1
Do you recall the case of Keith Wood, who was:
- falsely arrested at the Mecosta County Courthouse in Michigan for handing out FIJA brochures,
- given a $150,000 bond (a higher bond than those accused of murder get in some places) right before Thanksgiving,
- maliciously prosecuted for so-called "jury tampering",
- served 3 weekends of his sentence in jail, and
- was ultimately exonerated when the Michigan Supreme Court overturned his false conviction?
Well, now he's seeking to hold the judge, prosecutor, and others involved in the case accountable with a lawsuit in federal court. GO GET 'EM, KEITH!
2
In 2018, the United States Supreme Court put an end to criminal convictions by split juries when it opined in Ramos v. Louisiana that a conviction delivered by a nonunanimous jury was no verdict at all. This verdict applied to the case in question as well as other cases currently in a stage of the appeals process known as direct appeal.
But earlier this year in Edwards v. Vannoy, the Court refused to retroactively apply this standard to cases that had already exhausted all their appeals, leaving many imprisoned who the Court had itself said had not received a valid verdict. The Court did leave the door open for the affected locations (primarily Louisiana and Oregon) to correct this grave violation of Constitutional rights if they so choose. Oregon seems poised to consider that in its upcoming legislative session.
3
We have news this week from Arizona that the Institute for Justice is taking on another case of civil asset forfeiture. This case involves government confiscation of nearly $40,000 in cash by a businessman from North Carolina who legally flew with the cash to Arizona to possibly purchase another truck for his business.
Rather than charging him with a crime—which they might have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a fully informed jury—government officials simply seized the money from him at the airport after interrogating and threatening him. They have never charged him with a crime, and they refuse to give the money back.
Arizona law has since been changed to disallow this type of government abuse, but because this happened before the reform, he still has to go to court if he wants his money back. The Institute for Justice has said they will take it all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court if necessary.
