FCC, FDA Partner on Wireless Health IT
By Kenneth Corbin
July 27, 2010
The Federal Communications Commission and Food and Drug Administration have joined forces in an effort to promote the development and deployment of wireless technologies to improve health care and lower costs while also taking care to protect patients' safety.
Through the partnership, the agencies aim to streamline the approval process and regulatory requirements for wireless health IT device makers, spurring innovation and investment in an emerging sector of the medical industry.
Wireless health applications offer the potential to provide remote consults with specialists from distant medical centers, delivering a level of care beyond the reach for many rural Americans.
Similarly, medical monitoring applications can provide remote diagnostic information, such as a crop of smartphone apps that can check glucose levels in diabetics.
"The benefits that wireless technologies can provide to healthcare are clear, but to harness the full power of those benefits, we must navigate a delicate balance between innovation and safety and effectiveness," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a statement. "Working alongside the FCC, we can improve the efficiency of regulatory processes in areas where our jurisdictions overlap."
The agencies developed a set of operating principles (PDF available here) and a memorandum of understanding (PDF) clarifying that the agreement is limited to areas that come under the regulatory purview of both the FCC and FDA.
Under the agreement, each agency will establish a liaison officer who will be responsible for sharing information of mutual interest.
The joint effort on wireless health IT marks the first partnership between the two agencies, and broadly aims to pair the FCC's technical expertise overseeing areas such as spectrum with the FDA's focus on consumer safety.
"The FCC is responsible for overseeing the efficient use of the airwaves, and the FDA is responsible for the safety and efficacy of medical devices," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a speech at a health IT event announcing the partnership this week. "It's vitally important that we work together on issues where wireless meets medical."
The wireless health IT push builds on a set of recommendations included in the national broadband plan the FCC delivered to Congress in March, and extends the administration's advocacy of tapping advanced technology to overhaul the country's medical system.
In addition to the nearly $20 billion allocated to health IT initiatives in last year's economic stimulus bill, the administration has taken several steps to drive the adoption of electronic health records (EHR) and other similar initiatives.
Earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services issued the final set of rules to reward providers for using EHRs with Medicare and Medicaid payment bonuses.
EHRs are widely viewed as a path to reduce manual errors in patients' records and improve the coordination of care, while helping to flag for harmful drug interactions and reduce duplicate or unnecessary tests.
The new rules aim to clarify the certification criteria that vendors' EHR systems will have to meet in order to qualify for the incentives, and provide similar guidelines for doctors and hospitals.
HHS said it could pay out as much as $27 billion in Medicare and Medicaid bonuses to providers that adopt EHR systems that satisfy the requirements for "meaningful use" under the new regulations.
The same week, the FCC announced a major initiative to expand broadband access to doctors and health facilities operating in remote and rural areas. The program would reallocate as much as $400 million annually under the FCC's Universal Service Fund to deliver high-speed connectivity to more than 2,000 rural health-care facilities.
The commission noted that nearly 30 percent of rural clinics receiving federal funding don't have broadband service that's either fast or secure enough to handle health IT applications such as a remote consultation with a specialist or the transmission of data-intensive records like X-rays or MRIs.
Kenneth Corbin is an associate editor at InternetNews.com, the news service of Internet.com, the network for technology professionals.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Criminals to be weeded out of medical marijuana centers
written by: Jeffrey Wolf Deborah Sherman
21 mins ago
DENVER - More than half of the medical marijuana
center owners in Colorado have criminal arrest or
conviction records for crimes like dealing drugs,
sexual assaults, burglaries and weapons, according
to statistics by the Drug Enforcement Agency
obtained by 9Wants to Know, but that will all change
on Sunday.
- Broomfield bans marijuana centers
The DEA says 18 percent of medical marijuana
center owners have been convicted of felonies.
"This business seems to have an inappropriate
number of people with criminal backgrounds
involved as business owners," Kevin Merrill,
assistant special agent in charge for the Denver field
division of the DEA, said. "I would be hard-pressed
to find any other business group where their
members have so many criminal violations, arrests
and convictions."
DEA statistics show while 8 percent of Colorado's
adult population has been arrested for drug crimes,
28 percent of the medical marijuana center owners
have drug histories.
The charges include 77 cases of assault, 22
burglaries, 34 cases of domestic violence, 11 rapes,
29 weapons charges and four arrests for murder,
attempted murder and/or involvement in a
homicide.
Those felons will be weeded out of the medical
marijuana business this weekend when new rules
take effect Sunday that prohibit anyone with a drug
felony conviction or anyone with a felony sentence
within the last five years from obtaining a medical
marijuana center license in Colorado.
Businesses that sell medical marijuana have been
commonly referred to as dispensaries, but the state
now official calls them centers.
Matt Obrochta, owner of Burnzwell Medical
Marijuana Center on Broadway in Denver, is now
scrambling to figure out what to do since he
received a five-year suspended sentence for
possessing pot, a felony, in 1998.
Obrochta did not want to comment on his old
conviction, but a representative of the medical
marijuana industry agreed to speak on behalf of
owners with criminal histories.
"They don't think it's fair," Sensible Colorado
Executive Director Brian Vicente said. "A lot of
people have been convicted of felonies or any crime
and they have done their time, they've paid their
debt to society and now want to move on and work
in this field and aren't able to do so."
Vicente believes someone with a criminal record for
marijuana may be best suited to work in the industry
because it shows they have experience working with
the drug.
"Many of those people the DEA arrested themselves
for growing marijuana legally under Colorado law,
so I don't think they're a credible source for
providing information about folks who are following
state law," Vicente said.
The DEA used public records, advertisements and
property records to collect the names of the owners
of medical marijuana centers. Then agents ran
criminal background checks to gather the data.
"The DEA investigates all drug crimes and marijuana
is still a schedule one and our job is to know who
we are dealing with because we may come into
contact with them at some time," Merrill said.
The state expects the new rules about felons along
with high licensing fees and in-state residency
requirements will reduce the number of medical
marijuana centers in the state by about 50 percent.
There are currently 1,100 medical marijuana centers
operating in Colorado, according to the Department
of Revenue.
DOR Senior Director Matt Cook is leading a team of
investigators for the Medical Marijuana Enforcement
Division that will be conducting an "exhaustive"
check of arrest records, business associations and
tax returns for anyone who applies for a medical
marijuana license.
"Anybody who has a prohibited conviction will not
be eligible to hold a license," Cook said. "They want
to make sure that the public has confidence in the
people that they're doing business with and that it's
not a drug cartel selling tainted medicine to them
they could harm them when they ingest it."
One of Cook's biggest concerns with the new
requirements is that some owners with criminal
backgrounds or drug cartels may try to hide their
ownership in a medical marijuana center.
"Those persons typically that would not qualify to
hold a license often times try and find somebody
else to front the business for them. They will fund
them through very elaborate lending schemes and
reap the benefits of the business," Cook said.
"It potentially may just push the true owners under
the carpet behind the closed door and make it even
more difficult for investigators to determine who
truly owns this," Merrill said.
The most abundant supply of marijuana is Mexican-
grown and is brought into and through Colorado by
poly-drug trafficking organizations, according to
the Office of National Drug Control Policy data in
June 2008.
In March, Erie Police arrested two suspected drug
runners on charges that they moved 64 pounds of
marijuana between Colorado and California
involving dispensaries. One suspect, Max
Hernandez, owned the Denver dispensary
Hernandez and Bryan Mark Manard have been
charged in Weld County with possession of
marijuana and intent to distribute, both felonies.
Anyone who lies on their Colorado medical
marijuana center application will be arrested and
charged for filing a false instrument, Cook said.
The state application is 22 pages long and asks for
bank account numbers, education and marital
information.
"I don't even know what my high school diploma has
to do with providing medicine to patients, but
apparently it's one of the requirements," Carl
Wemhoff, president of Herbal Remedies Inc. in
Westminster, said.
Wemhoff says the application is so long and
complicated he has taken some of his employees off
of other projects to get it done.
"We've got a four-man team working day and night
for three weeks to get this done. It's that involved,"
Wemhoff said.
Wemhoff, who does not have a criminal history,
hopes to benefit from the new regulations by buying
up a couple of medical marijuana centers that will
be forced to shut down. In addition to no prior felony drug convictions,
there are several other automatic disqualifiers for
holding a license: if you haven't paid student loans
or are in arrears for your taxes or child support.
The state says any dispensary caught operating
without having applied for a state license as of Aug.
1 will be prevented from ever holding a Colorado
license.
Even though the change is coming over a weekend,
the Department of Revenue will be open on Saturday
and Sunday to accept and start processing business
applications.
The first license will be issued on July 1, 2011. Until
then, medical marijuana centers are allowed to
operate with their application paperwork.
If you have any news tips, please e-mail 9Wants to
Know Investigator Deborah Sherman at Deborah.
Sherman@9NEWS.com.
(KUSA-TV © 2010 Multimedia Holdings Corporation)
21 mins ago
DENVER - More than half of the medical marijuana
center owners in Colorado have criminal arrest or
conviction records for crimes like dealing drugs,
sexual assaults, burglaries and weapons, according
to statistics by the Drug Enforcement Agency
obtained by 9Wants to Know, but that will all change
on Sunday.
- Broomfield bans marijuana centers
The DEA says 18 percent of medical marijuana
center owners have been convicted of felonies.
"This business seems to have an inappropriate
number of people with criminal backgrounds
involved as business owners," Kevin Merrill,
assistant special agent in charge for the Denver field
division of the DEA, said. "I would be hard-pressed
to find any other business group where their
members have so many criminal violations, arrests
and convictions."
DEA statistics show while 8 percent of Colorado's
adult population has been arrested for drug crimes,
28 percent of the medical marijuana center owners
have drug histories.
The charges include 77 cases of assault, 22
burglaries, 34 cases of domestic violence, 11 rapes,
29 weapons charges and four arrests for murder,
attempted murder and/or involvement in a
homicide.
Those felons will be weeded out of the medical
marijuana business this weekend when new rules
take effect Sunday that prohibit anyone with a drug
felony conviction or anyone with a felony sentence
within the last five years from obtaining a medical
marijuana center license in Colorado.
Businesses that sell medical marijuana have been
commonly referred to as dispensaries, but the state
now official calls them centers.
Matt Obrochta, owner of Burnzwell Medical
Marijuana Center on Broadway in Denver, is now
scrambling to figure out what to do since he
received a five-year suspended sentence for
possessing pot, a felony, in 1998.
Obrochta did not want to comment on his old
conviction, but a representative of the medical
marijuana industry agreed to speak on behalf of
owners with criminal histories.
"They don't think it's fair," Sensible Colorado
Executive Director Brian Vicente said. "A lot of
people have been convicted of felonies or any crime
and they have done their time, they've paid their
debt to society and now want to move on and work
in this field and aren't able to do so."
