|
|
|
Man accused of Jewish site shootings to appear in court
Breaking Legal News |
2015/06/11 12:11
|
A Missouri man facing capital murder charges in Kansas is scheduled to be in court Wednesday for a hearing on motions in his case, one asking a judge to let him stay in the courtroom during recesses and another to suppress certain evidence.
Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., 74, of Aurora, Missouri, is accused of killing three people last year at two Jewish sites in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park, Kansas.
The avowed white supremacist has told various media outlets, including The Associated Press, he is dying from emphysema and went to the sites with the intent to kill Jewish people.
All three of the victims of the April 13, 2014, rampage — William Lewis Corporon, 69, his 14-year-old grandson, Reat Griffin Underwood, and Terri LaMano, 53 — were Christians.
Also known as Frazier Glenn Cross, Miller got permission last month from Johnson County District Judge Kelly Ryan to fire his attorneys and represent himself. However, Ryan ruled that the attorneys would stay involved in the case on a stand-by basis and could be restored as Miller's counsel if he gets kicked out of the courtroom during his trial or decides he wants them back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oscar Pistorius case: Court sets November for appeal
Breaking Legal News |
2015/06/08 12:10
|
Oscar Pistorius' case will go in front of South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal in November, the court said Monday, when prosecutors will challenge the decision to acquit him of murder for shooting girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Pistorius would again face the possibility of a murder conviction and a minimum of 15 years in prison if a panel of judges at the Supreme Court of Appeal overturns the original decision in his murder trial.
The court has not yet set an exact date for the appeal, court registrar Paul Myburgh told The Associated Press, but it will be in November. That will be three months after Pistorius is eligible for release from prison to serve the remainder of his current sentence, for a culpable homicide conviction, under house arrest.
Pistorius was acquitted of murder last year for killing Steenkamp in 2013 by shooting her multiple times through a closed toilet door in his Pretoria home. The runner claimed he mistook Steenkamp for a nighttime intruder.
He was convicted instead of culpable homicide, a charge similar to manslaughter, and sentenced to five years in a jail in the South African capital, Pretoria.
Prosecutors appealed the decision by trial Judge Thokozile Masipa, saying the double-amputee Olympic athlete should have been found guilty of murder. In December, Masipa granted prosecutors permission to appeal her finding at the Supreme Court of Appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court: Officials immune in suit over inmate suicide
Breaking Legal News |
2015/06/04 16:37
|
The Supreme Court says former Delaware prison administrators are immune from a lawsuit over a 2004 inmate suicide.
The justices on Monday ruled against the family of Christopher Barkes, who hanged himself just hours after being arrested for violating probation.
A federal appeals court ruled last year that the family could pursue claims that the prison violated Barkes' constitutional rights by failing to conduct a proper suicide prevention screening.
But the justices in an unsigned opinion said there was no clearly established law at the time giving inmates a right to adequate suicide prevention protocols. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health law court case winner could be political loser
Breaking Legal News |
2015/06/04 16:37
|
he party that wins the impending Supreme Court decision on President Barack Obama's health care law could be the political loser.
If the Republican-backed challenge to the law's subsidies for lower-earning Americans prevails, the GOP would have achieved a paramount goal of severely damaging "Obamacare." But Republican lawmakers would be pressured to help the millions of Americans who could suddenly find government-mandated medical coverage unaffordable — and they'd face blame from many voters if they failed to provide assistance.
"If you win the case you actually have people who lost their insurance. You now share the responsibility for fixing it," said former Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who once led the House GOP campaign committee. "And you've got a lot of pissed off people. That hurts you."
Should the Obama administration win, relieved Democrats would crow that Obama's foremost domestic achievement had stood unscathed. But some say they'd have lost a potentially powerful cudgel for the 2016 campaigns: Being able to accuse Republicans of ending the assistance and disrupting health coverage for many.
If Democrats lose in court, "It completely reverses the issue and puts us back on offense on health care," said Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., one of his party's chief message crafters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attorney: Court orders release of anti-nuclear activists
Breaking Legal News |
2015/05/16 11:45
|
A federal appeals court has ordered the immediate release of an 85-year-old nun and two fellow Catholic peace activists who vandalized a uranium storage bunker, their attorney said Friday.
The order came after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati last week overturned the 2013 sabotage convictions of Sister Megan Rice, 66-year-old Michael Walli and 59-year-old Greg Boertje-Obed and ordered resentencing on their remaining conviction for injuring government property. The activists have spent two years in prison, and the court said they likely already have served more time than they will receive for the lesser charge.
On Thursday, their attorneys petitioned the court for an emergency release, saying that resentencing would take weeks if normal court procedures were followed. Prosecutors on Friday afternoon responded that they would not oppose the release, if certain conditions were met.
After the close of business on Friday, attorney Bill Quigley said the court had ordered the activists' immediate release. He said he was working to get them out of prison and was hopeful they could be released overnight or on the weekend.
"We would expect the Bureau of Prisons to follow the order of the court and release them as soon as possible," he said.
Rice, Walli and Boertje-Obed are part of a loose network of activists opposed to the spread of nuclear weapons. To further their cause, in July 2012, they cut through several fences to reach the most secure area of the Y-12 complex. Before they were arrested, they spent two hours outside a bunker that stores much of the nation's bomb-grade uranium, hanging banners, praying and spray-painting slogans.
In the aftermath of the breach, federal officials implemented sweeping security changes, including a new defense security chief to oversee all of the National Nuclear Security Administration's sites.
Rice was originally sentenced to nearly three years and Walli and Boertje-Obed were each sentenced to just over five years. In overturning the sabotage conviction, the Appeals Court ruled that the trio's actions did not injure national security. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protesters inside Supreme Court face harsher charges
Breaking Legal News |
2015/04/07 12:23
|
Protesters who demonstrated inside the U.S. Supreme Court are facing the threat of a year in jail and stiff fines, a sign that prosecutors and the justices themselves are losing patience over the courtroom interruptions after the third protest in just over a year.
Five people arrested last week after voicing displeasure with court decisions that removed limits on political campaign contributions now face charges including one that carries a maximum jail term of a year and up to a $100,000 fine — a sharp escalation from the possible penalties sought after two earlier protests.
A leader of the group behind the protests would not rule out future demonstrations, despite what he called an effort to crack down on the courtroom disturbances. "We are not going to be silenced," said Kai Newkirk, whose group 99Rise opposes the influence of big money in elections.
While protests on the sidewalk outside the U.S. Supreme Court are common, until last year demonstrators had rarely broken the decorum of oral arguments inside the courtroom. In February 2014, however, Newkirk was removed from the courtroom after he stood and called on the court to overturn its 2010 Citizens United decision, which freed corporations and labor unions from some limits on campaign spending. It was the first protest to disrupt an argument session in more than seven years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mexican Supreme Court orders release of man in 1992 murders
Breaking Legal News |
2015/03/20 12:53
|
Mexico's Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the release of a Mexican-American jailed on a homicide conviction since 1992, ruling he had been tortured.
The court's ruling applied to the long-disputed conviction of Alfonso Martin del Campo Dodd in the murder of his sister and brother-in-law. It has been one of Mexico's longest and hardest-fought legal cases.
Lawyers for the dead couple's now-grown daughters criticized Wednesday's ruling, saying it was a blow to victims' rights.
"This is an offense to the victims," said Samuel Gonzalez, a former top anti-drug prosecutor who has helped defend victims' rights. "The victims did not get justice."
The court said police tortured Martin Del Campo Dodd into confessing to the killings, citing administrative proceedings filed against one officer two years after Campo Dodd was arrested. The court said he should be freed "in light of the proof that torture was used to obtain his confession in the two crimes, without there being any other incriminatory evidence."
The Mexican government fought for years to keep Martin Del Campo Dodd in prison despite pressure from abroad to release him. He holds U.S. and Mexican citizenship.
The couple were stabbed to death in their Mexico City home. Martin del Campo Dodd was at the home and said two masked assailants kidnapped him and stuffed him into the trunk of a car, which they later abandoned.
He signed a confession to the killings, but later claimed he did it under torture. He was sentenced to 50 years behind bars for the murder. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
