Kendall Coffey on the Rights of Life

Flickr CC via Mercy Health

Kendall Coffey discussed a case in Texas with Steve Malzberg last week.  There is a law in Texas that is keeping a woman on life support because she is 14 weeks pregnant. Here is Kendall Coffey's commentary on the case:

The family is frustrated with the law, and they’re considering whether to in affect file a court challenge.  The essence of the court challenge would be that she has this tragically impaired woman has some right of privacy to determine her own death with dignity.  What I haven’t developed in the law, and certainly, other people who are not carrying a human life inside them, no question can provide living wills that specify under certain conditions.  Such as when someone’s brain does not seem to have maintained cognitive ability, they have a constitutional right to terminate their life. 

This situation, though I haven’t seen a court that says she has the right to end her own life if it eliminates the life of an unborn child.  That is the decision that has to be accepted.  Nor do I know, and haven’t been able to find the details whether she still wanted her own life terminated if she were pregnant. Surely this is not a situation that they would have anticipated at the time that the directive was given, but I would suggest that from a constitutional standpoint, that she is being described as virtually brain dead, it seems to be that there has to be a greater respect for the life of the unborn child, where her own life is irretrievably damaged.

This is not the normal situation of a Roe v. Wade where you have a healthy vibrant person who is in full possession of their power and chooses to invoke a decision of their constitutional right to privacy.  This is someone who is no longer capable of making any decision at all.  So in that situation, do you override the laws of Texas, which says that if there is an ability to keep an unborn fetus alive to maturity then that is what the law requires?  It’s very different than some the cases we’ve been talking about.

I think it’s a fundamentally different question if the woman is pregnant, and I don’t know if there is any evidence that she said she would want to be taken off of life support even with an unborn child.  There’s a lot of discussion between balancing the rights of a woman and the later months in pregnancy.  It’s a much more difficult question when the only life that is able to be saved is that of the child.

August 15th Spinning the Law with Kendall Coffey

A new Spinning the Law Segment featuring Kendall Coffey on the Steve Malzberg Show was released this week.  Kendall Coffey appears on the show to answer questions about a recent New Mexico Supreme Court ruling and about Eric Holder's statements on drug crimes.


The state supreme court in New Mexico recently ruled that citizens who are native Spanish speakers still have a right to serve on a jury even if they do not have a strong grasp of English.  The case involved a convicted murderer's appeal based on the dismissal of a juror who did not have strong understanding the language.

Kendall Coffey notes that while it is a constitutional right, he was baffled and confused that the court would not see language barriers as grounds for dismissal.

"This is more than a head scratcher... this has got your jaw dropping and your eyes rolling.  The constitutional right to a fair trial, where everybody completely understands the proceedings at every level is vitally important. And you know... the one thing we agree with opposing counsel on is... if there is any indication that a juror does not truly understand and is comfortable with the English language, you can be assured that's the one thing that both sides agree on!  It just doesn't help the system of justice to have it." -Kendall Coffey on New Mexico court ruling.

Steve Malzberg then asked Coffey his opinion on Attorney General Eric Holder's remarks on Monday about how federal prosecutors will stop seeking mandatory sentences for drug offenses.  Some have said that instructing federal prosecutors to ignore the law is illegal in and of itself.  Kendall Coffey said that in general federal prosecutors generally have a lot of discretion in which cases to try.  He went on to say that the war on drugs has been too downplayed in recent years.

"Crime is down, and certainly back in the 90's and 80's, there has been an astronomical correlation between street crime and drugs.  So much so that they would test people when they picked up off the streets and remarkable percentage of people were positive for using drugs at the time of the crime... We have had success with in enforcement, and its a success that's been consistent.  I suppose you could say its harsh... but to have something that's effective, what really needs to come across, is there needs to be a serious punishment each time, every time."

Kendall Coffey went on to say he is probably in the majority of that opinion but stands by it.  Steve Malzberg agreed with Coffey, saying that people who knowingly break the law need to face consequences. 

Kendall Coffey "Spinning The Law" segment on Newsmax TV

Former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey will now appear in a new weekly segment called “Spinning The Law.” The segment which runs on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show” provides legal commentary and insights on high profile cases just like Coffey’s book also titled “Spinning The Law.”

In the first segment of “Spinning The Law”, Malzberg and Coffey discuss recent comments made by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O Connor over the Florida Election recount of 2000. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, O’Connor expressed regret over the Bush vs. Gore ruling.

“Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision,” she said. “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.”

Kendall Coffey said he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decision but it isn’t a good look for the image of the court to be second-guessing itself. He believes the system has to move on.

“It’s all about accepting and respecting their decisions and accepting finality when it’s a final decision. I appreciate her candor, but I’m not sure if it’s a great thing for the institution of the Supreme Court,” said Kendall Coffey.

Coffey and Malzberg also discuss the possibility of capital punishment in the Boston Marathon bombing case and California’s new legislation that could potentially make non-citizens eligible for jury service.

Watch the rest of the “Spinning The Law” segment here.