Vicente believes someone with a criminal record for
marijuana may be best suited to work in the industry
because it shows they have experience working with
the drug.
"Many of those people the DEA arrested themselves
for growing marijuana legally under Colorado law,
so I don't think they're a credible source for
providing information about folks who are following
state law," Vicente said.
The DEA used public records, advertisements and
property records to collect the names of the owners
of medical marijuana centers. Then agents ran
criminal background checks to gather the data.
"The DEA investigates all drug crimes and marijuana
is still a schedule one and our job is to know who
we are dealing with because we may come into
contact with them at some time," Merrill said.
The state expects the new rules about felons along
with high licensing fees and in-state residency
requirements will reduce the number of medical
marijuana centers in the state by about 50 percent.
There are currently 1,100 medical marijuana centers
operating in Colorado, according to the Department
of Revenue.
DOR Senior Director Matt Cook is leading a team of
investigators for the Medical Marijuana Enforcement
Division that will be conducting an "exhaustive"
check of arrest records, business associations and
tax returns for anyone who applies for a medical
marijuana license.
"Anybody who has a prohibited conviction will not
be eligible to hold a license," Cook said. "They want
to make sure that the public has confidence in the
people that they're doing business with and that it's
not a drug cartel selling tainted medicine to them
they could harm them when they ingest it."
One of Cook's biggest concerns with the new
requirements is that some owners with criminal
backgrounds or drug cartels may try to hide their
ownership in a medical marijuana center.
"Those persons typically that would not qualify to
hold a license often times try and find somebody
else to front the business for them. They will fund
them through very elaborate lending schemes and
reap the benefits of the business," Cook said.
"It potentially may just push the true owners under
the carpet behind the closed door and make it even
more difficult for investigators to determine who
truly owns this," Merrill said.
The most abundant supply of marijuana is Mexican-
grown and is brought into and through Colorado by
poly-drug trafficking organizations, according to
the Office of National Drug Control Policy data in
June 2008.
In March, Erie Police arrested two suspected drug
runners on charges that they moved 64 pounds of
marijuana between Colorado and California
involving dispensaries. One suspect, Max
Hernandez, owned the Denver dispensary
Colorado Compassionate Caregivers', according to Colorado
Secretary of State Records.Hernandez and Bryan Mark Manard have been
charged in Weld County with possession of
marijuana and intent to distribute, both felonies.
Anyone who lies on their Colorado medical
marijuana center application will be arrested and
charged for filing a false instrument, Cook said.
The state application is 22 pages long and asks for
bank account numbers, education and marital
information.
"I don't even know what my high school diploma has
to do with providing medicine to patients, but
apparently it's one of the requirements," Carl
Wemhoff, president of Herbal Remedies Inc. in
Westminster, said.
Wemhoff says the application is so long and
complicated he has taken some of his employees off
of other projects to get it done.
"We've got a four-man team working day and night
for three weeks to get this done. It's that involved,"
Wemhoff said.
Wemhoff, who does not have a criminal history,
hopes to benefit from the new regulations by buying
up a couple of medical marijuana centers that will
be forced to shut down. In addition to no prior felony drug convictions,
there are several other automatic disqualifiers for
holding a license: if you haven't paid student loans
or are in arrears for your taxes or child support.
The state says any dispensary caught operating
without having applied for a state license as of Aug.
1 will be prevented from ever holding a Colorado
license.
Even though the change is coming over a weekend,
the Department of Revenue will be open on Saturday
and Sunday to accept and start processing business
applications.
The first license will be issued on July 1, 2011. Until
then, medical marijuana centers are allowed to
operate with their application paperwork.
If you have any news tips, please e-mail 9Wants to
Know Investigator Deborah Sherman at Deborah.
Sherman@9NEWS.com.
(KUSA-TV © 2010 Multimedia Holdings Corporation)
Monday, July 26, 2010
New gov't rules allow unapproved iPhone apps
By JOELLE TESSLER,
AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer
1 hr 15 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Owners of the iPhone will be able to legally break electronic locks on their devices in order to download software applications that haven't been approved by Apple Inc., according to new government rules announced Monday.
The decision to allow the practice commonly known as "jailbreaking" is one of a handful of new exemptions from a 1998 federal law that prohibits people from bypassing technical measures that companies put on their products to prevent unauthorized uses. The Library of Congress, which oversees the Copyright Office, reviews and authorizes exemptions every three years to ensure that the law does not prevent certain non-infringing use of copyright-protected material.
In addition to jailbreaking, other exemptions announced Monday would:
• allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers.
• allow people to break technical protections on video games to investigate or correct security flaws.
• allow college professors, film students and documentary filmmakers to break copy-protection measures on DVDs so they can embed clips for educational purposes, criticism, commentary and noncommercial videos.
• allow computer owners to bypass the need for external security devices called dongles if the dongle no longer works and cannot be replaced.
AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer
1 hr 15 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Owners of the iPhone will be able to legally break electronic locks on their devices in order to download software applications that haven't been approved by Apple Inc., according to new government rules announced Monday.
The decision to allow the practice commonly known as "jailbreaking" is one of a handful of new exemptions from a 1998 federal law that prohibits people from bypassing technical measures that companies put on their products to prevent unauthorized uses. The Library of Congress, which oversees the Copyright Office, reviews and authorizes exemptions every three years to ensure that the law does not prevent certain non-infringing use of copyright-protected material.
In addition to jailbreaking, other exemptions announced Monday would:
• allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers.
• allow people to break technical protections on video games to investigate or correct security flaws.
• allow college professors, film students and documentary filmmakers to break copy-protection measures on DVDs so they can embed clips for educational purposes, criticism, commentary and noncommercial videos.
• allow computer owners to bypass the need for external security devices called dongles if the dongle no longer works and cannot be replaced.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
‘Keep the Negroes Out of Most Classes Where There Are a Large Number of Girls’: The Unseen Power of the Ku Klux Klan and Standardized Testing at The University of Texas, 1899-1999
Thomas D. Russell
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
March 22, 2010
U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-14
Abstract:
The paper’s title is a quotation from The University of Texas registrar nine days after the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. This paper examines 20th-century techniques of racial domination at The University of Texas by crosscutting two narratives.
The first narrative that the paper presents is one of the development of bureaucratic or institutional forms of racial exclusion. The paper describes the university’s efforts to limit the application of the Brown v. Board of Education.
In the immediate years after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, The University of Texas developed and instituted entrance exams that university officials knew would exclude a disproportionate number of African-American applicants. Publicly, the university presented the testing as race-neutral. The university stalled post-Brown integration until the exclusionary admissions testing was in place.
An explicit concern of the university in seeking to exclude African-American students during the 1950s was a racialized sexual concern about the university’s white women.
The second narrative is the story of William Stewart Simkins, a law professor at The University of Texas from 1899 to 1929. Professor Simkins helped to organize the Ku Klux Klan in Florida at the conclusion of the American Civil War, and he advocated his Klan past to Texas students.
Like the university registrar during the 1950s, Professor Simkins was explicitly concerned with the sexual defense of white women. Relying upon the analysis of historian Grace Elizabeth Hale, the paper links Professor Simkins’s advocacy of the Klan to the early 20th-century history of lynching and white supremacist violence.
During the 1950s, the memory and history of Professor Simkins supported the university’s resistance to integration. As the university faced pressure to admit African-American students, the university’s faculty council voted to name a dormitory after the Klansman and law professor. The dormitory carries his name to the present day. During this time period, alumni also presented the law school with a portrait of Professor Simkins. Portraits and a bust of Professor Simkins occupied prominent positions within the law school through the 1990s.
The sources for the paper are drawn largely from primary materials of the university’s archives, including the papers of the university’s Board of Regents, Chancellor, President, and faculty committees. The author completed this research during the 1990s while a member of The University of Texas School of Law faculty.
Keywords: legal history, University of Texas, Simkins, Ku Klux Klan, legal education, law professor, race, racism, standardized testing, admissions, integration, segregation, Brown v. Board of Education, Sweatt v. Painter, USSC, Supreme Court, Thomas D. Russell, Tom Russell
Working Paper Series
Date posted: April 05, 2010 ; Last revised: May 19, 2010
Suggested Citation
Russell, Thomas D., ‘Keep the Negroes Out of Most Classes Where There Are a Large Number of Girls’: The Unseen Power of the Ku Klux Klan and Standardized Testing at The University of Texas, 1899-1999 (March 22, 2010). U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-14. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1583606
NY Times July 11 2010 Headline News
|
Friday, July 9, 2010
Officer Johannes Mehserle - Oakland BART Officer Found Guilty Of Manslaughter In Oscar Grant Killing
LIMON CO (IFS) - Oscar Grant, a young 22 year old black male who was cooperating with the police as bystanders videos does show, was shot dead with his hands in cuffs and the bullet shot to his back. With is fellow officers standing there, they appears to be in shock as to what has happen, all while Mr. Grant was seated on the floor. Once again, a police officer, Johannes Mehserle gets off with cold blooded murder and the system has failed again when it comes to young black man and the police force. This will not go away. Oscar Grant will be the rallying cry heard all over the United States of America. For once, the police and the people are going to have a mass gathering and this meeting will not be a nice one. People are ready to die for the "cause", for they have had enough of this "justice" from ignorant and crazy police personnel. This officer will go to prison for four to 14 years, but Mr. Grant will never get a chance to fulfill his dream, and prison is a very bad place for ex police officers. Mr. Johannes Mehserle will meet his match with no gun and no support when he comes up against a lot of the people he help place there. Officer Johannes Mehserle life expectancy in prison? I'll give him three months in general population. And if he gets out of prison, his life on the streets is nil and none. He may get a witness protection deal, but there is a bounty on his head. That poor bastard, I feel sorry for him. He will pray to God for death. Prison will not be his friend. Officer Johannes Mehserle's plea on the stand is that "I made a mistake." Well well, we have untrained police personnel on the force, and he made a mistake? The city will pay dearly for that bullet. -KHS
The defense will focus on those aspects of the case as he presents evidence and makes arguments to the jury that the death, while tragic, was nothing more than an accident sparked by Mehserle believing he had a Taser in his hand when he pulled the trigger.Rains said in court documents filed last month he will not argue that Mehserle acted in self-defense. Rains said while Mehserle might have believed Grant possessed a gun, he did not believe Grant had opportunity to use it. Instead, Rains wrote, he will provide evidence that Mehserle was permitted, under the circumstances, to use a Taser to subdue Grant.
The fact that Mehserle used a gun and killed Grant was simply an accident, Rains argued, and does not merit a conviction of murder, either first degree, second degree or a conviction of manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.
"So, the relevant question in this case turns out to be very simple: Can the state supply proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mehserle formed an intent to use the gun as opposed to his Taser," Rains wrote. "(Mehserle's) defense will rather be that he believed Grant might be armed, that Grant continued to resist, and that (Mehserle) properly concluded the appropriate response was to use his Taser."
In fighting that defense, Stein will have to convince the jury that Mehserle believed officers were losing control of the situation on the BART platform and therefore pulled out his gun.
If the jury believes the evidence shows Mehserle knew he was pulling out his gun, then it must decide if Mehserle purposely pulled the trigger or if the gun was fired by accident.
A decision by the jury that Mehserle purposely pulled the trigger would likely result in a second-degree murder conviction and at least 15 years in prison. A decision by the jury that the gun was fired by accident could result in an involuntary manslaughter finding and, at a minimum, a two-year stay in prison for Mehserle.
In addition to the videos and testimony from both BART officers who responded to the scene and passengers on the Dublin-Pleasanton-bound train, both attorneys will present the jury with detailed evidence about police officer training and responses to crowd control, court documents show.
Both attorneys will use the evidence about police training to show what Mehserle thought as he reached to his hip and pulled out his gun.
While presenting that evidence, Rains will have to walk a fine line of showing that the situation on the BART platform was chaotic enough for the officers to justify the use of a Taser while not completely out of control to warrant the use of a gun.
"To be sure, defense expert witnesses will explain that under the circumstances, and in light of Mehserle's training, BART policies, law and common sense, Mehserle was justified in his intention to use his Taser," Rains wrote.
Meanwhile, Stein will have to prove to the jury that Mehserle misread the situation on the platform as dangerous and in need of him pulling out a gun to gain control.
"The People contend that in order for the jurors to properly consider these questions, they must be informed about what the defendant knew about firearms and how he was trained," Stein wrote in a court pleading. "(Mehserle's) training in the academy as well as his training after becoming a sworn BART police officer is relevant to show not only his knowledge of firearms but such training is also circumstantial evidence of his state of mind at the time he fired the gun that killed Oscar Grant."
While Mehserle, 28, is not expected to answer that question during the murder trial against him that begins this week, a jury's interpretation of his thoughts in the early morning hours of Jan. 1, 2009, will determine if Mehserle — who served as a police officer for 22 months — is sent to state prison.
A prosecutor and defense attorney will spend at least the next four weeks trying to convince a jury of a dozen Los Angeles residents that they know what Mehserle thought when he killed Grant, 22, of Hayward.
For deputy district attorney David Stein, the answer lies in six videotapes of the shooting and the events that led to it. It can also be found in the actions of BART officers who, some argue, used excessive force in an attempt to detain Grant and four friends for fighting on a train, and in the training Mehserle received before and while he was an officer.
For defense attorney Michael Rains, Mehserle's thoughts can be found in the actions of Grant, a parolee who resisted arrest during what some described as a near riot on the BART platform, and from Mehserle's unfamiliarity in using a Taser. Rains said in court documents filed last month he will not argue that Mehserle acted in self-defense. Rains said while Mehserle might have believed Grant possessed a gun, he did not believe Grant had opportunity to use it. Instead, Rains wrote, he will provide evidence that Mehserle was permitted, under the circumstances, to use a Taser to subdue Grant.will focus on those aspects of the case as he presents evidence and makes arguments to the jury that the death, while tragic, was nothing more than an accident sparked by Mehserle believing he had a Taser in his hand when he pulled the trigger.The fact that Mehserle used a gun and killed Grant was simply an accident, Rains argued, and does not merit a conviction of murder, either first degree, second degree or a conviction of manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. "So, the relevant question in this case turns out to be very simple: Can the state supply proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mehserle formed an intent to use the gun as opposed to his Taser," Rains wrote. "(Mehserle's) defense will rather be that he believed Grant might be armed, that Grant continued to resist, and that (Mehserle) properly concluded the appropriate response was to use his Taser."
In fighting that defense, Stein will have to convince the jury that Mehserle believed officers were losing control of the situation on the BART platform and therefore pulled out his gun.
If the jury believes the evidence shows Mehserle knew he was pulling out his gun, then it must decide if Mehserle purposely pulled the trigger or if the gun was fired by accident.
A decision by the jury that Mehserle purposely pulled the trigger would likely result in a second-degree murder conviction and at least 15 years in prison. A decision by the jury that the gun was fired by accident could result in an involuntary manslaughter finding and, at a minimum, a two-year stay in prison for Mehserle.
In addition to the videos and testimony from both BART officers who responded to the scene and passengers on the Dublin-Pleasanton-bound train, both attorneys will present the jury with detailed evidence about police officer training and responses to crowd control, court documents show.
Both attorneys will use the evidence about police training to show what Mehserle thought as he reached to his hip and pulled out his gun.
While presenting that evidence, Rains will have to walk a fine line of showing that the situation on the BART platform was chaotic enough for the officers to justify the use of a Taser while not completely out of control to warrant the use of a gun.
"To be sure, defense expert witnesses will explain that under the circumstances, and in light of Mehserle's training, BART policies, law and common sense, Mehserle was justified in his intention to use his Taser," Rains wrote.
Meanwhile, Stein will have to prove to the jury that Mehserle misread the situation on the platform as dangerous and in need of him pulling out a gun to gain control.
