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.

Kendall Coffey Slams the "Affluenza" Defense

Kendall Coffey on News Nation

Last week, Tamron Hall invited Kendall Coffey onto News Nation on MSNBC to discuss the latest high profile case in Texas, that of Ethan Couch.  The teenager is from a rich family and used his priviliged upbringing as a defense for killing four people in a drunk driving incident.  The judge sentenced him to ten years of probation and no jail time.

Kendall Coffey asserted that the defense was "appalling" and the case made the entire justice system look bad.  He further insisted that if "affluenza" is an actual condition, then it can be treated with fairness and accountability.  That would include jail time in this case.

Ethan Couch's lawyer told the media that taking Ethan away from his family for rehabilitation was the punishment that the teenager deserved.

Attorney Scott Brown said, "The consequences are that he is taken away from his family, he’s taken away from all the things that he’s been given.  He’s not going to have the truck to drive, he’s not going to have all the other things that he’s used to.  He’s not going to going to have his Xbox, he won’t have alcohol or drugs.  We are taking him away from his family and teaching him to be a responsible citizen, that’s a consequence."

The reply from Kendall Coffey was rich with sarcasm. 

"I’m grief stricken.  No Xbox? I’ll tell you how to keep someone if he needs to be somewhat removed from his parents- prison will do that."

Kendall Coffey continued, "And I want to come back to something you just mentioned.  What about a poor child who through no fault of his or her own is a victim of abuse, lives in a community that is fraught with peril, and makes some mistakes in life.  Does the system forgive you for that? There’s hardly any forgiveness at all. I’m sorry Tamron, but the contrast is just so dramatic, between rich and poor, as illustrated by this case."

 

Rod Blagojevich Drama Continues

 The appeal of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s conviction and 14-year prison sentence has entered its final stage. Blagojevich was convicted of misusing his powers as Governor of Illinois in 2011 and believed to be committing “pay to play” schemes, including selling Barack Obama’s Senate seat after the 2008 presidential election.

 On July 13^th, 2013, Blagojevich filed an appeal with the 7^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. The appeal cites a judicial predisposition and jury bias. Blagojevich will have to convince the court that his convictions were unfitting and that the trial could have had a different outcome.

 The former Governor of Illinois was tried twice, in which the first trial had the jury hung on 23 counts and a conviction for one charge: lying to the FBI. In his book “Spinning the Law”, Kendall Coffey discussesBlagojevich’s first trial where a juror was quoted saying that “he was just talking” during his testimony and creating a new “blabbermouth” defense.

 In the book, Kendall Coffey states, “…the reality remained that by arresting Blagojevich before his wheeling and dealing reached actual stealing, prosecutors left some room for him to claim he may have neared the line of crime but never crossed it.”

 “Unless a ‘smoking gun’ shows stealing, it’s harder to convict for wheeling and dealing,” is Kendall Coffey’s spinning lesson for Blagojevich’s first trial.

Flickr CC via The Rachel Maddow Show

 In June 2011, Blagojevich was re-tried where he was found guilty of 17 remaining charges and sentenced to 14 years in federal prison.

 Blagojevich was elected governor in 2002 after serving on the U.S. House of Representatives for Chicago. Blagojevich has been incarcerated since March 2012 at a low-security prison in Denver. If his appeal is not granted, he will remain in prison until 2024.

Kendall Coffey on Elian Gonzalez Interview

Kendall Coffey- Elian Gonzalez

When Elian Gonzalez was six years old, he was fighting to stay in the United States, according to most who knew them.  Kendall Coffey was a U.S. attorney at the time of the high profile case.  Eventually Gonzalez went back to Cuba, where his father resides. 

In a recent interview with Cuban media, Elian Gonzalez denounced the United States government as imperialist and said that anti-Cuban freedom fighters only caused harm and pain.  Kendall Coffey told Steve Malzberg on Newsmax that his words were straight from the mouth of the Cuban government. 

“He was very happy to be in the United States when he was here," said Kendall Coffey.

"Of course he wanted his father to be with him, but he was very happy to be here at the time. We predicted at the time that he would become a trophy of the Castro regime, and that he would be indoctrinated and be fed a script of whatever the regime wanted him to say.  You and listeners can decide whether that prediction has come to pass. With respect to his mother, which is someone who we all feel very strongly about, she sacrificed her life to bring her son to freedom.  Many have lost their lives to come here and it’s a reminder of how incredibly lucky we are to live in the United States, because 90% of the rest of the world would give most anything to be here where you and I walk and breathe and enjoy life everyday.”

Some speculate that the Elian Gonzalez interview was an attempt by Cuba to start negotiations to free five men convicted of espionage in Miami.  Gonzalez called for President Obama to pardon them in the piece.  

Gonzalez was found near the shores of Florida in 1999, after a boat escaping Cuba had capsized and killed most of the passengers, including Gonzalez' mother.  Relatives in the United States fought to keep Gonzalez, but he was eventually sent back to Cuba.

Kendall Coffey on Spike Lee Tweet Lawsuit

Former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey appeared on the Steve Malzberg Show last week to discuss current legal cases.  One of the cases involved a family that is suing film maker Spike Lee.  Lee posted an address on Twitter that he claimed was the address of George Zimmerman, the man who shot Florida teen Trayvon Martin.  The address was incorrect, however, and the couple actually at the posted address recieved threatening letters and harassment.

Spike Lee tweeted an address he thought was George Zimmerman's

The George Zimmerman case gained a lot of attention from racial equality advocates and Lee was likely trying to incite the harassment directed at Zimmerman.  The couple is suing Spike Lee for either defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Kendall Coffey explained that while the case is sympathetic there may not be enough legal grounds for the lawsuit.

"People who value the law as you and I do like to say that for every wrong there must be a remedy.  This certainly seems like a wrong, at least the way it’s presented by the plaintiffs.  And one might think there must be some kind of remedy if indeed they suffered what we understand could well have been a firestorm of threats and abuse. 
"But a few years back the Supreme Court of Florida decided that the kind of claim for what they call violation of privacy, putting somebody or casting somebody in a false light through publicity that’s damaging, that by itself is no longer, in the state of Florida, a valid basis to bring a claim for damages. 
"What these individuals would have to claim is either something called intentional infliction of emotional distress, and it’s hard to think that they can show enough intentionality.  Maybe they can on the part of Spike Lee.  Or, they can present it as a claim of defamation, maybe they can get somewhere.  But, despite what makes us all sympathetic, if indeed what happened here is as they describe it, I’m not convinced they’re going to get to first base, and certainly not to second base, in terms of a lawsuit.  Given that the decision the Supreme Court of Florida made, which actually gives less protection for individuals whose privacy rights are invaded and are wrongly subjected to negative publicity.”

Kendall Coffey: Church and State Issues Will Go to Supreme Court

Should prayer be allowed at town hall meetings?

Kendall Coffey appeared on the Steve Malzberg Show on Thursday, November 7th to analyze current legal cases in the news.  The major discussion revolved around a case against the town of Greece, New York.  The case involves whether opening town meetings with a prayer is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Kendall Coffey commented on the case, and alluded to a future where the supreme would need to make a decision on religious traditions used in public forums.

“Of course the Supreme Court session began with these traditional words that included 'God save the United States and this honorable court.' Whatever your religious background, if you have money you will see the words in God we trust. So it is recognized fundamentally that it is part of the fabric of our country."

Coffey, a former U.S. Attorney, said that the major difference between legal prayer and illegal prayer in public settings is whether the pray is only a recognition of a greater authority, or if it is pushing specific agenda.

Kendall Coffey suspects that town of Greece will win, partly because the Obama administration has come out on favor of the practice of public prayer in this insance, and supports the town.  What makes the case interesting, is that it may serve as a catalyst for the issue to be heard by the supreme court.

What will the Supreme Court say about public prayer?

“This particular practice I think is going to be a very close call.  I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court validates and supports the town council in allowing this kind of public prayer because of the decision thirty years ago.  Recognizing that there is a higher power than any of us is part of our tradition whether it’s on our dollar bills or it’s when the Supreme Court is seated.  Keep an eye out not only for the result on this, I suspect the town will win, but whether the opinion is written in such a way that signals further development in what could be an emerging conflict or controversy.  Perhaps some new law.  This whole concept is emotional, and profoundly important, of church and state.”

Kendall Coffey regularly goes "Spinning the Law" with Steve Malzberg on Newsmax.

Kendall Coffey: Abortion Law has Political Agenda

Abortion Bill protest in Austin/ Flickr CC via Do512

A new law in Texas includes some of the toughest restrictions on abortion in the country.  The legal battle over the legality of some of the rules has been fierce.  Last week a judge ruled that the law would prevent a woman's right to an abortion and blocked its implementation.  Another court refuted that several days later.

The biggest issue in the law requires doctors that perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the site. Another provision bans abortions after twenty weeks, except if the health of the woman is in danger. If a pregnant woman wants to induce an abortion by taking a pill, the state will require the pills to be taken in the presence of a doctor at a certified abortion facility. Lastly, beginning next September, all abortions must take place in a facility that meets the infrastructure requirements for an ambulatory surgical center.

Steve Malzeberg asked Kendall Coffey about the Texas law during the weekly "Spinning the Law" segment on the Steve Malzberg Show on Newsmax.  Malzberg commented on the requirement for doctors to have hospital practice privileges.  This is what Kendall Coffey said:

 

“That is certainly one of the issues.  Advocates of the law would say that abortion doctors had to be admitted with privileges in a nearby hospital, within thirty miles.  As you know, one of the things that establishes a credential for a doctor is to be granted privileges to practice in a local hospital.  It’s not automatically done, it’s not rightly done, it’s not as easy, frankly, as getting admitted to the state bar association.  It’s a significant validation of your professionalism and ability to grant the privileges to practice in a hospital.   

"Apparently a number of the doctors that perform this kind of procedure don’t have those privileges within thirty miles.  The Texas legislature has said that it’s a requirement and the judge following what is the law as of today presumably made the right decision of the existing law but advocates of these kind of laws, they aren’t simply trying to thumb their nose at the U.S. constitution.  They have a very thoughtful strategy for picking particular issues.  This is a type of strategy that no one should dismiss.  The outcome of this particular issue at the lower court level is not surprising.  But what’s going to happen when it gets to Washington and the nine Supreme Court justices will look at it? That’s much harder to predict.”

Wendy Davis/ Flickr CC via Do512

The law received the most media attention when legislator Wendy Davis performed a marathon filibuster to try and prevent it from being passed.  Wendy Davis is now running for governor of Texas.