Florida Death Row Advocacy Group

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider reviving a Pennsylvania prison program that bans virtually all reading material and photographs for the most incorrigible inmates. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the program violated the constitutional rights of inmates and didn't meet the legitimate needs of prison officials. The dispute will highlight the legal views of Judge Alito, President George W. Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court. Alito dissented from the lower court ruling, calling the restrictions ``reasonably related to the legitimate penological goal of curbing misconduct.'' Pennsylvania houses about 40 of its most difficult prisoners in a separate unit on the grounds of its State Correctional Institution in Pittsburgh. Most of those inmates are subject to the severest restrictions and allowed to receive only legal or religious publications, plus clipped articles that specifically relate to them or their families. They also are barred from possessing photographs of loved ones. The state says the regulations provide an incentive for good behavior because inmates can gain additional privileges after 90 days if they comply with prison rules. Corbett also says newspapers and magazines could be used to start fires, conceal contraband or hurl feces at guards. Beard v. Banks, 04-1739

On January 11^th, the US Supreme Court will hear Paul House’s appeal. House was convicted of murdering his neighbor based on predominantly circumstantial evidence. During a complex period of post-conviction appeals, motions and evidentiary hearings, House produced new evidence that he claimed showed his innocence. For example, some blood samples used during the original trial were later found to have been mishandled (spilled), but the reviewing court concluded that this spillage occurred after testing had been done and so the evidence had not been compromised. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals eventually denied House's petition for habeas corpus, holding that House had failed to meet the standard set in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 which requires the petitioner to show "that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence."