Guess they wont have the right to appeal, a right to talk to their lawyer soon now huh??? This is covered by more than just the First, say the Sixth, if you think about it.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20010418_2007.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that prisoners do not possess a special constitutional right to help other inmates with a pending legal case.
The high court said prisoners' constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment were more limited in scope than the same rights held by individuals in society at large.
The ruling by Justice Clarence Thomas said prison officials do not violate the inmates' rights when they censor communications and confiscate a letter in which a prisoner offered legal advice to another inmate.
The decision represented a defeat for Kevin Murphy, an inmate who had been trained as a legal clerk in providing legal assistance for other inmates at the Montana State Prison.
In 1995, Murphy sent a letter containing legal advice to fellow inmate Pat Tracy, who had been charged with assaulting a correctional officer.
Because Tracy had been transferred to the prison's maximum security wing, Murphy could not visit him directly. Murphy began investigating the assault incident and discovered other inmates had complained about the officer's conduct. Murphy wrote a letter to Tracy urging him not to plead guilty.
INMATE GUILTY OF DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS
Murphy was found guilty of two disciplinary rule violations for "insolence" and "interference with due process hearings." Prison rules did not allow Murphy to offer such assistance because Tracy was in the maximum-security unit.
Murphy sued, claiming that when the prison disciplined him for the content of his letter it violated his First Amendment free-speech rights and his right to provide other inmates with legal assistance.
Thomas said the Supreme Court has generally deferred to the judgement of prison officials in upholding their regulations against constitutional challenges.
He said prison officials must remain the primary arbiters of problems that arise in prison management.
Thomas said that expanding First Amendment protection for legal advice would undermine the ability of correctional officials to address the complex problems of prison administration.
He said inmate-to-inmate correspondence that includes legal assistance should not receive more First Amendment protection than correspondence without any legal assistance.
"We decline to cloak the provision of legal assistance with any First Amendment protection above and beyond the protection normally accorded prisoners' speech," Thomas concluded.
The decision overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that the First Amendment gave Murphy the right to assist Tracy and that legal advice enjoyed greater First Amendment protections than general correspondence.
Copyright 2001 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20010418_2007.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that prisoners do not possess a special constitutional right to help other inmates with a pending legal case.
The high court said prisoners' constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment were more limited in scope than the same rights held by individuals in society at large.
The ruling by Justice Clarence Thomas said prison officials do not violate the inmates' rights when they censor communications and confiscate a letter in which a prisoner offered legal advice to another inmate.
The decision represented a defeat for Kevin Murphy, an inmate who had been trained as a legal clerk in providing legal assistance for other inmates at the Montana State Prison.
In 1995, Murphy sent a letter containing legal advice to fellow inmate Pat Tracy, who had been charged with assaulting a correctional officer.
Because Tracy had been transferred to the prison's maximum security wing, Murphy could not visit him directly. Murphy began investigating the assault incident and discovered other inmates had complained about the officer's conduct. Murphy wrote a letter to Tracy urging him not to plead guilty.
INMATE GUILTY OF DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS
Murphy was found guilty of two disciplinary rule violations for "insolence" and "interference with due process hearings." Prison rules did not allow Murphy to offer such assistance because Tracy was in the maximum-security unit.
Murphy sued, claiming that when the prison disciplined him for the content of his letter it violated his First Amendment free-speech rights and his right to provide other inmates with legal assistance.
Thomas said the Supreme Court has generally deferred to the judgement of prison officials in upholding their regulations against constitutional challenges.
He said prison officials must remain the primary arbiters of problems that arise in prison management.
Thomas said that expanding First Amendment protection for legal advice would undermine the ability of correctional officials to address the complex problems of prison administration.
He said inmate-to-inmate correspondence that includes legal assistance should not receive more First Amendment protection than correspondence without any legal assistance.
"We decline to cloak the provision of legal assistance with any First Amendment protection above and beyond the protection normally accorded prisoners' speech," Thomas concluded.
The decision overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that the First Amendment gave Murphy the right to assist Tracy and that legal advice enjoyed greater First Amendment protections than general correspondence.
Copyright 2001 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved.