Furman v. Georgia
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 was a criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court struck down all death penalty schemes in the United States in a 5-4 decision, with each member of the majority writing a separate opinion. Following Furman, in order to reinstate the death penalty, states had to at least remove arbitrary and discriminatory effects, to satisfy the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision ruled on the requirement for a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty. This case led to a de facto moratorium on capital punishment throughout the United States, which came to an end when Gregg v.
Georgia was decided in 1976 to allow the death penalty. The Supreme Court consolidated Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas with the Furman decision, and thus also invalidated the death penalty for rape. The Court had also intended to include the case of Aikens v.
California, but between the time Aikens had been heard in oral argument and a decision was to be issued, the Supreme Court of California decided in California v. Anderson that the death penalty violated the state constitution. In either event, because the shooting occurred during the commission of a felony, Furman would have been guilty of murder and eligible for the death penalty under then-extant state law, according to the felony murder rule. Jackson v. Georgia, like Furman, was also a death penalty case confirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court’s one-paragraph per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. The Court’s decision forced states and the U.S. Congress to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to ensure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner. In the following four years, 37 states enacted new death penalty laws aimed at overcoming the court’s concerns about arbitrary imposition of the death penalty. Other statutes enacted in response to Furman, such as Louisiana’s which mandated imposition of the death penalty upon conviction of a certain crime, were struck down in cases of that same year.
Climate lawsuits: the Supreme Court stayed the children’s climate lawsuit
One of the biggest legal battles over climate change is now in limbo pending a decision from the Supreme Court’s chief justice, who last week took the odd step of halting the lawsuit to consider a stay. The suit, Juliana v. US, also known as the children’s climate lawsuit, was first filed in 2015 and now includes 21 plaintiffs between the ages of 11 and 22, including Sophie Kivlehan, 20, who happens to be the granddaughter of the famed climate scientist James Hansen. The case argues that the US government undertook policies that contributed to climate change, thereby causing irreparable harm to young people and denying them a safe climate. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts granted a temporary stay and halted discovery until Wednesday to allow the plaintiffs to respond.
Now the case is back at the Supreme Court, and what happens next is unclear, including whether the other justices on the bench will weigh in. Again, it is extremely unusual for the Supreme Court to step in to block a legal proceeding in a lower court. The plaintiffs essentially are arguing that a safe climate is a civil right, so the implications for climate change policy are huge. Incidentally, one of the other few times the Supreme Court weighed in on a lower court case was also related to climate change. In 2016, the court stayed the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan to limit greenhouse gases from power plants, pending ongoing lawsuits from states suing to block the rule from going into effect.
Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law at the University of California Los Angeles, said that the Supreme Court stepping in on a case like this strongly suggests there’s something there that piques the court’s interest. For climate activists old and young, the courts have become a last resort for pushing governments and businesses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially with an executive branch that’s still denying climate change exists and a gridlocked Congress. The prospects for the children’s climate lawsuit to succeed appear dim, first because the courts tend to give wide latitude to the executive branch in these cases, and second because the Supreme Court’s newest Justice Brett Kavanaugh is much more skeptical of environmental regulations than his predecessor.
Little-Used Law Leads To $250,000 Battle Between Doctor And Her Former Lawyers
In 2009 the doctor, internal medicine physician Nataly Minkina, sued her former lawyers, the Boston firm formerly known as Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz, for malpractice. Four years later, Dr. Minkina lost the legal malpractice case, and the law firm succeeded in getting the court to make Minkina pay the legal fees the firm had incurred in defending against her claim. Five years later the case drags on, as Dr. Minkina fights paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars the court says she owes.
Minkina is a graying, bespectacled immigrant from the former Soviet Union. It turns out, lawyers for another Beth Israel doctor, Carold Warfield – who had a gender discrimination case around the same time – kept their client out of arbitration with the argument Minkina says her lawyers should have used. The court said Minkina had not been harmed by the law firm and that the attorneys’ failure to predict the change in case law surrounding arbitration in discrimination cases couldn’t serve as grounds for a legal malpractice claim. Ordering one party in a lawsuit to pay the other side’s attorney fees is allowed under Massachusetts law when a case is deemed wholly insubstantial and frivolous, which is what the judge found Minkina’s claim to be. It’s even more rare, Nicolai says, for the ruling to lead to such a protracted, expensive court battle as the Minkina case.
The expert to whom Neumeier is referring is an employment law professor who was set to testify that Minkina’s former attorneys had been negligent. Minkina says she’s depleted her savings and much of her retirement account to pay her former lawyers from the different cases and the current court bill. Attorneys from the firm formerly called Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz would not comment on the case, beyond saying the court rulings against Minkina speak for themselves. If Minkina prevails in that case, she says the money she is awarded will go toward the judgment in the Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz case.