"The People contend that in order for the jurors to properly consider these questions, they must be informed about what the defendant knew about firearms and how he was trained," Stein wrote in a court pleading. "(Mehserle's) training in the academy as well as his training after becoming a sworn BART police officer is relevant to show not only his knowledge of firearms but such training is also circumstantial evidence of his state of mind at the time he fired the gun that killed Oscar Grant."
By Jack Leonard
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
4:11 PM PDT, July 8, 2010
A former transit police officer who fatally shot an unarmed man at an Oakland train station was convicted of involuntary manslaughter Thursday, capping a racially charged case that raised fears in the Bay Area of possible violence after the verdict.
Prosecutors accused the ex-officer of intentionally firing his handgun as he tried to handcuff Oscar J. Grant III on New Year's Day 2009. Johannes Mehserle, 28, tearfully testified that the shooting was a tragic accident caused when he mistakenly grabbed his firearm instead of an electric Taser weapon during a struggle with Grant.
The shooting was captured on video by several witnesses. Mehserle, who is white, fired a single round into the back of Grant, who was black and was lying face-down on the station platform. Mehserle resigned a week after the shooting.
The killing provoked protests and violence in Oakland. The case, which has drawn comparisons to the videotaped beating of Rodney G. King that ultimately triggered riots in Los Angeles in 1992, was moved to Los Angeles for trial amid concern about the extensive media coverage of the slaying in the Bay Area.
Many civil rights activists considered the case a test of how the justice system treats police officers accused of abusing minorities. The trial also captured the attention of law enforcement officers who feared that a guilty verdict could raise the stakes for cops who make mistakes.
The shooting occurred soon after police responded to reports of a fight on a train stopped at the Fruitvale Station. Grant and four friends were detained by a different police officer who prosecutors said used excessive force against the men. Mehserle arrived on the platform after the men had been detained.
Alameda County Deputy Dist. Atty. David R. Stein rejected the idea that the shooting was a mistake, telling jurors that Mehserle's holster was specially designed to prevent easy release of his firearm. The prosecutor contrasted the light, bright yellow Taser gun with the heavier black Sig Sauer handgun that Mehserle fired.
"He let his aggression dictate his conduct," Stein told jurors.
The prosecutor urged jurors to find Mehserle guilty of second-degree murder, pointing out that the officer never told his colleagues that night that the shooting was an accident.
Prosecutors in Los Angeles have not won a murder conviction in a police shooting case since 1983.
Mehserle testified that he intended to use his Taser because he believed Grant, 22, might be reaching for a gun in his pants pocket. While the officer's firearm was on his right side, the Taser was in a holster on the left side of his belt but angled so that it could be pulled out with his right hand.
Two people, including a friend of Grant's, testified that they heard the officer say he intended to use his Taser shortly before the shooting. In at least six other instances, officers have said they made the same mistake of firing a handgun when they intended to use a Taser.
Numerous witnesses said Mehserle looked shocked after the gunshot. Defense attorney Michael L. Rains said video footage shows his client holding his head in his hands in despair.
"He's sick to his stomach," Rains told jurors, "because he has shot a man who did not deserve to be shot."
jack.leonard@latimes.com
OAKLAND CA (IFS) - A former BART officer was found guilty of manslaughter in the slaying of Oscar Grant on January 1, 2009.
Prosecutors said that officer Johannes Mehserle, 28, deliberately shot his gun into Oscar J. Grant III’s back as he attempted to handcuff him on New Year's Day 2009. Mehserle testified in court that he thought he was unleashing his taser, not a gun.
The killing was video taped by several witnesses in Oakland. Mehserle, a White man, shot a round into the back of Grant, a Black man, who was face down on a train station platform. Police were working 12-hour shifts in preparation for riots and crowd control.
Mehserle resigned from the transit force a week after the shooting.
Alameda County Deputy Dist. Atty. David R. told jurors that Mehserle's holster was designed to avert discharge of the handgun, reports the L.A. Times. "He let his aggression dictate his conduct," Stein told jurors. Lawyers for Mehserle charged the gun and the taser had similar weight.
A friend of Oscar Grant testified that he heard Mehserle proclaim that he was going to use the taser to in the infraction that occurred with 22-year-old Grant and three other men. Grant was unarmed.
Others testified that Mehserle expressed immediate grief and despair after the killing of Grant.
Detractors of the police system and the case continue to express discontent with the verdict, considering it too light for Mehserle.
"He's sick to his stomach, because he has shot a man who did not deserve to be shot,” a defense attorney told the jury. A group of protesters expressed a unified discord after the verdict was announced.
Several members of Oscar Grant's family and friends have filed multimillion-dollar lawsuits against the BART transit agency.
Johannes Mehserle faces two to four years in jail for involuntary manslaughter.
The defense will focus on those aspects of the case as he presents evidence and makes arguments to the jury that the death, while tragic, was nothing more than an accident sparked by Mehserle believing he had a Taser in his hand when he pulled the trigger.Rains said in court documents filed last month he will not argue that Mehserle acted in self-defense. Rains said while Mehserle might have believed Grant possessed a gun, he did not believe Grant had opportunity to use it. Instead, Rains wrote, he will provide evidence that Mehserle was permitted, under the circumstances, to use a Taser to subdue Grant.
The fact that Mehserle used a gun and killed Grant was simply an accident, Rains argued, and does not merit a conviction of murder, either first degree, second degree or a conviction of manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.
