The Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: What happened and what are the future implications?

 

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that Section 7 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limited the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples, violated the Fifth Amendment.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were a legally married same-sex couple. When Spyer died in 2009, the federal government did not allow the estate tax exemption for bequests to widows because of DOMA. Spyer’s estate was forced to pay the tax.

In United States v. Windsor, Windsor challenged Sec. 7 of DOMA on the grounds that the law violated the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the principle purpose of Sec. 7 of DOMA was to demean those in homosexual marriages and to deprive homosexual couples of the rights and privileges that were available to heterosexual couples under the federal laws. The government returned the federal estate taxes that had been paid from Spyer’s estate.   

DOMA has not been invalidated in its entirety. The Supreme Court’s decision is limited only to Sec. 7 of DOMA. While the Windsor ruling does not legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, the ruling has allowed for same-sex couples to enjoy certain rights and benefits under federal law which were previously unavailable to them, such as filing a joint federal income tax return. 

Sec. 3 of DOMA, which is still in effect, gives states discretion in choosing whether to recognize any legally formed same-sex relationship.  Same-sex married couples would be wise to seek legal advice on protecting their rights to the extent possible before traveling or moving to a state which will not recognize their legal relationship.

 

 

Connecticut Prison Officials Can Now Take DNA By Force

The Connecticut DNA Database Unit, which currently receives 12,000 DNA samples from convicted offenders each year, will undoubtedly expand in light of the Connecticut Appellate Court’s recent ruling in State of Connecticut v. Roosevelt Drakes. Recently, Connecticut’s second-highest court affirmed rulings in two superior court cases and held that state prison officials can use reasonable force to take DNA samples from convicted felons who refuse to provide them because the ability to use physical force is inherent in the statutory language and barring state officials from using reasonable physical force would allow a felon to evade his or her obligation to provide a DNA sample and thereby hinder the creation of a comprehensive DNA database to assist in future criminal investigations.  

Connecticut law requires that all convicted felons provide DNA samples, but the challenged statute did not explicitly permit officials to use force in obtaining those samples.  Also, under the statute, convicted felons who did not comply with requests for DNA specimens could be charged with an additional class D felony.  Two inmates, Mark Banks, who is serving up to 34 years in prison on kidnapping, robbery, and other convictions, and Roosevelt Drakes, who is serving a 30-year sentence for murder, declined to provide DNA samples and consequently received additional charges and penalties.  Banks and Drakes appealed their convictions under the statute, which has since been amended by Public Act No. 11-144, on the ground that there was no specific and express language in the statute authorizing officials to use force to obtain DNA samples. 

Currently, all 50 states allow state officials to take DNA samples from convicted felons, and the United States Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling regarding officials’ ability to obtain DNA evidence during the pre-conviction phase of criminal proceedings.  In June, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that when officers make an arrest supported by probable cause, hold a suspect for a serious offense, and transport him or her to a station to be held in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment (Maryland v. King).   

The recent decisions at the state and federal levels received widespread media coverage, which is a testament to the increasingly important role of DNA evidence in criminal proceedings.  As of June 20, 2013, officials had not yet taken DNA samples from Banks and Drakes because the trial court decisions against them had been stayed pending the outcome of their appeals, and it is uncertain whether Banks and Drakes will now appeal their decisions to the Connecticut Supreme Court. 

Should Families of the Wrongfully Convicted be Compensated Too?

Steven Phillips had been recently married and was in the midst of starting a new business when he was convicted of sex crimes in 1982. His wife, along with his young son, spent the next ten years visiting Phillips in prison, sending him money, and above all else, trying to get him out. The strain of being behind bars combined with the thought of never getting out prompted Mr. Phillips to seek a divorce after ten years of marriage.

After spending 24 years behind bars, DNA evidence exonerated Phillips, prompting the state of Texas to award him a compensation package of $6 million for his wrongful conviction pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 103.001,et seq., Compensation To Persons Wrongfully Imprisoned. This has generated a legal battle unlike any other in the nation and raises the following issue: should families of the wrongfully convicted be compensated too?

Phillips’s ex-wife believes she is entitled to a portion of his award and has taken legal action. A Texas court agreed with her, and ordered that she be given approximately $153,000 of the award. He is currently appealing this decision. Read more here.  

In Connecticut, Connecticut General Statutes 54-102uu - Compensation for wrongful incarceration, gives compensation to a person who has been wrongfully convicted, but makes no reference to their family. The outcome of the Phillips case will likely be instructive for similar situations going forward, and may even spark a trend in providing for family members of the wrongfully convicted.    

Connecticut Sales Tax Liability

In Connecticut, someone buying the assets of another company may become liable for any delinquent sales tax owed by the selling company.  Under Connecticut’s Successor Liability Statute, if you are buying all or substantially all of a business or stock of goods in a business, you will also inherit all of the company’s sales tax liability.  However, a buyer may avoid this liability by holding some of the purchase price in escrow until the seller produces a sales tax clearance letter.

Find out more about Connecticut’s Successor Liability Statute and the sales tax clearance letter on our website.

Is a Prenup Agreement right for you?

If you’ve thought about marriage, chances are this question has crossed your mind. Thanks to popular culture, prenuptial agreements are most commonly associated with heated divorce battles and arguments over money. However, these basic legal agreements are often used in even the happiest of marriages and are a very important factor to consider if nuptials are on the horizon.

A prenuptial agreement is a contract between two individuals contemplating marriage that allows those individuals to decide how their property and income will be divided upon divorce, legal separation, annulment or death.   Because a prenuptial agreement is a binding contract that can grant or deny rights to the parties involved, it is important to think carefully before entering into one.  Some of the factors to consider before drafting or entering into a prenuptial agreement include the assets you and your future spouse own and how you both would want those assets divided should the marriage end. It is important to discuss these with your betrothed before meeting with an attorney so that you can take your time and come to an agreement that is best for both you and your fiancé. Do this ahead of time so you will be able to enjoy your special day (relatively) worry-free!

The family attorneys at Brown Paindiris & Scott, LLP can assist you in deciding what to include in your prenup agreement.

Do you know what to do when approached or detained by the police?

Do you know what to do when approached or detained by the police?  As described by Attorney Richard Brown, the most important things you need to know are that you cannot be forced to say anything and that you have the right to consult with an attorney, and thereby terminate all questioning.  Do not fall into the traps for the unwary . . . casual conversation can quickly turn to more serious discussions . . . you do not need to have written a statement down and signed it for it to be used against you . . . 

Falling Tree Limbs

Falling tree limbs can be a danger, not just to damaging property, but also causing injuries and in some cases death, to people.  In fact, the cases and laws regarding falling tree limb damage have been around for quite some time, with one case going back to 1867.  The laws can also vary depending on the state.

 

The link below provides detailed information on the laws surrounding falling tree limbs:

 

http://www.bpslawyers.com/Articles/Falling-Tree-Limbs.shtml