5 Unusual Cases of Child Abuse
Every year, more than 3 million reports of alleged child abuse are made in the United States involving more than 6 million children throughout the country. 1 While child abuse can be committed in a multitude of forms, the punishment for a conviction can be severe. The following cases of alleged child abuse shed light on how vast the realm of this crime is. Ideally, these examples will prevent others from intentionally, or negligently committing an act of child abuse in the future. A North Carolina man, Eric Jackson, and his five brothers were arrested and charged with multiple counts of sexually abusing a child over a 10-year period. 5 Jackson’s parents, who were allegedly aware of the ongoing abuse but did not report it, were also arrested and charged with felony child abuse. In California, being accused of sexually abusing a child is a serious accusation.
The gamers, Lester and Petra Huffmire, both pleaded guilty to child abuse under PC 270,8 false imprisonment under PC 237,9 and contributing to the delinquency of minor charges under PC 272.10. After the alleged incident, Ky was charged with two counts of child abuse, two counts of second-degree assault, and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Had Ky committed these crimes in California, he would have likely faced child abuse charges under penal code section 273a(b), furnishing a controlled substance to a minor under health and safety code 11353(c), assault under penal code section 240, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor under penal code section 272. 17 She could also have been charged with felony child abuse under penal code section 273a(a) and the allegation of causing great bodily harm under penal code section 12022. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience successfully defending persons charged with child abuse crimes in Southern California.
A Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador judge has granted an unusual publication ban in the case of Jennifer Hillier-Penney, who vanished without a trace almost two years ago. In a Corner Brook court on Friday, Justice George Murphy issued the ban, and noted it applied to all media. Before making his decision, Murphy heard arguments from the Crown, the CBC’s lawyer and a lawyer for Dean Penney, Hillier-Penney’s estranged husband, who supported the publication ban. The RCMP labelled her disappearance as suspicious, but have never identified any suspects or persons of interest. The ban will cease if the Mounties lay charges or publicly identify a suspect.
Crown attorney Adam Sparkes argued that any identification in the media would compromise the ongoing and active police investigation, risking the administration of justice. Penney’s lawyer, Bob Simmonds, said any identification now would compromise any future trial and inhibit jury selection, if those possible events were to occur. CBC lawyer Amy Crosbie argued against the publication ban. She said the Crown’s fears that a named suspect would compromise the police investigation were too general, and without any substance or elaboration upon those fears, the ban infringed upon freedom of expression. Elaborating on investigation techniques before any charges are laid defeats the purpose of those techniques, Sparkes responded.
Crosbie said even a narrow ban, such as the one ultimately put in place, compromised the ability of the press to report. If no suspects are named in one year’s time, the ban expires.
10 Controversial Court Cases
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court heard 78 cases on issues including terrorism, water rights, firearms and immigration. As the highest court in the land, it serves as the ultimate decider in cases that can alter the law and influence society for generations to come. That decision helped spark the Civil Rights Movement, which changed the course of American history. But landmark court decisions such as Brown v. Board are rarely met without debate.
People on both sides of the aisle may disagree with a judge or jury’s ruling, sometimes boiling over in violence. Although the fundamentals of the American judicial system are centered on the concepts of innocent until proven guilty, trial by jury and due process, the public may not always believe that those tenets were upheld during trials. Each produced some sort of verdict, but the outcomes left many doubtful about whether justice was truly met.
Bill of Rights Institute
In response to the decision many states changed their death penalty systems. Four years later in Gregg v. Georgia, the Court reaffirmed the death penalty as constitutional. The Court noted that there were no rational, objective standards for when the death penalty would be given. A moratorium, or temporary ban, of the death penalty went into effect in the United States.
In response to the decision, 35 states changed their death penalty systems in order to comply with the Court’s ruling. Four years later the case of Gregg v. Georgia reached the Court. Troy Gregg had been found guilty of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to death. He asked the Court to go further than it had in the Furman case, and rule the death penalty itself unconstitutional.
There was therefore no Eighth Amendment violation, and the death penalty was constitutional.
As the 2015 Term opens: The Court’s unusual Eighth Amendment focus
Which makes it all the more interesting that in the Term that will open on October 5, five of the thirty-four cases in which the Court has granted review involve Eighth Amendment issues, four of them the death penalty. In a non-Eighth Amendment argument, Gleason also contends that the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision ought to be construed as one applying its own state law, not the Constitution, and thereby immune from federal review. The Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory LWOP sentences, when imposed upon juvenile offenders, violate the Eighth Amendment. The Court has also directed argument on a separate question, which could preclude it from reaching the Eighth Amendment question at all: whether it has jurisdiction to review the Louisiana decision, on this successive habeas petition.
Because Louisiana and Montgomery agree that the Court does have jurisdiction, the Court has appointed an amicus to brief and argue the other side of this question. Foster obviously raises concerns apart from the Eighth Amendment, and the Court could decide the case without reference to the death penalty at all. It is not a coincidence that the Court’s strongest Sixth Amendment Batson precedents are also capital cases; the specter of improper racial influences in administration of the death penalty has long haunted the Court. Some may well divert attention from what appears to be an unusual focus on Eighth Amendment cases and questions. The granting and argument of five Eighth Amendment cases to open the Supreme Court’s 2015 Term signals, I think, the deep cultural concerns that Americans in general seem to have regarding capital punishment.
While affirming the defendants’ guilt, the Kansas Supreme Court nonetheless found reason to vacate their death sentences. Such cases thus starkly showcase the divergent views on the Eighth Amendment – and a nine-Justice Court is not different in this regard from much of America. So stay tuned for what may be the most dramatic Supreme Court discussion of Eighth Amendment values since its re-affirmation of capital punishment statutes long before the Justices’ law clerks were born.
Five Ways to Keep Disputes Out of Court
U.S. corporations pay more than $20 billion a year to litigation attorneys-an alarming fact that distracts our attention from other and often more important business costs of litigating our disputes. An aggregate dispute managment system for coordinating, tracking, and troubleshooting all current disputes. To most people, ADR means any method of resolving disputes other than litigation, which is correct only if litigation includes not only cases that actually go to trial but also lawsuits that are settled before they get to court. The theory behind ADR is that settling disputes as painlessly as possible requires good communication, that good communication requires some degree of trust, and that the adversary system of dispute resolution nurtures distrust, distortion, and animosity.
The decision to seek arbitration is sometimes made after a conflict has arisen, but much more often the parties have a clause in their contract committing them to arbitration of disputes arising from their business together. Summary jury trial is based on the observation that litigants are often unable to settle their disputes quickly because of the huge gap in their differing expectations of how a jury will view their claims. Aetna Life Insurance, among others, now actively seeks ADR solutions to all its disputes except those involving policyholder claims. For companies with frequent disputes to settle, it may be a good idea to have an ADR expert in the general counsel’s office. ADR is very good at settling disputes between companies with mutually advantageous relationships that both parties want to maintain.
Conversely, disputes arising from one-shot transactions between parties with no expected future together are harder to resolve out of court. The minitrial works well in cases of factual and legal complexity but doesn’t seem to lend itself well to multiparty disputes. No type of ADR is inherently limited in terms of the dollar size of the disputes it can resolve, but some disputants may feel that big-ticket cases belong in a court, with its procedural protections and rights of appeal.
State v. Mitchell
State v. Mitchell, 170 Mo. 633, 71 S.W. 175, is a precedent-setting decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri which is part of the body of case law involving the prosecution of failed attempts to commit a crime. In United States law, cases involving failed criminal attempts can bring up interesting legal issues of whether the crime was unsuccessful due to factual impossibility or to legal impossibility. In the United States, 37 states have ruled out mistake of fact as a defense to charges of attempt. In United States v.
Thomas, 13 U.S.C.M.A. 278, the United States Court of Military Appeals held that men who believed they were raping a drunken, unconscious woman were guilty of attempted rape, even though the woman was actually dead at the time the sexual intercourse took place. An act that is considered legally impossible to commit is traditionally considered a valid defense for a person prosecuted for a criminal attempt. An example of a legally failed attempt is a person who shoots a tree stump; that person can not be prosecuted for attempted murder as there is no manifest intent to kill by shooting a stump. The underlying rationale is that attempting to do what is not a crime is not attempting to commit a crime. At trial, the defendant was found guilty of attempted murder.
The court held that a person who shoots into the bed of another person on purpose, believing that person to be in the bed, is guilty of attempted murder. This case is part of a body of law developed in the United States on the issue of how to handle attempt cases. A case similar to this one is State v. Moretti 52 N.M. 182, 244 A.2d 499, in which the defendant agreed to perform a abortion upon a female undercover officer. With few exceptions, all cases in which an attempt to commit a felony was impossible to carry out because the defendant was mistaken in fact have been categorized as factually impossible and the conviction was upheld on appeal.
Iowa fetal heartbeat ban: Decision not to defend law ‘a unique case’
Miller’s reasoning in declining to defend Iowa’s fetal heartbeat law against a challenge was a first. If the fetal heartbeat law takes effect, it would ban nearly all abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. It is currently blocked, pending the outcome of a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and the Emma Goldman Clinic in Iowa City.When the lawsuit was announced, Miller’s office sent a letter to the state Executive Council, which consists of five statewide elected officials, saying that Miller had disqualified himself from defending the law. Miller recommended the appointment of the Thomas More Society, a conservative Chicago-based law firm, to defend the state pro bono. Different states have different rules for attorneys generalDifferent states vary when it comes to what duty the attorney general has to defend state laws in court.
Saikrishna Prakash, who co-authored the Yale Law Journal article with Devins, said that as the practice has grown in popularity, attorneys general around the country have an increasing awareness of their ability not to defend state laws. Prakash said Miller’s reasoning for declining to defend the law seemed somewhat ambiguous. If Miller thought the fetal heartbeat law was likely to be found unconstitutional, for example, he could have chosen to say that outright, Prakash said. Hicks pointed to the group’s offer to defend the law at no cost to taxpayers, and said the attorney general’s office typically discusses recommendations with the office or agency it is defending. Iowa law provides a method of recusalIowa Code section 13.3 requires the attorney general to recommend substitute counsel to represent the state if he disqualifies himself from doing so, and Miller has used the provision dozens of times, most often when a conflict of interests arises.
Excluding workers’ compensation and specialized cases where outside counsel with specific expertise is preferable, Hicks pointed to eight instances since 2007 besides the fetal heartbeat law when the attorney general’s office has declined to defend the state. 2007: In a lawsuit brought by the Iowa City Press-Citizen against the Iowa Board of Regents, the attorney general’s office determined there was a conflict of interest that prevented it from representing the state.
Unusual Settlement Caps Sex-Discrimination Case
Observers laud the fact that the agreement lets Heidi Weissmann and her former employers keep their controversial debate alive Despite a recently announced out-of-court settlement in medical researcher Heidi S. Weissmann’s seven-year-long sex-discrimination case against her former employers, each side still insists that it would have prevailed had the case gone to trial. According to the settlement agreement, $35,000 of the amount constitutes back pay, $540,000 compensates Weissmann for pain and suffering, and $325,000 represents legal fees and expenses. Weissmann has estimated the value of legal services rendered in her case at more than $1 million. Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, which supported Weissmann, says the plaintiff’s success in her copyright case strengthened her claim of discrimination.
Weissmann first filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April 1987. In a separate but related case during this time, Weissmann charged that on two occasions, her former lab chief, Leonard M. Freeman, represented a book chapter she had written as his own. In January 1988, Weissmann filed her discrimination suit against Montefiore and Einstein. Letty Lutzker, a former colleague of Weissmann and Freeman’s who is now chief of nuclear medicine at St.
Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., says the case damages the feminist cause. A 1989 settlement offer from the institutions, under which Weissmann would have been paid $150,000, included a provision that neither side disclose the terms. Houston attorney Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., who represents plaintiffs in sex-discrimination suits, speculates that Weissmann might have been awarded more had the case gone to trial. Smeal says it’s disturbing that Montefiore’s insurance covers the settlement as well as Freeman’s expenses in the copyright case, even though Weissmann sued him as an individual.
Weissmann says the case has hurt her prospects of returning to her field.
California Prisoner Settles Claim of Cruel and Unusual Punishment
A California prisoner held at Pelican Bay State Prison has agreed to settle a case in which he alleged that he had been subject to cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Daniel Treglia started a fire in his cell August 13, 2009, in order to protest the conditions of his confinement. He suffered smoke inhalation, and was treated at a local hospital. Contraband watch is an inhumane punishment that, according to Treglia, involved being duct taped, having to wear thick gloves, being chained at the waist, and having large plastic tubes wrapped around his arms and legs. Treglia was subject to these conditions, which caused numbness and difficulty breathing, for two and a half days.
He was not provided a blanket for warmth during that time. Treglia sued the warden and other prison officials, claiming civil rights violations and violation of the constitution. He lost his case at summary judgment, but appealed to the Ninth Circuit. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties reached a settlement, the conditions of which were unavailable, and Treglia dismissed his claim.
Six homeless people who had been convicted under the laws sued the city in 2009, saying their constitutional rights had been violated. The ruling was a victory for homeless advocates, who have long said that laws like the City of Boise’s waste public money, do not alleviate root causes of homelessness like shortages of affordable housing, and punish people simply for being poor. A survey of 187 cities by the group found that from 2006 to 2016, the number of bans on camping in public increased by 69 percent. Cities had already been reviewing the homelessness laws they had on the books. John Coté, a spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney’s office, said Wednesday that the office was reviewing the city’s laws to make sure they did not run afoul of the Ninth Circuit ruling.
San Francisco voters passed a law in 2016 that prohibits tents on sidewalks, but the tents can be removed only if the city offers placement in shelters or other options for housing. The city must also offer to transport people to the homes of friends or family who could take them in, and give 24-hour notice before removing the tents. Ms. Foscarinis said her group had identified more than 20 other city ordinances that could be affected by the ruling. Mr.
Journee said the city could ask the full Ninth Circuit court to review the panel’s decision, or appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. The city has three homeless shelters, which are routinely at capacity. At least one of the homeless people suing the city declined to enter that program because of his religious beliefs, and he was then cited for violating a city ordinance when he was sleeping outside. The opinion acknowledged that the City of Boise has rules that direct the police not to cite homeless people if they are sleeping outside when the shelters are full.
Year in Review: Unusual Legal Cases in 2015
Whether it’s unusual legal claims, or dumb criminals, 2015 was riddled with stories that often had us shaking our head.Rick Springfield’s Butt Injury Case. A Key Largo man, who visited Doctors Hospital in Miami, believed that was what had become of his amputated leg. Nearly one month after his amputation the man was greeted at his home by police who had suspected he had become victim to foul play when they found his detached leg in a local waste management facility. The man has now filed suit against the hospital claiming public embarrassment, invasion of privacy and emotional distress amongst his sufferings. In June, a Kentucky man decided to take a more proactive approach to his arrest for driving under the influence when he drove while drunk to the local police station to turn himself in.
The man drank his last pint of beer before driving to station and slamming on the brakes, narrowly missing a patrol car. This wasn’t Kentucky’s only unusual legal incident this year. In April, a Kentucky man was arrested for DUI while riding his horse. A woman claimed that her 8-year old nephew lept into her arms when trying to give her a hug causing her to fall and injure her wrist. A New York Supreme Court disagreed with the aunt, and dismissed her claim in October.
His filing documents cited that the park did not display any warnings against the possibility of falling pine cones, and he claimed that the falling object caused significant and lasting brain damage. Of course, we can’t guarantee that 2015 will be the last year for these unusual legal stories.
Unusual Or Onerous Terms
A recent construction case serves as a useful reminder of this. Unusual or onerous clauses in your standard terms could include, for example, any provisions limiting or excluding liability for damages, or indeed any provisions which might cause a significant imbalance in the other party’s rights. Given that this was a construction law case, the onerous term in question related to a condition which had to be fulfilled before an extension of time for carrying out building works was granted to a sub-contractor under a building contract. In practice, this means printing them boldly and somewhere prominent. The more unusual or onerous the clause, the greater the notice which must be given.
This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna’s free online information service. Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments. The original publication date for this article was 31/07/2008.
Disabled children with a tendency to abuse others physically should not fall outside the protection of discrimination legislation. Clyde & Co. Product liability is a fast-evolving landscape, driven by a range of factors from tightening regulation to mass product litigation.
HBOS: A highly unusual fraud case
The Halifax Bank of Scotland fraud trial is highly unusual in that senior bankers are convicted of crimes, including fraud and hiding the proceeds of crime, in the boom of irresponsible lending ahead of the 2008 crash. The victims were the taxpayer, small business customers of the bank, and HBOS shareholders. The implications are serious because the board of HBOS, its successor Lloyds Banking Group, the FSA, the Serious Fraud Office, and the Treasury were alerted to allegations about HBOS Reading in 2007 but repeatedly failed to investigate. Between 2002 and 2007, small business owners were transferred to HBOS’ corporate division, headquartered at its Reading regional HQ at Beauclerc House, 3 Queen’s Road, Reading and classified as ‘high risk’ – even where they had never missed a repayment. The Head of the Bank’s Impaired Assets Division, based in Reading, Lynden Scourfield would require business owners, as a condition of the bank’s continued support, to appoint his favoured turnaround consultants Quayside Corporate Services, run by David Mills and Michael Bancroft.
QCS would then submit inflated business cases for additional finance – sometimes against the wishes of the owners – and HBOS, under Scourfield’s influence, would extend further funds. Internal investigation reports from the bank in 2007, and seen by the BBC, reveal that the bank had identified breaches of internal checks and balances by Scourfield. In exchange, QCS arranged for Scourfield to receive hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash, free trips to Barbados and Cannes, Rolex watches, drugs and prostitutes. HBOS’ money also financed a private jet company, which was lent more than £100m but never made a profit and failed to file accounts. The companies included a porn publisher, a fishing tackle business, and an environmental nappies business.
Concerns were raised by bank customers back in 2007 and in 2009 BBC Radio 4 broadcast a programme about some of the allegations. A key question is whether the fraudulent activity was known about higher up the bank.
In strange twist, Lively declares victory in Uganda LGBT lawsuit after his appeal is dismissed
Springfield pastor and long-shot Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively is declaring victory in his more than six-year fight in federal court against civil charges he conspired to deprive gay people in Uganda of their fundamental human rights. Lively is crowing after an appeals court dismissed his request for them to tinker with a lower court ruling in his favor. It is worth unpacking this most unusual legal tale, which has spanned two Lively campaigns for governor – one as an independent in 2014, and one as a Republican this year. In 2012, a Ugandan gay rights organization filed a lawsuit in Springfield federal court alleging that Lively committed a crime against humanity by participating in a conspiracy to deprive gay people in the East African nation of their fundamental human rights. After five years of litigation and a voluminous discovery process, US District Judge Michael A.
Ponsor dismissed the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds, ruling in Lively’s favor. In a unique twist, Lively appealed the Ponsor ruling in his favor. On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed Lively’s appeal in part on jurisdictional grounds. In the dismissal of his appeal, the court gave Lively something he wanted. Horatio G.