"So, the relevant question in this case turns out to be very simple: Can the state supply proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mehserle formed an intent to use the gun as opposed to his Taser," Rains wrote. "(Mehserle's) defense will rather be that he believed Grant might be armed, that Grant continued to resist, and that (Mehserle) properly concluded the appropriate response was to use his Taser."
In fighting that defense, Stein will have to convince the jury that Mehserle believed officers were losing control of the situation on the BART platform and therefore pulled out his gun.
If the jury believes the evidence shows Mehserle knew he was pulling out his gun, then it must decide if Mehserle purposely pulled the trigger or if the gun was fired by accident.
A decision by the jury that Mehserle purposely pulled the trigger would likely result in a second-degree murder conviction and at least 15 years in prison. A decision by the jury that the gun was fired by accident could result in an involuntary manslaughter finding and, at a minimum, a two-year stay in prison for Mehserle.
In addition to the videos and testimony from both BART officers who responded to the scene and passengers on the Dublin-Pleasanton-bound train, both attorneys will present the jury with detailed evidence about police officer training and responses to crowd control, court documents show.
Both attorneys will use the evidence about police training to show what Mehserle thought as he reached to his hip and pulled out his gun.
While presenting that evidence, Rains will have to walk a fine line of showing that the situation on the BART platform was chaotic enough for the officers to justify the use of a Taser while not completely out of control to warrant the use of a gun.
"To be sure, defense expert witnesses will explain that under the circumstances, and in light of Mehserle's training, BART policies, law and common sense, Mehserle was justified in his intention to use his Taser," Rains wrote.
Meanwhile, Stein will have to prove to the jury that Mehserle misread the situation on the platform as dangerous and in need of him pulling out a gun to gain control.
"The People contend that in order for the jurors to properly consider these questions, they must be informed about what the defendant knew about firearms and how he was trained," Stein wrote in a court pleading. "(Mehserle's) training in the academy as well as his training after becoming a sworn BART police officer is relevant to show not only his knowledge of firearms but such training is also circumstantial evidence of his state of mind at the time he fired the gun that killed Oscar Grant."
Mehserle: What was he thinking?
By Paul T. Rosynsky
Oakland Tribune
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 05/30/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT
Updated: 05/30/2010 09:01:10 AM PDT
OAKLAND — The central question in the murder case against former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle will probably never be directly answered.
What was Mehserle thinking in the four seconds it took him to grab his handgun, point it at the back of an unarmed and prone Oscar Grant III, and pull the trigger?While Mehserle, 28, is not expected to answer that question during the murder trial against him that begins this week, a jury's interpretation of his thoughts in the early morning hours of Jan. 1, 2009, will determine if Mehserle — who served as a police officer for 22 months — is sent to state prison.
A prosecutor and defense attorney will spend at least the next four weeks trying to convince a jury of a dozen Los Angeles residents that they know what Mehserle thought when he killed Grant, 22, of Hayward.
For deputy district attorney David Stein, the answer lies in six videotapes of the shooting and the events that led to it. It can also be found in the actions of BART officers who, some argue, used excessive force in an attempt to detain Grant and four friends for fighting on a train, and in the training Mehserle received before and while he was an officer.
For defense attorney Michael Rains, Mehserle's thoughts can be found in the actions of Grant, a parolee who resisted arrest during what some described as a near riot on the BART platform, and from Mehserle's unfamiliarity in using a Taser. Rains said in court documents filed last month he will not argue that Mehserle acted in self-defense. Rains said while Mehserle might have believed Grant possessed a gun, he did not believe Grant had opportunity to use it. Instead, Rains wrote, he will provide evidence that Mehserle was permitted, under the circumstances, to use a Taser to subdue Grant.will focus on those aspects of the case as he presents evidence and makes arguments to the jury that the death, while tragic, was nothing more than an accident sparked by Mehserle believing he had a Taser in his hand when he pulled the trigger.The fact that Mehserle used a gun and killed Grant was simply an accident, Rains argued, and does not merit a conviction of murder, either first degree, second degree or a conviction of manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. "So, the relevant question in this case turns out to be very simple: Can the state supply proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mehserle formed an intent to use the gun as opposed to his Taser," Rains wrote. "(Mehserle's) defense will rather be that he believed Grant might be armed, that Grant continued to resist, and that (Mehserle) properly concluded the appropriate response was to use his Taser."
In fighting that defense, Stein will have to convince the jury that Mehserle believed officers were losing control of the situation on the BART platform and therefore pulled out his gun.
If the jury believes the evidence shows Mehserle knew he was pulling out his gun, then it must decide if Mehserle purposely pulled the trigger or if the gun was fired by accident.
A decision by the jury that Mehserle purposely pulled the trigger would likely result in a second-degree murder conviction and at least 15 years in prison. A decision by the jury that the gun was fired by accident could result in an involuntary manslaughter finding and, at a minimum, a two-year stay in prison for Mehserle.
In addition to the videos and testimony from both BART officers who responded to the scene and passengers on the Dublin-Pleasanton-bound train, both attorneys will present the jury with detailed evidence about police officer training and responses to crowd control, court documents show.
Both attorneys will use the evidence about police training to show what Mehserle thought as he reached to his hip and pulled out his gun.
While presenting that evidence, Rains will have to walk a fine line of showing that the situation on the BART platform was chaotic enough for the officers to justify the use of a Taser while not completely out of control to warrant the use of a gun.
"To be sure, defense expert witnesses will explain that under the circumstances, and in light of Mehserle's training, BART policies, law and common sense, Mehserle was justified in his intention to use his Taser," Rains wrote.
