislature recognized the importance of the program to territories, according to the court.

Puerto Rico District Court Judge Gustavo Gelpi, who wrote the lower court opinion that led to the governments appeal, painted a less forgiving picture that encapsulated territories objections to differential treatment by the federal government.

The authority to treat the territory of Puerto Rico itself unlike the states does not stretch as far as to permit the abrogation of fundamental constitutional protections to United States citizens as Congress sees fit, Gelpi noted, saying the Social Security Acts withholding of SSI benefits from a low-income disabled citizen simply because he resides in Puerto Rico creates a citizenship apartheid, an impermissible second-rate citizenship that amounts to Congress switching off fundamental rights.

While the First Circuit decision is non-binding on the Third Circuit, which covers the Virgin Islands, federal circuit courts historically look to the other circuits decisions. The U.S. government is expected to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Link:
Puerto Rican's Win in Benefits Case Could Aid Territories - St, Thomas Source