Mihet, Lively’s lead attorney from the nonprofit Liberty Counsel, which is representing the pastor free of charge, said that part of the ruling is key. Pamela C. Spees, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs and a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing SMUG for free, scoffed at the idea Lively notched a victory in the appeals court ruling. Despite Lively’s request to the contrary, neither Ponsor’s 2017 decision nor Friday’s circuit court ruling preclude SMUG from filing a conspiracy claim against Lively in a Massachusetts court under state law. Lively is challenging Governor Charlie Baker for the GOP nomination for governor.
Unusual smuggling case back in St. John’s court
It’s a common hearing to see on the provincial court docket – an application to allow police to hold on a little longer to items seized as part of a criminal investigation. In St. John’s on Wednesday, one such application related to a cellphone and charger seized from a man who had brought it to court inside his body. Josh Ward-Frecker had been convicted of break and entry with intent to commit a crime, theft under $5,000, traffic charges and multiple breaches of court orders. Having been released on bail until that point, he was taken into custody and, over the next two days, officers discovered he had been carrying a number of items inside a body cavity.
Among them: what’s alleged to be small packages of pills, cocaine and marijuana, an older-model cellphone and the phone charger. Ward-Frecker, 26, is now facing six counts of possessing a controlled drug or substance for the purpose of trafficking. With a legal limit on the amount of time police can keep a person’s personal property after it’s been seized, they can apply under the Canadian criminal code to keep the items for longer if there’s an ongoing investigation or court case, or if the objects need further examination. The Crown has filed that application for Ward-Frecker’s cellphone and charger. Ward-Frecker appeared by video from Springhill federal prison in Nova Scotia when his case was called Wednesday, and told the court he didn’t yet have a lawyer, though he intended to get one.
Judge Mike Madden postponed the case for a month, to allow the accused some more time to make arrangements. It’s possible that Ward-Frecker will be out of prison by then. He had been deemed released from custody on the drug charges though he was still serving his prior sentence, but told the court he has a parole hearing scheduled for today.
Boise can’t ban homeless sleeping in public, court rules
Cities can’t prosecute people for sleeping on the streets if they have nowhere else to go because it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, which is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court said Tuesday. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with six homeless people from Boise, who sued the city in 2009 over a local ordinance that banned sleeping in public spaces. When the Boise lawsuit was filed, attorneys for the homeless residents said as many as 4,500 people didn’t have a place to sleep in Idaho’s capital city and homeless shelters only had about 700 available beds or mats. The case bounced back and forth in the courts for years, and Boise modified its rules in 2014 to say homeless people couldn’t be prosecuted for sleeping outside when shelters were full.
That didn’t solve the problem, the attorneys said, because Boise’s shelters limit the number of days that homeless residents can stay. Two of the city’s three shelters also require some form of religious participation for some programs, making those shelters unsuitable for people with different beliefs, the homeless residents said. The three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit found that the shelter rules meant homeless people would still be at risk of prosecution even on days when beds were open. The biggest issue was that the city’s rule violated the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment, the court found.
Boise spokesman Mike Journee said city attorneys were considering their next steps, which could include asking the full 9th Circuit to reconsider the ruling or appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. City officials also believe the ruling validates the approach Boise officers have taken since 2014 – not ticketing homeless people when shelters are full, he said. In 2007, the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of homeless residents of Los Angeles, finding that as long as there are more homeless residents than there are shelter beds, a law outlawing sleeping outside was unconstitutional. Sara Rankin, a professor at the Seattle University School of Law and director of its Homeless Rights Advocacy Project, said the ruling will serve as a wake-up call to local governments, forcing them to invest in adequate supportive housing for the chronically homeless.
(PDF) Severe and Unusual domestic Violence; A Case Report and Review of Literature
Violence against women is one of the most prevalent human rights abuses in the world which harms families and communities. Violence against women aects their quality of life, autonomy, productivity, physical and mental well-being. Health Organization indicated that worldwide domestic violence against women was ranged 15% in Japan to the highest. Domestic violence is common in both urban and rural families and about 81% of women believed that. Mentioned that there is a high prevalence of domestic violence in.
Women suer physical, emotional, sexual and economic violence by their husbands and. In this case report study, we aim to demonstrate a case of sever domestic. Violence from rural area and ethnic family from Middle East countries suering severe injuries. Violence against women is one of the most systematic and prevalent human rights abuses in the world. Here, we aim to demonstrate a.
case of sever domestic violence from rural area suering severe injuries. A 24 years old woman that has been under the violence of her. A 24 years old woman referred to Legal Medicine Organization of Fars province for compliance about domestic violence.
An unusual case of suicide by handcrafted shotgun and slug
To view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription. Injuries by handcrafted firearms are uncommon, and those by handcrafted shotguns are very rare. We present an unusual case of suicide using a handcrafted shotgun and slug. A 73-year-old male, who was a glass-grinding artisan, was found dead at a workshop on the premises of his residence. Autopsy showed a contact shotgun wound to the forehead, which perforated the cranium and caused extensive damage to the brain.
