Cases and Other Info

An important California Supreme Court dealing with a city's ability to declare fiscal emergency and renegotiate contracts with its employees. Court was split 4-3. Majority found city was required to arbitrate; dissent position was that the contact with the city ruled out arbitration. S192828 June 20, 2013

A minor's competency to stand trial was questioned by his attorney. A court-appointed doctor concluded the minor was incompetent, and a social worker said he was developmentally delayed. The judge choose not to accept those professionals' opinions and found the minor had not proved his incompetence. Court of appeals affirms, saying the burden is on the minor to prove incompetence and there was substantial evidence for the judge to find he hadn't. G046961 In re R.V. filed 6/19/13

At closing argument, a prosecutor pointed out to the jury that defendant had remained silent when asked about a shotgun. The prosecutor told the jury that an innocent person would have said, “What are you talking about? I didn’t do that. I wasn’t there." But defendant, the prosecutor said, didn’t respond that way. Instead, he wouldn’t answer that question. 
US Supreme Court finds this is proper argument, that defendant's silence in the face of an accusation could be used against him. Alito makes very clear that the Fifth Amendment does not provide an unqualified right to remain silent. "Before petitioner could rely on the privilege against self-incrimination, he was required to invoke it." Breyer disagrees, referring specifically to the "basic Fifth Amendment right to remain silent."
Salinas v. Texas No. 12–246. Decided June 17, 2013 

My comment: the court is saying you do not have constitutional rights unless you specifically assert them. I can see this applying to other constitutional rights as well. 

A Federal prosecutor in Texas thought it was okay to ask this question during a trial:
“You’ve got African-Americans, you’ve got Hispanics, you’ve got a bag full of money. Does that tell you—a light bulb doesn’t go off in your head and say, This is a drug deal?” 
In rebuking this conduct, US Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor wrote (Breyer joined), 
"It is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st century. Such conduct diminishes the dignity of our criminal justice system and undermines respect for the rule of law. We expect the Government to seek justice, not to fan the flames of fear and prejudice. In discharging the duties of his office in this case, the Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas missed the mark."
Nice job, Justice Sotomayor.