Meanwhile, Stein will have to prove to the jury that Mehserle misread the situation on the platform as dangerous and in need of him pulling out a gun to gain control.
"The People contend that in order for the jurors to properly consider these questions, they must be informed about what the defendant knew about firearms and how he was trained," Stein wrote in a court pleading. "(Mehserle's) training in the academy as well as his training after becoming a sworn BART police officer is relevant to show not only his knowledge of firearms but such training is also circumstantial evidence of his state of mind at the time he fired the gun that killed Oscar Grant."
Former BART officer convicted of involuntary manslaughter
Prosecutors accused Johannes Mehserle of intentionally firing his handgun as he tried to handcuff Oscar J. Grant III on New Year's Day 2009. Mehserle testified that he thought he was pulling out his electric Taser weapon and not a firearm.
By Jack Leonard
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
4:11 PM PDT, July 8, 2010
Advertisement |
Prosecutors accused the ex-officer of intentionally firing his handgun as he tried to handcuff Oscar J. Grant III on New Year's Day 2009. Johannes Mehserle, 28, tearfully testified that the shooting was a tragic accident caused when he mistakenly grabbed his firearm instead of an electric Taser weapon during a struggle with Grant.
The shooting was captured on video by several witnesses. Mehserle, who is white, fired a single round into the back of Grant, who was black and was lying face-down on the station platform. Mehserle resigned a week after the shooting.
The killing provoked protests and violence in Oakland. The case, which has drawn comparisons to the videotaped beating of Rodney G. King that ultimately triggered riots in Los Angeles in 1992, was moved to Los Angeles for trial amid concern about the extensive media coverage of the slaying in the Bay Area.
Many civil rights activists considered the case a test of how the justice system treats police officers accused of abusing minorities. The trial also captured the attention of law enforcement officers who feared that a guilty verdict could raise the stakes for cops who make mistakes.
The shooting occurred soon after police responded to reports of a fight on a train stopped at the Fruitvale Station. Grant and four friends were detained by a different police officer who prosecutors said used excessive force against the men. Mehserle arrived on the platform after the men had been detained.
Alameda County Deputy Dist. Atty. David R. Stein rejected the idea that the shooting was a mistake, telling jurors that Mehserle's holster was specially designed to prevent easy release of his firearm. The prosecutor contrasted the light, bright yellow Taser gun with the heavier black Sig Sauer handgun that Mehserle fired.
"He let his aggression dictate his conduct," Stein told jurors.
The prosecutor urged jurors to find Mehserle guilty of second-degree murder, pointing out that the officer never told his colleagues that night that the shooting was an accident.
Prosecutors in Los Angeles have not won a murder conviction in a police shooting case since 1983.
Mehserle testified that he intended to use his Taser because he believed Grant, 22, might be reaching for a gun in his pants pocket. While the officer's firearm was on his right side, the Taser was in a holster on the left side of his belt but angled so that it could be pulled out with his right hand.
Two people, including a friend of Grant's, testified that they heard the officer say he intended to use his Taser shortly before the shooting. In at least six other instances, officers have said they made the same mistake of firing a handgun when they intended to use a Taser.
Numerous witnesses said Mehserle looked shocked after the gunshot. Defense attorney Michael L. Rains said video footage shows his client holding his head in his hands in despair.
"He's sick to his stomach," Rains told jurors, "because he has shot a man who did not deserve to be shot."
jack.leonard@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
OAKLAND CA (IFS) - A former BART officer was found guilty of manslaughter in the slaying of Oscar Grant on January 1, 2009.
Prosecutors said that officer Johannes Mehserle, 28, deliberately shot his gun into Oscar J. Grant III’s back as he attempted to handcuff him on New Year's Day 2009. Mehserle testified in court that he thought he was unleashing his taser, not a gun.
The killing was video taped by several witnesses in Oakland. Mehserle, a White man, shot a round into the back of Grant, a Black man, who was face down on a train station platform. Police were working 12-hour shifts in preparation for riots and crowd control.
Mehserle resigned from the transit force a week after the shooting.
Alameda County Deputy Dist. Atty. David R. told jurors that Mehserle's holster was designed to avert discharge of the handgun, reports the L.A. Times. "He let his aggression dictate his conduct," Stein told jurors. Lawyers for Mehserle charged the gun and the taser had similar weight.
A friend of Oscar Grant testified that he heard Mehserle proclaim that he was going to use the taser to in the infraction that occurred with 22-year-old Grant and three other men. Grant was unarmed.
Others testified that Mehserle expressed immediate grief and despair after the killing of Grant.
Detractors of the police system and the case continue to express discontent with the verdict, considering it too light for Mehserle.
"He's sick to his stomach, because he has shot a man who did not deserve to be shot,” a defense attorney told the jury. A group of protesters expressed a unified discord after the verdict was announced.
Several members of Oscar Grant's family and friends have filed multimillion-dollar lawsuits against the BART transit agency.
Johannes Mehserle faces two to four years in jail for involuntary manslaughter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(35)
-
▼
July
(7)
- FCC, FDA Partner on Wireless Health IT
- Criminals to be weeded out of medical marijuana ce...
- New gov't rules allow unapproved iPhone apps
- ‘Keep the Negroes Out of Most Classes Where There ...
- NY Times July 11 2010 Headline News
- Officer Johannes Mehserle - Oakland BART Officer F...
- Limon Colorado Storm - July 4 2010
-
▼
July
(7)