The handcrafted shotgun was found in the proximity of the body. The shotgun consisted of metal pipes fixed to the vise and did not take the form of a conventional gun. The recovered slug was also found to be manufactured manually. It appeared that the handcrafted shotgun was only intended for committing suicide using his ballistics knowledge, skills, and resources.
Simon Property Group in unusual legal move against Starbucks |Chain Store Age
REAL ESTATE Get all the latest industry news in your inbox. The nation’s largest shopping center operator is suing Starbucks Corp. over its plan to shutter the retailer’s 78 Teavana stores in Simon malls. Simon is seeking temporary and permanent injunctions preventing Starbucks from closing the stores, the report said. The coffee giant announced in July that it planned to shutter all of its 379 Teavana stores during the next 12 months amid declining mall traffic.
Similar to other mall operators, Simon has experienced its fair share of store closings in recent years. Teavana is not losing money, Simon claims in its suit. Rather, it is not growing fast enough to fit into Starbucks’ business strategy.
”Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture , and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution. ” 44 In thus upholding capital punishment inflicted by a firing squad, the Court not only looked to traditional practices but examined the history of executions in the territory concerned, the military practice, and current writings on the death penalty. 45 The Court next approved, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause rather than under the Eighth Amendment, electrocution as a permissible method of administering punishment. 46 Many years later, a divided Court, assuming the applicability of the Eighth Amendment to the States, held that a second electrocution following a mechanical failure at the first which injured but did not kill the condemned man did not violate the proscription. Divestiture of the citizenship of a natural born citizen was held in Trop v. Dulles, 48 again by a divided Court, to be constitutionally forbidden as a penalty more cruel and ”more primitive than torture,” inasmuch as it entailed statelessness or ”the total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society. ” ”The question is whether [a] penalty subjects the individual to a fate forbidden by the principle of civilized treatment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment. ” A punishment must be examined ”in light of the basic prohibition against inhuman treatment,” and the Amendment was intended to preserve the ”basic concept … [of] the dignity of man” by assuring that the power to impose punishment is ”exercised within the limits of civilized standards. Justice Frankfurter tested the issue by due process standards. Four Justices joined the plurality opinion while Justice Brennan concurred on the ground that the requisite relation between the severity of the penalty and legitimate purpose under the war power was not apparent.
Four Justices dissented, denying that denationalization was a punishment and arguing that instead it was merely a means by which Congress regulated discipline in the armed forces.
Supreme Court denies quick review of DACA case in unusual request for cert before judgment
Supreme Court denies quick review of DACA. U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to quickly review a judge’s injunction that bars the Trump administration from phasing out a program protecting immigrants brought to the country illegally as minors.
The Supreme Court denied the U.S. Justice Department’s request for direct review of the preliminary injunction, report the Washington Post, the New York Times and Politico. The Supreme Court can still decide to hear the case after a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue was the president’s power to rescind the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
The certiorari before judgment process is usually used in cases involving national crises, according to the Times. Such cases include President Harry Truman’s seizure of the steel industry and President Richard Nixon’s refusal to turn over White House tapes. It has been nearly 30 years since the process was used to decide a case before a federal appeals court issued a decision, according to a brief filed with the court. Alsup had ruled that the rescission of DACA was based on a flawed legal premise that the Department of Homeland Security lacked authority to create the program. As a result, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the DACA termination decision was arbitrary and capricious, he said.
Another federal judge, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of Brooklyn, New York, has also issued an injunction barring the wind down of DACA. The administration did not seek a stay of those injunctions. As a result, people currently protected by DACA can still file renewal applications.
Life Behind the CV: A Case Study of an Unusual Legal Scholar
From Wigmore’s perspective, courts failed to appreciate that academic communities maintained their own internal safeguards against dubious conclusions, thus obviating the need for cross-examination in court. After graduating from Harvard Law and a stint undertaking legal research for an energetic lawyer named Louis Brandeis, Wigmore set his sights on a career as a legal scholar. Tokyo’s Keio University was seeking a scholar to teach the common law, and the president of Harvard University recommended Wigmore, then 26, for the position. Wigmore arrived during the Meiji era, a period when Japan had cast off its isolationist policy and sought to westernize as quickly as possible. As a professor of Anglo-American law and a shortstop on what was probably Tokyo’s first-ever baseball team, Wigmore personified the Japanese western turn.
Yet once he began his tenure at Keio, he grew intensely interested in Japanese feudal law. Over the course of his three years in Tokyo, Wigmore became the most prolific scholar of Japanese legal history in the world. When Wigmore later produced his tome on evidence law, he championed these principles time and again in his calls for doctrinal reform-particularity, judicial latitude, balancing tests. In an era when Japan sought to westernize its legal system as quickly as possible, Wigmore wanted to easternize the American rules of evidence. Once more, Wigmore’s professional work reflected his own biography.
