HIGH COURT RULES FOR DEATH-ROW INMATES WITH LOW IQ

WASHINGTON (AP) — Twelve years after barring execution of the mentally disabled, the Supreme Court on Tuesday prohibited states in borderline cases from relying only on intelligence test scores to determine whether a death row inmate is eligible to be executed.

In a 5-4 decision that split the court's liberal and conservative justices, the court said that Florida and a handful of other states must look beyond IQ scores when inmates test in the range of 70 to 75. IQ tests have a margin of error, and those inmates whose scores fall within the margin must be allowed to present other evidence of mental disability, Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion.

A score of 70 is widely accepted as a marker of mental disability, but medical professionals say people who score as high as 75 can be considered intellectually disabled because of the test's margin of error.

In 2002, the court said that executing mentally disabled inmates violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. But until Tuesday, the justices left to the states the determination of who is mentally disabled.

To read more click here.

Planning for those with Special Needs

Estate planning is important for every family but it is essential for those with a loved one with a developmental disability or delay. While outlining a caregiver for your loved one is important, there are many more complex considerations to address. King & King, offers an array of services focuses on assisting individuals with disabilities and their families in meeting and maintaining their legal, education, employment, medical and social needs. King and King, can assist those in need from the date of their diagnosis throughout their lives by developing an estate plan which allows your loved one to qualify for State or Federal supports, advocating for supports throughout educational endeavors, obtaining conservatorship when your loved one reaches the age of majority, evaluating alternatives to conservatorship if appropriate, advising of programs to assist your family, advising of community supports for your family and establishing a Special Needs Trust to allow your loved one to continue to qualify for services once received. Developing a plan for your loved one with a developmental disability or delay can be one of the most important things you do to protect their future.

Conservatorship Case

In the recent case In Re: Conservatorship of Jack Wayne Turner, the Mother sought modification of a prior court order providing conservatorship of her disabled son to his Father and for modification of the order allowing her only supervised visitation.  After careful consideration of the case as a whole, the trial court ordered that the Mother increased visitation, but upheld the restriction that all visitation be supervised. The trial court too held that the Father had discretion to record any communications between the Mother and their son. The Mother appeals to the Tennessee Court of Appeals arguing the restrictions of the trial court were an unconstitutional restraint on her free speech and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing her only eight hours of supervised visitation per month. The Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the trial court finding that the “modern rule” allowed defamatory speech to be enjoined if it was determined that the statements were false and is allowable only if the injunction is narrowly tailored to prohibit that speech which was determined to be false. They found that the injunction of the trial court satisfied both restrictions. With regard to the issue of the Mother’s supervised visitation, the Tennessee Court of Appeal again upheld the trial court finding that the trial court acted in efforts to preserve the best interest of the parties disabled son by providing safeguards for him against the Mother’s negative actions. They further found that given the Mother’s history of disregarding the orders of the trial court, additional actions were warranted to ensure the court’s orders would be followed. This case is significant as it upholds the acts of the Tennessee Courts to protect those subject to conservatorships from potentially harmful acts of others, even if the means of doing so are highly restrictive. It too furthers the already well-established emphasis on the best interest of those subject to conservatorship actions.  

Department of Homeland Security: Immigration

The Department of Homeland Security is currently considering a policy change that would limit deportation of undocumented immigrants who may have repeat immigration violations but little or no criminal record.

United States Supreme Court

On April 7, 2014, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear arguments over businesses refusing service to gay and lesbian customers. The appeal originated by a photography studio which refused to provide service to a lesbian couple. The decline to hear the case upholds the ruling of the appellate court finding that the studio discriminated against the couple under state law.

Steve Dickerson et al. v. Regions Bank et al.

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, filed this action on February 17, 2009, to quiet title to property they own in Williamson County, Tennessee. At issue was a Deed of Trust that secured a 1997 promissory note, with an original maturity date in 1998, executed by a South Carolina limited liability company of which the plaintiff husband was a member. Plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, that the statute of limitations for the 1997 note and deed of trust had lapsed; therefore, the deed of trust encumbering their property should be released. Defendant Beta, LLC, filed a counterclaim for judicial foreclosure asserting it was the assignee of an October 8, 1998 renewal note with a maturity date of October 1999, the maturity date of which was subsequently extended to October 2000 pursuant to a Change in Terms Agreement executed in October 1999. 

It is based on the Change in Terms Agreement that Beta insists the statute of limitations had not lapsed and it is entitled to enforce the deed of trust. Although Beta was unable to produce an original or photocopy of an October 1998 renewal promissory note or evidence that complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-8-101 to prove it was a lost negotiable instrument, the trial court held that a copy of the 1999 Change of Terms Agreement was sufficient to established the existence of the October 1998 renewal note and the extension of the maturity date to 2000; thus the statute of limitations had not run and Beta was vested with the right to enforce the deed of trust. Therefore, the court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint to quiet title and ruled in favor of Beta on the issue of foreclosure. On appeal Plaintiffs contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s rulings. Particularly, Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in finding that the Change in Terms Agreement dated October 8, 1999, was sufficient to establish Beta’s claims under an October 1998 promissory note of which there is no copy. We have determined the trial court erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy Beta’s burden of proof as the foreclosing party. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a determination of the specific relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, filed this action on February 17, 2009, to quiet title to property they own in Williamson County, Tennessee. At issue was a Deed of Trust that secured a 1997 promissory note, with an original maturity date in 1998, executed by a South Carolina limited liability company of which the plaintiff husband was a member. Plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, that the statute of limitations for the 1997 note and deed of trust had lapsed; therefore, the deed of trust encumbering their property should be released. Defendant Beta, LLC, filed a counterclaim for judicial foreclosure asserting it was the assignee of an October 8, 1998 renewal note with a maturity date of October 1999, the maturity date of which was subsequently extended to October 2000 pursuant to a Change in Terms Agreement executed in October 1999. It is based on the Change in Terms Agreement that Beta insists the statute of limitations had not lapsed and it is entitled to enforce the deed of trust. Although Beta was unable to produce an original or photocopy of an October 1998 renewal promissory note or evidence that complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-8-101 to prove it was a lost negotiable instrument, the trial court held that a copy of the 1999 Change of Terms Agreement was sufficient to established the existence of the October 1998 renewal note and the extension of the maturity date to 2000; thus the statute of limitations had not run and Beta was vested with the right to enforce the deed of trust. Therefore, the court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint to quiet title and ruled in favor of Beta on the issue of foreclosure. 

On appeal Plaintiffs contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s rulings. Particularly, Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in finding that the Change in Terms Agreement dated October 8, 1999, was sufficient to establish Beta’s claims under an October 1998 promissory note of which there is no copy. We have determined the trial court erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy Beta’s burden of proof as the foreclosing party. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a determination of the specific relief to

which Plaintiffs may be entitled.
Read more here.

Pseudoephedrine Purchases and Methamphetamine

The Senate Judiciary Committee recently passed Governor Bill Haslam’s plan to battle the growing issue of methamphetamine use and addiction in Tennessee by limiting the purchase of pseudoephedrine to two twenty table boxes per month with a cap of six boxes annually. The fight here continues as many in the House and Senate push for pseudoephedrine to be available only by prescription. Pseudoephedrine is primary ingredient for the manufacture of methamphetamine and an active ingredient in many cold and allergy medications.