Marine Accused of Murdering Six Raises Questions Regarding Court’s Treatment of Combat-Induced Mental Illness

Izcoatl Ocampo, an ex-marine, is  currently charged and in custody for the brutal murders of four homeless men, and now faces additional charges in connection with the killings of fifty-three-year-old Raquel Estrada and her thirty-four-year-old son, Juan Herrera.  Orange County, California authorities reported that Estrada was stabbed over thirty times and Juan Herrera over sixty times on October 25, 2011.  Although authorities have provided no information on any evidence against Ocampo, investigators are confident that they have the man responsible for all six murders only because circumstances suggest that the murderer(s) used a similar murder weapon and technique on all six of these victims.  The minimum sentence if convicted is life in prison without parole and Orange County District Attorney, Tony Rackauckas, is considering the death penalty.  However, charging an ex-marine who could be suffering from a mental illness related to his time in combat with the death penalty seems fundamentally unjust.  Further research into post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other combat-related psychological trauma demonstrates that the court system agrees and opts to take contextual evidence that suggests this altered mental state into account when a defendant has a history with the military.

Does John Hinckley Still Pose a Threat to Society?

In January 2012, Judge Paul Friedman presided over hearings to determine whether to grant John Hinckley extended furloughs from St. Elizabeth’s Psychiatric Hospital, where he has been committed for the past thirty years.  Hinckley’s counsel petitioned Judge Friedman to grant two seventeen-day furloughs, and then six furloughs of twenty-four days to his mother’s home in Williamsburg, Virginia, with convalescence leave upon the completion thereof.  Federal prosecutors challenged the petition, arguing that Hinckley remains a threat to society and his furlough privileges should not be expanded. 

U.S. v. Jones: Decision Declaring Use of GPS Tracking a Search Leaves Some Unanswered Questions

On January 23, 2012, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the attachment of a Global Positioning System (GPS) device to a vehicle utilized to monitor a vehicle’s movements on public streets and obtain data for investigative purposes constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that in this case, “the government physically occupied private property for the purposes of obtaining information.” 

U.S. In Iraq: Marine’s Sentence Reduced from 152 Years to a Pay Cut

Concluding a six-year investigation into the killings of two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha, Iraq, on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 United States Marine Corps Staff Sergeant, Frank Wuterich, plead guilty to one count of negligent dereliction of duty.  He was sentenced to ninety days imprisonment, but agreed to a plea deal that allowed him to avoid jail time.  While seemingly arbitrary and unjust to some, the plea is a reminder of the difficult and split-second decisions servicemen and women face on a day-to-day basis while in combat overseas.

Beyond Psychological Trauma to Murder

Last week, Joran Van der Sloot confessed to the murder of Peruvian, Stephany Flores.  He was the prime suspect of the 2005 disappearance of American teenager Natalee Holloway while she was vacationing in Aruba.  He fled to Lima, Peru after being investigated for the Holloway disappearance and he met Flores at a casino. He murdered Flores exactly five years after Holloway’s disappearance once he found her reading on the internet about Holloway’s investigations he was involved with. Flores was found strangled on May 31, 2010 in Van der Sloot’s hotel room.

A Hidden Crimmigration Lesson Courtesy of Judulang v. Holder

The recent Supreme Court decision in Judulang v. Holder was a narrow but welcome victory among immigration advocates.  It unanimously rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) approach to determining whether to grant discretionary relief from deportation.

May it “Pleas” the Court?

Before Defendants reach the trial stage, most prosecutors will offer a plea agreement.  A plea agreement is a bargain between the prosecution and the Defendant to have a lowered sentence in exchange for a guilty verdict.  Depending on the crime and the Defendant’s criminal background, different factors influence the agreement offered.  When the odds are stacked against a Defendant, wouldn’t taking a suspended sentence and probation make much more sense than “a day in court” and risking years in jail?  This topic has caused much controversy and tension on both ends of the spectrum.  For some Defendants the most important outcome is a non-guilty verdict, while for others it may be the ability to start working or having the ability to move on with their life, which jail time or certain convictions could prevent. 

Fourth Amendment Folly: Have Some Federal Courts Diluted the Bare Bone Exception to the Leon Good Faith Exception?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument on Tuesday, October 27, 2011 for a case involving Maryland teenager, Collin McKenzie-Gude. He graduated from St. John’s College High School in 2008 and planned on attending American University for his undergraduate studies. During the summer in 2008, suspicion arose when McKenzie-Gude and a witness’ nephew allegedly discussed chemicals associated with explosives at the witness’ house. The police investigated the witness’ story and discovered that an AK-47 rifle mentioned in the affidavit was registered to McKenzie-Gude’s father. Further, the police found an AK-47 in McKenzie-Gude’s bedroom after acquiring a search warrant for his parent’s home.