4 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. The Right to be Forgotten or Not Exposed

    Davis Wright Tremaine LLPElizabeth McNamaraNovember 23, 2014

    Yet, as explained above, less extreme measures can limit bad actors’ access to booking photos without burdening the press and the public.More importantly, under the circumstances, the choice between punishing publication and restricting access is a false one. While “the States may not impose sanctions on the publication of truthful information contained in official court records open to public inspection,” Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 496 (1975), the First Amendment does not protect the extortionist or blackmailer simply because the perpetrator “uses words to carry out his illegal purpose.”[16] So there’s nothing stopping New York from cutting to the chase and going directly after the wrongdoers who are misusing public information for their own purposes.

  2. Capital Defense Weekly, May 30, 2005

    Capital Defense NewsletterMay 30, 2005

    The Supreme Court's holding unanimously rejects the Sixth Circuit's sweeping and fairly radical holding.SCOTUSBlog's analysis here.FROM THE LEADING CASESKansas v. Marsh, No. 04-01170 (5/31/2005) Cert granted on the following questions:Does a statute violate the Eighth Amendment if it provides for the death penalty to be imposed when the sentencing jury finds the aggravating and mitigating factors to be equal?Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257, as construed by Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)?”Was the Kansas Supreme Court's judgment adequately supported by a ground independent of federal law?Around the WebDPICnotes:India Moves Closer to Abandoning the Death PenaltyIn a proposed amendment to its penal code, Indian leaders are seeking to implement a change that would end the nation's death penalty even "in the rarest of rare" cases.

  3. Capital Defense Weekly, June 18, 2001

    Capital Defense NewsletterJune 18, 2001

    Pp.1213.190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded.Scalia,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in whichSouter, Thomas, Ginsburg,andBreyer, JJ.,joined.Stevens, J.,filed a dissenting opinion, in whichRehnquist, C.J.,andOConnorandKennedy, JJ., joined.Florida v. Thomas(US) Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975), sets out the four instances where the U.S. Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction in the face of further criminal proceedings in state court below.While officers were investigating marijuana sales and making arrests at a Florida home, respondent Thomas drove up, parked in the homes driveway, and walked toward the back of his car. An officer met him there and asked his name and whether he had a drivers license.

  4. Capital Defense Weekly, June 11 , 2001

    Capital Defense NewsletterJune 10, 2001

    Pp.1213.190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded.Scalia,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in whichSouter, Thomas, Ginsburg,andBreyer, JJ.,joined.Stevens, J.,filed a dissenting opinion, in whichRehnquist, C.J.,andOConnorandKennedy, JJ., joined.Florida v. Thomas(US) Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975), sets out the four instances where the U.S. Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction in the face of further criminal proceedings in state court below.While officers were investigating marijuana sales and making arrests at a Florida home, respondent Thomas drove up, parked in the homes driveway, and walked toward the back of his car. An officer met him there and asked his name and whether he had a drivers license.