The New York Times reports, At Long Last, A Measure of Justice for Some Drug Offenders, that more than 1000 federal inmates have had their sentences reduced and been released as a result of the First Step Act enacted last December. Nearly all of these individuals had been sentenced to draconian and morally wrong sentences involving crack cocaine offenses.
An example is this Order by the United States District Court sitting in Covington, Ky.
It is a step but only a first step.
| | |
| | |
Attorney General Jefferson Sessions (let's call him Sheriff Jeff), who earlier in his career was rejected by the Senate for a federal judgeship, has announced that he's doing the only thing that he knows how to do: announce that he and the Justice Department are getting tough: Sessions to Toughen Rules on Prosecuting Drug Crimes. When you don't know better and can't do better, just be dumb.
| | |
| | |
President Obama announced the commutation of 98 more federal sentences on Thursday continuing the President's efforts to mitigate the misguided harshness of federal criminal sentencing imposed before reforms in recent years. There are numerous reports in the Washington Post, USA Today, Huffington Post, Bloomberg Politics, and The Hill.
Many of the commuted sentences had to do with crack cocaine offenses, which were reformed some in 2010, many years too late, as I argued in this piece published in 2005, Congress Must Fix Inequitable Drug Sentencing. The President should be lauded for these efforts, as should the volunteer lawyers that are working up the cases for the Presidential review.
| | |
| | |
The DEA had a good day in Almherst, Massachusetts: it conducted a successful raid of an 81 year old woman's garden and recovered a single as in one marijuana plant. See Cops Raid an 81-Year-Old Woman's Garden for a Single Marijuana Plant. Because they could, I guess.
| | |
| | |
Sometimes appellate courts go so far to affirm a jury trial conviction in a criminal case that the tether of logic and reason becomes alarmingly untethered. Or maybe there are just so few jury trials and evidence law issues so rare that the appellate courts just can't handle them coherently. A recent Sixth Circuit case, United States v. Ricky Brown, is an example. Brown includes a disturbing Fourth Amendment ruling, but the one this post will concentrate on is the trial court's ruling admitting a "drug ledger" in evidence.
Brown is a garden variety federal drug case; he was charged with dealing in marijuana and also weapons charges. The opinion does not indicate what the "drug ledger" showed; presumably, it reflected information regarding various marijuana transactions such as customers, dates, amounts and prices.
Brown's first argument was that the "drug ledger" was inadmissible hearsay. Not so answered the Sixth Circuit, "because the government did not offer the document for the truth of the matter asserted[.]" How can that be? The court also stated that "the government offered the 'drug ledger' as circumstantial evidence of a 'tool of the trade' to prove that Brown was involved in illegal drug trafficking."
How can the government say, on one hand, that the "drug ledger" shows Brown was involved in illegal drug trafficking, but say, on the other hand, that it is not claiming that any of the entries in the "drug ledger" reflect any actual drug deals that occurred ever? It can't be both.
Brown's second argument was authentication. The court observed that an "agent with extensive experience in examining drug ledgers described for the jury the characteristics of the document that indicated it was a "drug ledger," and another agent linked Brown to the document through testimony that several contacts listed in one of Brown's cell phones matched names listed on the 'drug ledger.'" So, in other words, an agent explained to the jury how and why the entries/information in the "drug ledger" regarded actual drug transactions. That testimony depends on a basic assumption that the entries do reflect actual drug transactions, i.e., it relies on the truth of the matter asserted.
Circuit Judge Jane Stranch authored the majority opinion and was joined by District Judge Timothy Black of the Southern District of Ohio. Circuit Judge Eric Clay dissented on the Fourth Amendment ruling.
| | |
| | |
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cited 14 drugmakers for “misleading” internet ads according to a report by Bloomberg News, “Drug Makers Cited by FDA for ‘Misleading’ Internet Ads.” The companies failed to identify product names and side effects associated with their drugs on sponsored search results for internet search engines. The FDA ordered the drug makers to stop using the ads.
| | |
| | |
Elderly diabetics taking the drug rosiglitazone, which is sold under the brand name Avandia, face a greater risk of developing congestive heart failure a Harvard Medical School report has found, according to the New York Times, "Diabetes Drug Linked To Higher Rate Of Death." The study tracked 28,361 Medicare beneficiaries for up to five years and found that death rates were 15% higher and incidents of congestive heart failure 13% higher for those treated with rosiglitazone compared with those taking pioglitazone.
| | |
| | |
23 different drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration only later to be pulled from the market by the agency in the last 11 years when they have been proven unsafe. The Boston Globe, "No Haven For Dangerous Drugs," reports on this shockingly bad oversight record and on the ongoing efforts by pharmaceutical companies to obtain legal protection from any liability for their dangerous drugs based solely on their ability to obtain approval from the FDA. This legal strategy by the pharmaceutical companies will be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Wyeth v. Levine. The argument of the drug companies is that if the FDA approves a drug they cannot be held liable or responsible if their drug later kills or severely injures an individual.
The inability of the FDA to exercise proper oversight and review of new drugs has been acknowledged even by the agency itself. In a speech in March, FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach admitted that the agency "may fail in its mission to protect and promote the health of every American" and that "peril exists." The commissioner merely echoed the findings of the FDA Science Board reporting, among other things, that the agency does not have the capacity to ensure the safety of the nation's food, cannot adequately regulate the development of medical products based on "new science," cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific base has eroded, its scientific workforce lacks sufficient capability and capacity and its information technology system is inadequate including internal e-mail systems prone to frequently breaking down. The report is titled "FDA Science and Mission at Risk."
| | |
| | |
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has begun posting quarterly lists of drugs that it is investigating for possible safety issues. That a drug is listed does not mean that it has safety problems, just that a report has been received from a patient, doctor or even a drug company itself about a possible safety issue with a drug. The FDA will list each drug and the general nature of the problem reported regarding it but will not detail the number of complaints about it or the seriousness of any of the events. The current list can be seen by clicking here.
| | |
| | |
Pregnant and new mothers are endangered by a proposed FDA rule that will allow drug companies to omit information on their warning labels about dangerous side effects of their products. For leaving out this important information the drug companies would receive the prize of immunity from lawsuits through the doctrine of preemption. That's justice under the Bush Administration: create a rule that allows drug companies to harm pregnant and new mothers and get away scot-free. The ever-vigilant American Association for Justice has protested adoption of the proposed rule that you can read by clicking here.
| | |
| | |
