Washington
Lawmakers don't ask chief justice to give speech
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - The chief justice of the state Supreme Court will not give the traditional speech to the Washington Legislature when the session convenes next month.
Lawmakers decided not to invite Chief Justice Barbara Madsen to speak, citing conflicts with the legislative calendar and poor attendance at such speeches in the past.
The move could be seen as a slap at the court for finding the Legislature in contempt in a school funding case, The Olympian reported Tuesday. Lawmakers say that's not the reason.
Madsen said she's disappointed and will give her report in writing.
"The State of the Judiciary address has been a tradition in Washington state for several decades now. It has served as a positive tool to inform the Legislature and the public about the state of Washington's justice system," Madsen said in a written statement. "I hope that, in the future, the Supreme Court will again be invited to make this important presentation."
The court found lawmakers in contempt this year when they failed to come up with a court-ordered funding plan for public schools. Justices are postponing sanctions until after the 2015 session.
The Senate Facilities and Operations Committee voiced concerns about the speech last month.
"To be honest with you, most people think it's a horrible waste of time. Most members don't get much out of it. Most members don't even bother attending," said Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver.
No one objected to skipping the speech in 2015. The House leadership came to a similar conclusion.
House Majority Leader Pat Sullivan, D-Covington, met with Madsen the week before Christmas to explain that no offense was intended.
"I made clear we have no interest in legislation that is meant to punish the courts or hold them in any disregard," he said.
Kansas
Guidelines to help state judges with frivolous filings
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - The Kansas Supreme Court is studying proposed guidelines for judges grappling with people who file repetitive, malicious or frivolous pleadings.
The recommendations by the judicial branch's Access to Justice Committee are meant to act as a resource for judges when considering filing restrictions in court cases. The state's highest court is taking public comments until February 2015 on the 18-member committee's report that outlines state and federal court precedent and advice for judges when confronted with difficult litigants.
"It's challenging for a busy judge to give every case fair and impartial treatment when some litigants file pleadings merely to harass or punish individuals, businesses, attorneys or the court," said committee member Edward Bouker, who also serves as a district court judge.
Bouker told The Topeka Capital-Journal that the guidelines seek to balance management of court dockets while respecting a person's constitutional rights.
The guidelines say a judge should provide litigants a chance to present their objections to proposed restrictions. After considering the litigant's response, a judge should weigh whether he or she should impose filing restrictions.
The judge must then provide explanations that explain why restrictions were justified and detail limits placed on the litigants in the context of future court filings. District judges have the authority to order a court clerk to not file a pleading that failed to comply with requirements of a judge's order setting out filing restrictions.
Pennsylvania
Lawyers seek hearing on retrial for paralyzed man
PITTSBURGH (AP) - Lawyers for a black man left paralyzed after he was shot by a white Pittsburgh officer during a traffic stop want a judge to determine whether Allegheny County prosecutors have been fair in delaying a decision whether to retry the man on some remaining criminal counts.
Attorneys for Leon Ford, 21, said in the motion there is no good reason for the district attorney to delay a decision on the retrial.
Ford was acquitted in September of aggravated assault, for allegedly endangering officers who pulled him over in November 2013. But a jury couldn't decide five other counts: resisting arrest, escape and three counts of reckless endangerment, which police filed when Ford's car drove away with Officer David Derbish in it. Derbish shot Ford five times, causing him to crash seconds later.
Police and prosecutors contend Ford was trying to flee, but Ford testified the still-running car got knocked into gear as police tried to pull him from it after a contentious 15-minute traffic stop.
Ford and his attorneys contend he was wrongly pulled over - purportedly for running a stop sign - because the first officer who saw Ford's car, Michael Kosko, mistakenly thought Ford was a wanted gang member with a similar name, Lamont Ford. Leon Ford contends he politely provided several pieces of identification to the contrary, but that Kosko would not accept that he wasn't Lamont Ford and began cursing before Kosko and two others tried to pull him from the car.
Ford's attorneys claim he needs follow-up medical care for his wounds, and risks complications or even death by delaying those procedures until he sees whether prosecutors will retry him.
District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. has said he has a year to make that decision, but Ford's attorneys say such decisions are normally made much faster than that. They want a judge to hear evidence and arguments about whether Zappala's office is delaying the decision in bad faith.
Ford has a federal civil rights lawsuit pending against the city and the three white officers involved.
Published: Thu, Jan 01, 2015