Perhaps the most poignant illustration of the course of life behind Wigmore’s CV was his search for a father figure. Wigmore forsook those wishes, rejecting both the business and the city.
82, No. 4 Printed in U.S.A. EIGHTH AMENDMENT-CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AND CONDITIONS CASES Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S. Ct. 2321 I. INTRODUCTION In Wilson v.
Seiter,1 the United States Supreme Court held that a prisoner alleging that the prison conditions of his confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment must show a culpable state of mind on the part of the prison officials. The inmates, in Rhodes, alleged that double-celling was cruel and unusual punishment because the inmates in the prisons had extended sentences, the prison was overcrowded, the inmates were forced to share a cell measuring sixty-three square feet although several studies recommend that each inmate have at least fifty to fifty-five feet of living quarters, that double-ceiling was not a temporary condition and that the inmates spent a majority of their time in the cell. 68 Justice White added that Rhode v. Chapman squarely resolved the dispute as to whether conditions of a prison could constitute cruel and unusual punishment and determined that they could. 990 SUPREME COURT REVIEW CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT but different views of what constitutes prison conditions would lead to different conclusions. Justice Scalia’s reasoning appears to progress as follows: the Eighth Amendment prohibits only cruel and unusual punishment; punishment, by definition, carries an intent to punish; the per se sentence is punishment because it is intended to punish the criminal after and in response to his wrongdoing; everything beyond the per se sentence is the prison conditions; but not all prison conditions are punishment; therefore, in order to be considered punishment and thus subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny the activity must carry with it an intent. Common sense directs that anything that happens behind those prison bars that pertains to the existing state of the prison is a condition of the imprisonment.
Hutto involved allegations that the conditions in a prison constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court held that confinement in a punitive isolation cell for an indeterminate period was not, in and of itself, cruel and unusual but that the length of punitive isolation in conjunction with a filthy overcrowded cell, a diet of gruel and the relatively worse condition of the punitive isolation cell in relation to the prison did constitute cruel and unusual punishment. If an act was habitual, it might rise to the level of a condition of a prison the nature of a specific act is that it occurred once and thus, hardly seems to qualify as a condition of a prison. Although the majority does not so concede,’ 4 1 the Rhodes Court specifically stated that it was addressing for the first time the applicable standard for prison conditions cases. 996 SUPREME COURT REVIEW n determining when prison conditions pass beyond legitimate punishment and become cruel and unusual, the ‘touchstone is the effect upon the imprisoned. If horrendous prison conditions cannot be remedied due to a lack of funds and the Court has implicitly ruled that this is a valid defense, there never will be an improvement in conditions.
Ct Rejects 1st Amendment Challenge, Upholds Scrutiny over Lawfullness
With all the buzz generated by the Gallion First Amendment challenge in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, we’ll report on First Amendment TCPA challenges wherever we find them from now on. We have a strange one out of Arkansas from last month that Westlaw just alerted us to today. There the Court held that the TCPA survived a First Amendment challenge tethered to the large amount of statutory damages provided by the statute. The Court applied an intermediate scrutiny analysis rather than strict scrutiny, which was probably appropriate since the Defendant strangely did not pose an equal protection challenge or argue that strict scrutiny ought to be applied. In McCall the Defendant seems to have lobbed numerous constitutional challenges at the court based upon the size of the statutory damages permitted by the TCPA.
While the Court seemed generally sympathetic to the Defendant’s arguments, the Court repeatedly rejected the application of due process challenges prior to certification of the putative class action. While one can certainly argue that the TCPA’s statutory damages enhance the probability of lawfully protected speech being chilled by the vague enactment, large damages-or other severe penalties- for unlawful speech in a vacuum have never been held to violate the First Amendment to my knowledge. Rather it is the vague nature of the statute that renders the damages so problematic-the focus is on the potential for innocent actors to be caught up in a web designed for others-or else the crushing damages being applied unevenly based upon content- rather than that the remedy to prevent unlawful speech is too effective. Not surprisingly the McCall court struggled to comprehend precisely what the Defendant was arguing, and ultimately cast the challenge as an argument that the TCPA’s damages provision violates the third prong of the Central Hudson-an intermediate scrutiny paradigm that really should no longer have application to the statute following the 2015 content-specific amendments. Since the Eighth Circuit had already rejected an intermediate scrutiny challenge to the TCPA’s fax rules following Central Hudson in Missouri ex rel.
Nixon v. American Blast Fax, Inc., 323 F.3d 649 this was an open and shut case in favor of upholding the TCPA. See McCall at *7-8. Take heart gentle reader, the Gallion case poses a very different-and dare I say, better supported-First Amendment challenge to the TCPA. So while the McCall ruling is yet another in a long line of cases upholding the TCPA under intermediate scrutiny principles, the battle over whether the TCPA survives strict scrutiny is yet to be decided.