Learn from the mistakes of others

Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Katerina Ossenova at 2:35 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Tuesday in United States v. Resendiz-Ponce [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], 05-998, a case that asks justices to decide whether leaving an element of a crime out of an indictment is harmless error. Juan Resendiz-Ponce was deported because of a kidnapping conviction but was subsequently convicted after attempting to re-enter the United States illegally from Mexico in 2003 with false identification. His second conviction was overturned [opinion, PDF] by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit because his indictment did not allege an overt act showing that he tried to enter the US. During arguments Tuesday, Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben conceded that more information should have been included in the indictment. He argued, however, that the conviction should be upheld since "such an error violates the Fifth Amendment, but it is harmless." Atmore Baggot, Resendiz-Ponce's lawyer, argued the government should be forced to correct indictment errors. Justice Samuel Alito said that he did not see any defect in the indictment.

AP has more.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Katerina Ossenova at 2:35 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Tuesday in United States v. Resendiz-Ponce [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], 05-998, a case that asks justices to decide whether leaving an element of a crime out of an indictment is harmless error. Juan Resendiz-Ponce was deported because of a kidnapping conviction but was subsequently convicted after attempting to re-enter the United States illegally from Mexico in 2003 with false identification. His second conviction was overturned [opinion, PDF] by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit because his indictment did not allege an overt act showing that he tried to enter the US. During arguments Tuesday, Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben conceded that more information should have been included in the indictment. He argued, however, that the conviction should be upheld since "such an error violates the Fifth Amendment, but it is harmless." Atmore Baggot, Resendiz-Ponce's lawyer, argued the government should be forced to correct indictment errors. Justice Samuel Alito said that he did not see any defect in the indictment.

AP has more.

"We honestly expected at worst it would be a retrial. It's just so cruel to Glenn's memory and our memory as well.''

His mother Judy said: "People say the law's an ass but you don't realise how big an ass it is until you get involved in it.''

"We honestly expected at worst it would be a retrial. It's just so cruel to Glenn's memory and our memory as well.''

His mother Judy said: "People say the law's an ass but you don't realise how big an ass it is until you get involved in it.''

Friday, April 21, 2006
Gonzales pushes data retention to help child pornography investigations
Jeannie Shawl at 8:32 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] said Thursday that the failure of Internet service providers to retain user records has impeded US Justice Department investigations into child pornography and said that the department is looking into setting "reasonable" data retention standards. In a speech [text] at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Gonzales said:

The investigation and prosecution of child predators depends critically on the availability of evidence that is often in the hands of Internet service providers. This evidence will be available for us to use only if the providers retain the records for a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately, the failure of some Internet service providers to keep records has hampered our ability to conduct investigations in this area.

As a result, I have asked the appropriate experts at the Department to examine this issue and provide me with proposed recommendations. And I am going to reach out personally to the CEOs of the leading service providers and to other industry leaders to solicit their input and assistance.

Record retention by Internet service providers consistent with the legitimate privacy rights of Americans, is an issue that must be addressed.

Under the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act [text], ISPs are only required to keep records for 90 days if requested by the government to do so. Members of Congress, including Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) [official website] have also said they would support legislation mandating data retention [CNET report].

Earlier this year, the European Union approved [JURIST report] a controversial directive [PDF text] which requires EU member states to adopt measures to provide for the retention of citizens' phone call and Internet service data for a period of between six to 24 months. The EU measure, though intended in part to crackdown on pedophiles, is largely designed to track down terrorists and criminal gangs.

CNET News has more.

Friday, April 21, 2006
Gonzales pushes data retention to help child pornography investigations
Jeannie Shawl at 8:32 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] said Thursday that the failure of Internet service providers to retain user records has impeded US Justice Department investigations into child pornography and said that the department is looking into setting "reasonable" data retention standards. In a speech [text] at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Gonzales said:

The investigation and prosecution of child predators depends critically on the availability of evidence that is often in the hands of Internet service providers. This evidence will be available for us to use only if the providers retain the records for a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately, the failure of some Internet service providers to keep records has hampered our ability to conduct investigations in this area.

As a result, I have asked the appropriate experts at the Department to examine this issue and provide me with proposed recommendations. And I am going to reach out personally to the CEOs of the leading service providers and to other industry leaders to solicit their input and assistance.

Record retention by Internet service providers consistent with the legitimate privacy rights of Americans, is an issue that must be addressed.

Under the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act [text], ISPs are only required to keep records for 90 days if requested by the government to do so. Members of Congress, including Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) [official website] have also said they would support legislation mandating data retention [CNET report].

Earlier this year, the European Union approved [JURIST report] a controversial directive [PDF text] which requires EU member states to adopt measures to provide for the retention of citizens' phone call and Internet service data for a period of between six to 24 months. The EU measure, though intended in part to crackdown on pedophiles, is largely designed to track down terrorists and criminal gangs.

CNET News has more.