Mediaboss Marketing

Season of American television series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

Season of television series

The fourth season of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation premiered on CBS on September 25, 2003 and ended May 20, 2004. The series stars William Petersen and Marg Helgenberger.

Nick accidentally leaks information to a news reporter ("Assume Nothing"), and Catherine tries to discover how a body ended up in a bathtub ("All for Our Country") during the fourth season of CSI. Supervised by Grissom and Willows, the Las Vegas CSIs are tasked with investigating the bizarre, the unlikely, and the unprecedented, including a disappearing gun ("Homebodies"), the death of a baby during a heatwave ("Feeling the Heat"), a case of raccoon versus big rig ("Fur and Loathing"), a car-bombing ("Grissom Versus the Volcano"), and the derailment of a roller-coaster ("Turn of the Screws"). Meanwhile, Catherine usurps a case from Nick and Sara ("After the Show"), the team have to re-investigate a rape-murder ("Invisible Evidence"), Grissom heads to Jackpot, Nevada ("Jackpot"), and team take part in a CSI relay, bringing together investigative teams from across America ("Dead Ringer").

Continue reading here:
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 4) - Wikipedia

SAN ANGELO The family ofRodolfo Mercado IV is raising money for funeral costs after the 3-year-old drowned in an apartment complex pool Thursday, June 9, 2022.

San Angelo Police Department officers were dispatched to the Resort at Riverside, 3306 N. Bryant Blvd., about 5:27 p.m. Thursday for a possible drowning, according to a statement released by SAPD.

Officers found the child and immediately began to administer CPR. He was transported to Shannon Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

SAPD's Crimes Against Children Unit and Crime Scene Investigation Unit arrived on scene to assist with the investigation.

This incident is still under investigation, and further information will be released, according to SAPD's statement.

A visitation for Rodolfo will be held Thursday, June 16, 2022 from 11 a.m.-2 p.m. at Gutierrez Funeral Chapels, 1002 N. Oakes St. Theservice will begin at 2 p.m., followed by the interment at 3 p.m. at Calvary Catholic Cemetery, 1501 W.Ave. N.

"Baby Rudy was full of life and joy," his obituary stated. "He was tiny and fearless with a smile and dimples that nobody could stay mad at."

Surviving are his parents, Jasmin Gonzalez and Rodolfo Mercado III; three sisters, Vanessa, Maricelaand Isabella; maternal grandmother, Patricia Mariscal; maternal grandfather, Jose Martinez; paternal grandmother, Bertha Mercado; paternal grandfather, Rodolfo Mercado Jr; and multiple aunts, unclesand cousins.

His aunt Patricia Mariscal-Yanez started a Gofundme account for the family.

"She (Jasmin) will be using the funds for his funeral expenses and any other expenses needed during this grieving process," the page stated.

"Anything will help," she said. "Thank you all and please, above all, pray for them."

See the article here:
Family raising money for funeral of San Angelo boy who drowned in apartment pool - Standard-Times

Abortion rights demonstrators walk down Constitution Avenue during the Bans Off Our Bodies march on May 14, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

If (when) federal constitutional protections for abortions fall, each individual state will have the power to craft its own restrictions on the procedure. Still, the First Amendment might be able to offer a bit of cover to those who seek an abortion as a life choice. Justice Alitos leaked opinion inDobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organizationeven offers a blueprint.

Alito vociferously argues that the choice to terminate a pregnancy is not protected by any constitutional right of privacy. In fact, he correctly points out that the Constitution provides no explicit right to privacy at all. That right has been interpreted into the constitutional space by the courts and has long been controversial. Instead, the justice asserts over and over again that the decision regarding an individuals right to choose to continue or to terminate a pregnancy is inherently political. He insists that it is a legislative question to be answered by that branch of each state government responsible for crafting laws.

We know any discussions about legislation and its implications and effects are, by definition, political. Political speech enjoys the highest level of protection the First Amendment can provide.

Political speech is not merely communication transmitted during campaigns or among politicians, legislators, lobbyists and activists. Any person expressing an opinion or engaging in conversation on a matter of public concernwhether that be matters of policy, morality, economics or the likeis engaging in political speech. The courts have extended expansive constitutional defenses, including providing cover to those whoburn a cross when it serves as an expression of political ideology, to those who use threatening language in the heat of an argument, and to those whopicket funerals of our soldiers disparaging both the soldiers and the United States government. The ideas expressed by the speakers serve as a commentary on matters affecting the public. Although such speech might be immoral, disturbing or offensive and therefore not worthy of the superpower of the First Amendment, since the First Amendment does not measure morality, such speech enjoys the benefits anyway.

