High Court Action

Oct. 30
, 2000 -- Coin Flip Case Declined Justices Want Govt. Opinion on Klan Case Court Will Hear Tribal Immunity Case Tobacco Settlement Challenge Nixed

Court Won’t Hear Coin Toss Case

The Supreme Court announced today it has declined to decide whether a holdout juror can make up his mind with the flip of acoin.

Isidro Samuel Reyes was convicted in California on a cocainecharge after a jury in the Los Angeles area deliberated for twodays in November 1995. Later, his lawyers learned that one jurorhad consistently voted to acquit Reyes through most of thedeliberations, but changed his vote to guilty after flipping aquarter during the final lunch break.

“Juror F” apparently decided on his own to cast his vote basedon a best-of-three coin toss. He testified later that he decidedthat heads would be guilty, tails innocent. He flipped a quartertwice, and got heads both times.

Reyes’ lawyers say the jury came back from lunch and votedunanimously to convict him. Reyes was later sentenced to sevenyears in prison.

When the coin flip came to light, based on the juror’s ownaccounting of it, Reyes unsuccessfully sought a new trial. Thejuror testified that he never changed his opinion of Reyes’innocence, but decided to “go along with the flow.”

“It was 25 cents that had got them [to persuade] me to give averdict against what I really believed,” the juror testified.

Appeals judges in California found that one juror’s solo cointoss is not the same thing as the whole jury deciding guilt orinnocence that way.

In court papers, Reyes’ lawyer argued that the Supreme Courtshould decide whether the coin toss meant Reyes did not get a fairverdict based on the evidence.

“The most elementary duty of each juror is to listen carefully,follow the trial proceedings and to evaluate the strengths andweaknesses of the evidence and arguments,” Los Angeles lawyerTerrence Roden argued.

The case is Reyes vs. California, 00-301.

Govt. Asked for Comment on Klan Case

The court also sought thegovernment’s views on whether Missouri can ban the Ku Klux Klanfrom its Adopt-A-Highway cleanup program.

The court asked Justice Department lawyers to formally commenton the case where the state claims it should be allowed to bar theKlan from the litter control program on grounds the organizationwill not accept blacks and other minorities as members.

A federal appeals court decided that the state“unconstitutionally denied the Klan’s application based on theKlan’s views.”

The justices are not expected to decide whether they will reviewthat ruling until the government files its brief.

In its appeal, Missouri argued that it should not be forced topost signs “suggesting that the state approves of, and is gratefulfor, the Klan’s participation in the Adopt-A-Highway program.”

After the state lost in a lower court, signs went up lastNovember designating a one-mile stretch of Interstate 55 south ofSt. Louis as having been adopted by the Klan.

As in most states, Missouri’s program allows groups to “adopt”a stretch of highway and do cleanup work on it. The state savesmoney, and the groups’ efforts are acknowledged on signs postedalong the highway.

The Klan asked to join the Missouri program in 1994. The statedenied the application, contending the Klan violated federal andstate anti-discrimination laws. It also cited the Klan’s “historyof unlawful violence.”

The Klan sued, and lower courts ruled for the organization. The8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Missouri’sAdopt-A-Highway program has accepted other groups withdiscriminatory membership criteria, including the Knights ofColumbus, which limits its membership to Catholic men.

The case is Yarnell vs. Cuffley, 00-289.

Court to Hear Indian Immunity Case

The court agreed to decidewhether an Oklahoma Indian tribe can claim immunity from a lawsuitfiled over a construction project off the reservation.

The Citizen Potawatomi Nation claimed that it could not be suedafter changing terms of a construction contract for a new bankbuilding. The tribe owned the property, but it was outside theboundary of the Potawatomi reservation.

Indian tribal government has the power to make law, signcontracts and other duties of a sovereign government.

The construction contractor claimed that the tribe is not immunefrom lawsuit over the property, and that even if it were immune thetribe signed away that protection when it agreed to theconstruction deal in 1993.

The tribe’s contract with C&L Enterprises included a provisionthat disputes were to be settled by arbitration.

The arbitrator awarded C&L $25,400 plus legal fees and othercosts. The Potawatomi claimed immunity when the contractor sued inlocal court in Oklahoma City to enforce the judgment.

Later, a state appeals court later reversed the judgment.

Earlier this month, the court agreed to clarify whether stateofficials can be sued in Indian tribal court over actions taken onan Indian reservation. In that case it is state officials who claimsovereign immunity.

The case is C&L Enterprises vs. Citizen Potawatomi Nation, 00-292.

Tobacco Settlement Challenge Dismissed

The court also turned aside a challenge tothe 2-year-old national tobacco settlement today.

The court refused to consider whether smokers wound up payingillegally higher prices for their cigarettes as a result of thelandmark $246 billion deal.

In late 1998, the tobacco industry ended a slew ofhealth-related lawsuits by agreeing to yearly payments to states.Payments are spread over 25 years.

The money was to compensate states for the cost of treatingsmoking-related illnesses of people on Medicaid.

Two men, Leo Hise and Jack Isch, filed suit in federal court inOklahoma a month after the settlement was signed. They claimed thesettlement violated antitrust laws because the nation’s biggesttobacco companies went into the deal intending to pass on the coststo smokers.

A federal court ruled in favor of the tobacco companies in 1999,and the men appealed unsuccessfully to the 10th U.S. Circuit Courtof Appeals in Denver.

Philip Morris Inc., which with its Marlboro label and otherbrands commands more than half the U.S. market, argued in courtpapers that retailers, not cigarette makers, decide how much tocharge.

The suit also named R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Brown &Williamson Tobacco Co.; Lorillard Tobacco Co.; and The LiggettGroup.

Together the firms control all but a fraction of the U.S.tobacco market.

The case is Hise vs. Philip Morris, 00-337.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.