SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Challenge to Google's online library turned down by court

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court turned away a challenge Monday to Google's online book library from authors who complained that the project makes it harder for them to market their work.

The justices let stand lower court rulings in favor of Mountain View, California-based Google and rejected the authors' claim that the company's digitizing of millions of books amounts to "copyright infringement on an epic scale."

Lower courts have said that Google can provide small portions of the books to the public without violating copyright laws.

The Authors Guild and individual authors first filed their challenge to Google's digital book project in 2005. Google Inc. has made digital copies of more than 20 million books from major research libraries and established a publicly available search function.

In October, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a judge who concluded that Google was not violating copyright laws when it showed customers small portions of the books. The authors said the project would spoil the market for their work.

The appeals court said that Google's "snippet view, at best and after a large commitment of manpower, produces discontinuous, tiny fragments, amounting in the aggregate to no more than 16% of a book. This does not threaten the rights holders with any significant harm to the value of their copyrights or diminish their harvest of copyright revenue."

The three-judge appeals panel did acknowledge, though, that some book sales would likely be lost if someone were merely searching for a portion of text to ascertain a fact.

Writers involved in the lawsuit include Jim Bouton, author of the best-seller "Ball Four," Betty Miles, author of "The Trouble with Thirteen," and Joseph Goulden, author of "The Superlawyers: The Small and Powerful World of Great Washington Law Firms."

The case is The Authors Guild v. Google, 15-849.


Court rejects appeal over stiff marijuana sentence

By Sam Hananel
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal from a 76-year-old Alabama man who was sentenced to life in prison without parole for possessing less than three pounds of marijuana that he said he grew for personal use.

Lawyers for Lee Carroll Brooker argued that the stiff sentence under the state's habitual offender law violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

But the justices let stand a ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court upholding the sentence. Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had written separately in the opinion last year to call the sentence "excessive and unjustified." He said the stiff sentence for a non-violent drug offense showed "grave flaws" in Alabama's sentencing system and urged lawmakers to revisit the system.

The office of Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange defended the sentence, saying in a brief to the court that it was not based solely on Brooker's marijuana conviction but also on his history of prior felony convictions, including armed robberies and drug smuggling.

The case attracted attention from sentencing reform advocates who called it an extreme example of the flaws of mandatory sentencing. The group Families Against Mandatory Minimums said in a brief supporting Brooker that mandatory minimum sentences can punish low-level misconduct with the severest penalties regardless of what a judge considers appropriate.

Brooker is a disabled veteran who claims he was growing marijuana to help him manage serious medical problems. Police discovered the growing operation in 2011 while searching for stolen property at a house Brooker shared with his son in southeastern Alabama. They seized 37 plants growing behind his house, but found no evidence he was selling drugs.

A jury found Brooker guilty of trafficking marijuana under state law that designates possession of more than 2.2 pounds of the drug as a felony. Violation is subject to mandatory life imprisonment without parole for someone with prior felony convictions.

At his sentencing hearing, the trial judge told Brooker he would have sentenced him to less time, but said his hands were tied because the law gives judges no discretion.

Strange argued in his brief to the high court that the case was not about the wisdom of Alabama's laws prohibiting marijuana.

"This case is about a lifelong criminal, convicted of six felonies in three states, the last of which resulted in a mandatory life sentence under Alabama's habitual felony offender statute," Strange said.


Justices extend ruling on repeat offenders' prison terms

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday voted 7-1 to extend its year-old ruling that makes people convicted of repeated violent crimes eligible for reduced prison terms.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said last year's decision that threw out part of the Armed Career Criminal Act applies retroactively to defendants whose convictions are final.

The justices only heard arguments in the case in March. But they may have felt a need to rush their decision because some inmates face a June deadline under federal law for challenging the longer sentences. Only Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissent.

The provision of the recidivist law in question included a catchall phrase that defined what crimes make a defendant eligible for a longer prison term. The justices said last year that phrase was too vague.

Published: Wed, Apr 20, 2016