If sidewalk counseling regarding options to continue a pregnancy is protected political speech, so too should be counseling options regarding the choice to legally terminate a pregnancy.

The First Amendment always takes center stage in disputes between advocates and opponents of the right to choose. Two landmark post-Roe decisions addressed the ability ofprotestersandsidewalk counselorsto approach individuals who visit clinics that provide abortion services. In each of those cases, the individual conversations between a prospective clinic patient and an abortion opponent were recognized as political speech. The Court warned that attemptsby state governments through their legislatures to create barriers to discourse between abortion opponents and pregnant people were not constitutional if the burdens imposed effectively silenced the speakers. Certainly, if sidewalk counseling regarding options to continue a pregnancy is protected political speech, so too should be counseling options regarding the choice to legally terminate a pregnancy.

If the federal support for abortion is eliminated (as is anticipated once the Supreme Court announces its decision inDobbs), within weeks, multiple states will enact legislation that severely limits abortion access. By last count, ifRoe v. Wadeis overturned, abortion will become criminal in at least 13 states. Some have argued that if abortion is a criminal act, so too will be speech that assists individuals and their providers in accessing the procedure.

If speech regarding abortion choices is essentially political, attempts to criminalize it are censorship. Censorship is kryptonite to democracy and for that reason is subject to the strongest legal assault. Of course,it might be wise to script such discussions to include keywords that implicate the political nature of the discussion, such as, Lets discuss your options regarding the exercise of your right to choose to terminate a pregnancy in a jurisdiction that protects that right.

Individuals, advocacy groups, newspapers and online platforms that provide information to an individual regarding out-of-state choices available to them should all be shielded by the First Amendment.

Currently,Texas and Oklahoma have provided a civil (as opposed to criminal) avenue for vigilantes to collect $10,000 by suing those who aid and abet a person who seeks an abortion. In those states, even someone who has no relationship to the pregnant person or the abortion provider can sue. However,individuals, advocacy groups, newspapers and online platforms that provide information to an individual regarding out-of-state choices available to them should all be shielded by the First Amendment.

Indeed, in a case initially prosecuted beforeRoe v. Wade,the Supreme Court upheld the rightof a newspaper editor to include advertisements informing Virginia residents of the availability of legal abortions in New York, even if they were illegal in Virginia.So, accessing information about legal out-of-state abortions is certainly safeguarded by the First Amendment.

Similarly, monetarycontributions and expenditureshave long been recognized as an element of political speech, so that any attempt to punish those who offer financial support to groups who aid individuals in their efforts to obtain legal abortions should be on safe ground. Again, tagging any such monetary assistance as funding for political purposes might be wise.

I am of course not arguing that the First Amendment will supplant the protections inRoe, which also relied on the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and 14th Amendments to provide individuals with autonomy and power. Those of us who insist it is the personal and private decision of a person to choose how their body should be used and whether or when they will become a parent are now tasked with rebuilding that right. We will have to fight state-by-state. It is nice to know that all federal protections have not abandoned us and that the First Amendment will provide wind at our backs.

Sign and share Ms.s relaunched We Have Had Abortions petitionwhether you yourself have had an abortion, or simply stand in solidarity with those who haveto let the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House know: We will not give up the right to safe, legal, accessible abortion.

Up next:

View post:
Abortion Rights Advocates Can Still Count on the First Amendment - Ms. Magazine

A Jewish synagogue in Florida filed a lawsuit last week claiming the state's law banning abortion after 15 weeks, HB 5, violates the right to free exercise of religion. It argues that it threatens the Jewish people by imposing the laws of other religions upon Jews.

The Act establishes as the law of the State of Florida, a particular religious view about abortion and when life begins, which is contrary to the views of Plaintiff, its members, congregants, and supporters as well as many other Floridians, the plaintiff, Congregation LDor Va-Dor of Boynton Beach, Florida, said in the case.

In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the Act.

Congregation LDor Va-Dor represents a unique brand of all-inclusive, universal, and rational Judaism that honors tradition, respects science, and celebrates spirituality, according to its website.

The synagogues rabbi, Barry Silver, characterizes himself online as a social activist Rabbi-rouser who practices cosmic Judaism. He was previously an attorney and Democratic state legislator, NPR noted.

The American Civil Liberties Union also filed a case against the Florida law based on the state constitutions individual privacy protections. But the synagogue isnt the first to object to abortion restrictions on religious liberty grounds.

Rabbis for Repro, a group formed by the National Council of Jewish Women, makes abortion activism a religious issue, lobbying for bills such as the Womens Health Protection Act, meeting with Congress, and organizing in local communities.

Daniel Eisenberg, an expert on traditional Jewish medical ethics, writes that the Jewish view does not fit neatly into the pro-choice or pro-life camps, though it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion.

When the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision leaked, the leadership of the Orthodox Union said they were unable to either mourn or celebrate.

Abortion has also been taken up as a religious issue by the Satanic Temple, which has filed multiple lawsuits in states with restrictions. The group regards abortion as a ritual and argues that it should be protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

States that outlaw abortion and do not grant exceptions present more significant challenges, but TST has a number of plans that we will be undertaking quite soon, TST wrote in a statement following the Dobbs leak. Actions include suing the FDA to permit TST access to Mifepristone and Misoprostol for use under medical supervision as part of our religious ritual and possibly creating religious abortion facilities.

Increasingly, abortion advocates point out that religions hold different stances on abortion, arguing abortion bans trample these other religious perspectives and default to Christianity. It allows two favorite issues of social conservatives, religious liberty and pro-life laws, to be framed as in conflict with each other. But seeking religious liberty protections is not the silver bullet some activists seem to think it is. When it comes to stopping the advance of abortion bans and other pro-life legislation, its just not a viable strategy.

Erin Hawley, a senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told the Washington Examiner that federal courts have, with good reason, declined to accept the idea that the free exercise clause protects the right to an abortion for 30 years.

To be protected by the First Amendment, a belief must be sincere and religious in nature a hurdle that will be almost impossible for women seeking abortions to show, Hawley said. Nor is the idea of a religious veto a viable one. Any exception would apply only to a woman seeking an abortion who sincerely believed her faith required one a reviewing court would not strike down a pro-life law.

Hawley said the courts might also find that the government can prevent the termination of innocent human life.

Further, because abortion takes the life of an innocent third party, the courts would likely find that the government may prevent the purposeful termination of a human life, she said. The Constitution, including the free exercise clause, simply does not protect any so-called right to abortion. It is dishonest to argue otherwise.

Protecting innocent life certainly presents a compelling state interest, a standard established in Sherbert v. Verner for overriding free exercise claims.

While abortion arguments do involve religious considerations and Christians in the pro-life movement often have foundational theological reasons for their advocacy, the position that life begins at conception is a scientific fact affirmed by nearly every biology book. Nonreligious groups, such as Secular Pro-Life, join the cause for this reason.

The 14th Amendment says that no state may deprive any person of life without due process. The government has an obligation to recognize the personhood of preborn babies and protect innocent life.

Katelynn Richardson is a summer 2022 Washington Examiner fellow.

Read the original here:
Abortion is not a religious ritual protected by the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

So the Arizona Supreme Court held today (Morgan v. Dickerson), in an opinion by Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer:

The superior court in Cochise County uses "innominate juries" for all criminal jury trials. Under that procedure, prospective and impaneled jurors are referred to by numbers rather than by names throughout open-court proceedings, although the court and the parties know their identities. Consequently, although voir dire examinations and trials are open for public viewing, observers are not provided jurors' names absent order of the court.

[W]e are asked to decide whether the First Amendment provides the public a qualified right of access to jurors' names during voir dire, thereby creating presumptive access to those names that can be overcome only on a case-by-case basis by showing both a compelling state interest and that denying access is a remedy narrowly tailored to serve that interest. We hold the First Amendment does not prohibit the court's practice.

Arizona law provides that "[t]he list of juror names or other juror information shall not be released unless specifically required by law or ordered by the court."

[T]he [Supreme] Court has held that the First Amendment guarantee of qualified public access attaches to criminal trials, voir dire examinations, and trial-like preliminary hearings [But] the right to attend voir dire [and] a right to access juror names are far from the same thing. Here, the public was not barred from attending any part of the criminal trials, including voir dire, so the most essential press and public right is not implicated. [T]he Supreme Court has not addressed whether the First Amendment guarantee of qualified public access to voir dire examinations extends to learning jurors' names.

The court then applied the Supreme Court's "experience and logic" inquiry into whether a particular facet of the judicial process should be open; it agreed that, as to experience, "jurors' names were traditionally revealed during jury selection proceedings," but concludes that "logic" cuts in favor of upholding departures from that tradition:

By asking whether access to jurors' names "plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question," the logic inquiry sets an exacting standard. A minimally positive role falls short.

[The] reasoning [in the Supreme Court's Press Enterprise I decision] for holding that open voir dire examinations play a significant positive role in that process guides our answer to the logic inquiry. The Court observed that the public right to attend voir dire promotes fairness and the appearance of fairness, critical to public confidence in the criminal justice system. Specifically, "[t]he value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed; the sure knowledge that anyone is free to attend gives assurance that established procedures are being followed and that deviations will become known." Open proceedings also have a "community therapeutic value" by providing an outlet for public reaction to criminal acts.

"[P]ublic proceedings vindicate the concerns of the victims and the community in knowing that offenders are being brought to account for their criminal conduct by jurors fairly and openly selected." In short, open proceedings play a significant positive role in voir dire by checking the courts to ensure established standards are being used to select jurors and by simultaneously assuring the public that fairly selected jurors are holding offenders to account for their crimes.

Morgan has failed to show that public access to jurors' names likewise plays a significant positive role in voir dire. With or without such access, the press and the public can attend voir dire proceedings and were able to do so in these cases. Anyone can sit in the courtroom during a criminal trial and observe the juror screening process, including voir dire examinations. They can also observe for-cause challenges and peremptory strikes, hear the judge's rulings, and mark any deviation from standards put in place by the legislature or this Court to select a fair jury. The public is also generally entitled to access public records reflecting how jury pools are formed in the superior court. Accessing jurors' names would not significantly add to the public's ability to assure itself that voir dire is fairly conducted or to check the courts in disregarding established standards for jury selection.

Other courts have reached the opposite conclusion, reasoning that public knowledge of jurors' names would deter prospective jurors from misrepresenting their answers during voir dire, permit public investigation of the accuracy of those answers, and assure the public that prospective jurors are drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. We disagree.

First, the public's role in voir dire is as an observer, not as a participant charged with selecting a fair jury. The judge and the parties are charged with that responsibility. See They are provided prospective jurors' names and are highly motivated to safeguard the integrity of the process, ensure the jury pool is drawn from a fair cross-section of the community, and unearth any information demonstrating juror bias.

Second, we are unconvinced that providing open access to jurors' names would cause prospective jurors to be more forthcoming during voir dire. It is just as likely that such access would motivate them to be less than forthcoming to avoid public embarrassment about very sensitive matters, like disabilities, medications, and past experiences as crime victims. And in this internet age, where jurors' names can trigger lightning-fast access to a wealth of biographical information, including addresses, any slightly positive role in divulging jurors' names to the public is outweighed by the risk to jury integrity.

In sum, public access to jurors' names promotes neither fairness in voir dire proceedings nor the perception of fairness. As such, it does not play a significant positive role in the functioning of voir dire, and we answer the logic inquiry in the negative. Consequently, the First Amendment does not provide the press or public with a qualified right to access jurors' names, and 21-312(A) is facially valid. The Cochise County Superior Court herefore did not err by presumptively using innominate juries.

Justice Clint Bolick concurred, but added:

I write only to add that the statute protecting juror names survives even the most demanding First Amendment compelling-interest standard. Unlike most states, Arizona's constitution contains an express privacy protection, providing in relevant part that "[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs without authority of law." Whatever the scope of that right, the State plainly has a compelling interest in enforcing it to protect juror privacy.

Query whether similar reasoning could be used by courts to justify pseudonymity of litigants, notwithstanding some courts' statements that the First Amendment right of access presumptively precludes such pseudonymity (see my The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation), and not just of jurors.

Congratulations to counsel Marjorie S. Becklund and Michael A. Powell, who delivered the oral arguments in favor of this result.

Read the original post:
No First Amendment Problem with Routine Anonymous Criminal Juries - Reason